GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-04 > 1081077465


From: "~Ford~" <>
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 06:17:45 -0500
References: <c57e4f24.0403141731.5b931209@posting.google.com> <7004aa4b.0403311402.37df8950@posting.google.com> <BAIac.30928$0d.25045@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com> <7004aa4b.0404010237.6708eb70@posting.google.com> <406BE67B.1020104@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404011411.797b638@posting.google.com> <406C9A90.B64BDFE0@scs.uiuc.edu> <7004aa4b.0404021653.cd38565@posting.google.com> <406E4EAD.4020207@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404031410.37aa9a31@posting.google.com> <406F48A7.9030007@interfold.com> <7004aa4b.0404040251.583cbad0@posting.google.com>


Basta! Can an agreement to disagree be reached? A number of us have tried
to explain terms to Mr. Potter; yet he seems not to be swayed by
definitions, nor examples. Evidently he chooses not to be. I propose that
he continue in his desire for words from TAF that will not be forthcoming,
(because Todd sees no grounds for admission of error, [when he sees no
error], nor for apology). Mr. Potter can persist in his acceptance of the
Solomonic claim of the Ethiopian Imperial family; and the rest of us can
consider him wrong and/or misguided. Then we might all get back to work on
real genealogy, and due consideration of sources. And a certain few others
can return to lurking, sniping and attempted character assassination, as is
their wont.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shawn Potter" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, 04 April, 2004 05:51
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE GATEWAY: FROM AFRICA TO EUROPE


> "Todd A. Farmerie" <> wrote in message
news:<>...
>
> >
> > You might want to read what I wrote again, as your summary bears
> > no resemblance to it. I am saying just the opposite - that you
> > reach (and can only reach) conclusions based on the information
> > at hand, not on some hypothetical source yet to be discovered.
> > This is not without implications. First, all genealogical
> > conclusions are tentative, being based on the information
> > currently available and subject to ammendment, alteration or
> > rejection as a result of new discoveries. (This is not unique to
> > genealogy - it applies to virtually all research.) Second,
> > because this is always the case, it is silly to demand a
> > disclaimer to this effect when someone reaches a conclusion you
> > don't like.
>
>
> I don't demand a disclaimer because I dislike your conclusion.
> Accuracy demands a disclaimer, because it seems that you stated your
> opinion as if it were a fact.
>
>
> > > If you really believe that, why do you spend time on the
> > > subject.
> >
> > If you prefer to be led by what you want to be true, rather than
> > what is supported by evidence, then why do you spend time on
> > genealogy, when literary fiction would seem to fulfill the same
> > desire?
> >
>
>
> Why do you attack my motives rather than admit your error? What does
> that say about your intellectual honesty?
>
>
> > > Wouldn't a more rational--and honest--approach be to avoid
> > > making unsupportable declarations?
> >
> > I did support the statement that I made. I gave the reasoning
> > behind it and cited an author of the same opinion. I have asked
> > you why you think this support fails, why you think it is an
> > inaccurate analysis, but all you have done is stick your fingers
> > in your ears and shout, "No!" Do you have a point, other than to
> > express the offence that you appear to have taken at my having
> > questioned a 1200-year descent without any names in between and
> > without a single shred of supporting evidence?
> >
> > taf
>
>
> The information you have provided so far does not support your extreme
> statement. You did not merely question the descent. You declaired
> that it was "...of identical nature to the numerous claims of descent
> from Biblical
> figures (House of David, Noah), heroic figures (Priam, Hengist) and
> gods (Jupiter, Odin);" and now you are offended when someone asks you
> to defend your assertion.
>
> Shawn
>

This thread: