Em quarta-feira, 29 de junho de 2016 22:55:54 UTC+1, Peter Stewart via escreveu: > On 30/06/2016 4:30 AM, pauloricardocanedo2 via wrote: > > Em terça-feira, 28 de junho de 2016 01:02:30 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: > >> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 11:40:20 PM UTC+10, taf wrote: > >>> On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 5:41:59 AM UTC-7, paulorica...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Well the genealogist seems to be Edd Man do you ever heard of him. > >>> Let's go at this a different way. Addressing whether Ed Mann is > >>> competent to reach a definitive conclusion on the question takes us a > >>> step away from the issue. Ay time it becomes a question of the > >>> genealogists rather than of the evidence, we are making it about > >>> modern peope rather than about medieval people. > >> Though I agree with this up to a point, I don't think Ed Mann's competence has been put at issue in this thread. > >> > >> The poster apparently found the information in a post from Ed and asked if he was a known authority, not whether he was definitively right on the specific matter. > >> > >> I replied that Ed was a diligent "gatherer", reflecting on his methodology but not implying anything about his competence. > >> > >> In my view a "gatherer" may be as capable as a "hunter" of resolving such a problem as this - the "gatherer" may know the primary evidence quite adequately at second hand, and may also know more about differing analyses of it than a "hunter" who has found it directly and thought about it from only one perspective. > >> > >> The secondary literature of medieval genealogy (including the archive of this newsgroup) has plenty of examples where old errors have been made anew by "hunter" researchers who did not gather that someone else had already corrected a mistake. > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > Well I know Ed Mann uses in some of his genealogical notes the connection William the Conqueror-Gundreda that is much more unlikely than the connection Millicent de Rethel-William de Camville.. > > Maintaining the William the Conqueror-Gundreda connection is not just > unlikely - it is positively foolish. > > If this appears as fact in Ed Mann's notes, why do you need to wonder in > public how useful these may be to you as an authority on any other > question? I suggest you might try carting out your own rubbish bins > without asking your neighbours for moral support. Well even if Ed Mann uses some false connections in some of his works it doesn´t mean the other works he does are wrong.