Gå til innhold
Arkivverket
JR Olsen

Asa Ulfsdatter (new research)

Recommended Posts

JR Olsen

I am not attempting to impress anyone. That should be obvious by my postings.

 

 

As for Arnstein Ulfson, your statements in English appeared to be written by primary age students. You proved nothing. If your buddies were impressed with you , well, that speaks  volumes. You have made a complete fool of yourself by not understanding the difference between certainty and proof. If you want, I can get high school students to write an article on certainty and proof and present it to you.

 

Well, since you mention traps. It is I setting the traps. I trapped you in your last post by you admitting that Ulf and Cecilia possibly had children. Now, every person who read your statements on them not having children will lose respect for you.

 

Please, do yourself a favour and stop posting here. I am starting to feel sorry for you.


This post appears a bit heated, or at least it is certain that some will see it that way. I apologize to all (except Lars Loberg)

Endret av JR Olsen

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
David Widerberg Howden

Well I don't think Lars looses any respect among norwegian researchers. 

Its possible this sentence doesn't sound logic to you, but it does to me..

 

"Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdatter left no known issue in Onsøy and they can possibly not be connected to the Rosensverd family"

All this sentence tells you is what the sources says: Theres no mention of children and the sources has no evidence for a connection to the Rosensverd family.

It doesn't say that they didn't have children, but only states that its not known if they had children, that doesn't exclude the possibility that Lars mentioned later.

Im really not sure if certainty and proof is so easy to translate.. A proof needs evidence like solid sources, but certainty, could be a feeling of having no doubt or the value we put on the theory or the conclusion.. But I could be mistaking your meaning of these words..

 

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty

*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t

 

 

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Olaf Larsen

My approach being within the natural sciences.

 

I am not convinced that your approach to the principles in the natural sciences is very relevant in this debate. It is my impression, that most of the users in this forum limit their research and it's results, to what can be proven. That is an approach which is a necessity in the natural sciences, but maybe not in your genealogical research. We can every single day read posts here about misinterpretations, rumours, misspellings and faults in records and documents produced less than 100 years ago, and when they are 200 or 300 years old they are downright unreliable, and we often need several independent sources to verify a person.

You are discussing a relationship between people, based on one or a few documents, and the frequency of names in a population, at a time when only a fraction of a largely illiterate population is mentioned by name, in firsthand, written sources. In relation to the natural sciences, those are only assumptions or theories, and as most other theories relating to people or events in Norway 700 years ago, they will still be just theories.

I am also alledgedly related to the Ulv-family line, not your Ulv, but the one in Nord-Odal and Hedemark. Same timeline, same kind of theories, based on equally unconfirmed sources. Timetravel is still an unobtainable dream, guessing will always even out at 50/50.  Does it really matter?

I shall not question the reasons you have for starting this debate, the subject is way beyond most of us anyway, but I am questioning the reason for bringing it to this forum, instead of continuing it in the NSF medieval forum, where it belongs.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Lars Løberg

I think Olaf Larsen points at something important here. Only a fraction of the Norwegian population from the Medieval ages are known by name or mentioned in the few written sources we still know. That goes also for the nobility. Thus, most Ulfs of the 14th century are unknown to us today. Most likely Åsa's father belongs to the group of unknown and unrecorded persons of that time. The likelihood or probability for this is a lot more than 50 %. Of the many remaining, known and recorded Ulfs, no less than four have been discussed as possible fathers. None of them can be proven to have a connection to Åsa or the Rosensverd family. To claim that any of these - or other - Ulfs should have even more than 50 % likelihood of being her father is not to be taken seriously. To claim a certainty of more than 90 % is nothing but ridicilous. Not even a DNA test on alleged descendants of today could bring it that high.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Anita Holck

Lars, til # 51: "Point one: there is no known issue of Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdotter."

 

Hvem er da Katarina Ulfsdotter?

 

SDHK 17559, 1410, 19/10: Cecilia Jonsdotter ger Vadstena kloster Forsviks kvarn i Undenäs sn, Vadbo hd, Västergötland, på villkor att hon årligen skall erhålla mjöl av klostret.

Sigill: N. 1. En ros med omskr.: s. cecilia joansdott

 

1411, 1/3, DW dng(?) Cecilia de Noruegia, datter av Johannes Hafthornson (Roos af Hjelmsäter) jordfästes i Vadstena kloster
(DW = Diarium Vadstenense. ("Vadstena klosters minnesbok".) Ed. E. Nygren. 1963. (CCS 16.))

 

SDHK 18382, 1414:
Biskop Bryniulf i Skara och riddaren och lagmannen Gustav Magnusson samt "twå af Capitulo och sex riddare och swene" tilldömer på räfstetinget i Skara Vadstena kloster Forsviks kvarn i [undenäs socken] i Vadsbo [härad], som fru Cecilia (Jonsdotter) tidigare skänkt klostret.
Litteratur och kommentar: Vadstena klosters jordebok, utgiven av C. Silfverstolpe, s. 169 nr. 516.

 

Men det følgende stemmer jo ikke dersom Cecilia Jonsdatter (Roos) og Ulf Holmgersson (Lejonbalk) ikke etterlot seg barn:

 

SDHK 20683, 1426, "Skiidha" i Norge:
Katarina Ulfsdotter stadfäster sin mor Cecilia Johansdotters gåva av "Forsvika" kvarn i Vadsbo härad i "Undadhe" socken till Vadstena kloster.

 

SDHK 24833, 1445 (DN XVI, 151):
Ulf Petersson (Roos av Ervalla), riddare, som av Vadstena kloster fått Snavlunda kvar i Närke och en tomt i Vadstena, stadfäster med sina syskon deras anhörigas gåvor till Vadstena kloster. Särskilt nämns att deras farfars syster fru Cecilia, Jon Hafthorssons dotter, skänkt Forsviks kvarn i Undenäs socken till klostret. Ulf Petersson, hans bröder Jon Petersson och Amund Bolt samt deras syster Margareta Petersdotter och hennes man Sven Laurensson. beseglar.








 

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Are S. Gustavsen

Anita,

 

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It strongly supports the need to have a scientific approach to this matter. I do not believe the confirmation letter of 1426 is particularly known in Norway. There are quite a few letters listed in the SDHK database that are of interest. Some accompanied by images, others not. The location given by SDHK as "Skiidha" i Norge" is to be interpreted as the medieval city Skien in nowadays Telemark fylke. In 1426 it was a part of Skiensyssel. The presence (in the said letter) of two notable aristocratic men of this area, herr Hjarrand and Markvard Buk, confirms the location as being the city of Skien.

 

You presenting the letters concerning the Vadstena gift, where the 1426 letter informs of the relation between Cecilia Jonsdotter and Katarina Ulvsdotter, is important for this argument. It does not go against Lars Løberg advocating caution, but it shows that acting on the possibilities for doing proper research on medieval genealogy will often result in new positive findings.

 

Applied to the matter at hand, it doesn't really change anything concerning what we know about Åsa Ulvsdotter. The fact that a certain couple (Ulv and Cecilia) had a daughter when they were believed not to have any children at all, is a pleasant finding. However, it does not make the mentioned couple any more or any less likely as candidates for being Åsa's parents.

 

Discussing Ulv Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdotter should indeed be a separate discussion, as having the discussion here seems to cloud the issue and making it more difficult to get a consensus on the matter of Åsa Ulvsdotter. I am also wondering why no one seems to be preoccupied with the origin of Olav Torsteinsson.

 

Best regards,

 

Are

Endret av Are S. Gustavsen

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Lars Løberg

Jeg var ikke kjent med disse dokumentene som belegger Katarina som Ulfs og Cecilias datter. Hun er heller ikke nevnt av Gillingstam i hans artikkel om Lejonbalk i Äldre Svenske frälseslekter, som er standardverket. Gillingstam har derimot med Karl Ulfsson som en mulig sønn, noe som gjorde at jeg også alltid har holdt muligheten oppe for at de kan ha hatt barn, også barn som har overlevd Cecilia og Ulf.

 

Derimot har blant annet Tore Vigerust brukt DN XVI 151 som bevis for at Cecilia og Ulf ikke lenger hadde levende etterslekt i 1445, opplysninger han forøvrig også fant bekreftelser på ved studier i Ervallarkivet med belegg i 1500-tallskilder der. Dette er også det som ligger bak min distinksjon mellom no known issue og påstanden om at none of their issue survived the 15th century.

 

Contentaen er altså at dette materialet bidrar til å underbygge at det ikke er noen forbindelse mellom Rosensverdene og Ulf Holmgeirsson. Tore holdt imidlertid fortsatt muligheten åpen for at det kunne være en forbindelse til Sørumætta, men altså ikke via Ulf Holmgeirsson.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Kjell Halvorsen

Earlier - post # 16 - Berit Gullbekk  has emphasized Digitalarkivets 'Ordensregler for debattene', primarily aimed at JR Olsen ?

 

JR Olsen started this discussion in his - I presume - native language. I therefore invite Lars Løberg to continue abide by the same set of forum governing rules, check 'Ordensregler for debattforaene, para 3' http://forum.arkivverket.no/forum-6/announcement-2-ordensregler-for-debattene/

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Lars Løberg

Kjell:

 

I responded to Anita's post # 56. That one was written in Norwegian. Trying to be polite, I answered her in her chosen language. Do you really find that to be against the rules of this forum? I find your criticism quite a bit misplaced in this case.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Anita Holck

Mr. Olsen i innlegg # 2 i denne debatten:

 

"Research/Study:

- studied all known men in Norway and Sweden during the Middle Ages with the name Ulf/Ulv.

- a quick-study on men with the name Ulfsson/Ulvsson"

 

"Findings:

Men named Ulf/Ulv during the Middle Ages: During that time period the name Ulf/Ulv was a rare name in Norway and Sweden, at least as it pertains to nobility."

 

I og med at navnet Ulf/Ulfsson/Ulfsdotter forekommer i de svenske diplomene i løpet av middelalderen  (1030-1537) 1689 ganger, i årene 1350-1430 903 ganger, og han har studert dem alle, må man vel anta at han behersker norsk.

 

Det er derimot ikke alle i dette forum som behersker engelsk så godt at man ønsker å delta i en debatt på engelsk - inkludert undertegnede.

 

Anita

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
JR Olsen

So, the debate continues. I like it.

 

Anita Holck:

 

1. 903 times does not equal 903 men named Ulf.

 

2. You went with 1350-1430. My research involved earlier years and I did not go to 1430. Any Ulf mentioned in 1430 would not be a candidate for Asa Ulfsdatter's father.

 

3. perhaps you would have understood it better if I stated that I studied all known men named Ulf relevant to the study.

 

4. My focus was on men named Ulf with ties to Norway. All of the 903 that you referenced did not have ties to Norway.

 

5. I studied such men in the Norwegian diplomas, and the ones in Sweden that were relevant to the study.

 

6. Perhaps you will do a study to determine how many of the 903 times transfers to actual men named Ulf.

 

7.The FINDINGS section states "Men named Ulf/Ulv during the Middle Ages". You will notice the absence of the word ALL.  Again, the wordings were relevant to the study.

 

8. I do understand how one could misunderstand.

 

9. Any qualified Researcher comprehends that the written conclusions of research or study are based on the findings. The findings are relevant to the study at hand, not all available information. All information is reviewed to determine relevance to the research or study. All information is tested for strength and weakness. The higher the level of strength the more probable that information becomes. The weak information is determined to be irrelevant and is therefore tossed in the trash.

 

10. All men named Ulf would obviously not be relevant. Prior to the commencement of  a study one will determine what is needed. What do I want? Why do I want it? How do I determine if it is relevant? and several other questions.

 

Hopefully, this puts to rest any of your concerns regarding my study on men named Ulf.

 

 

Lars Loberg:

 

I have been told that you are the most qualified in Norway. How could the most qualified neglect to find such interesting information in Sweden? Especially, when you decided to write an article on Asa Ulfsdatter's parentage. Why did I (a foreigner) not neglect to search those records? What else did this foreigner locate that was missed by you and perhaps others? One only has to read all posts on this forum relating to Asa Ulfsdatter to realize that you have neglected to find other relevant information. Obviously, your alleged research on Asa Ulfsdatter was, shall we say, at the level of an amateur. It should be obvious to all that your research on Asa Ulfsdatter can not be trusted. Your supporters can not be trusted.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Olaf Larsen

Mr. JR Olsen, I owe you an apology! I asked about your reasons for bringing the debate to this forum, without realizing that you already had answered it! There were so many personal remarks in your writings, so at first I just skimmed through your posts without noticing this one:

 

The focus is now here. The only reason for the discussion on the other forum was due to myself challenging Lars Loberg to a public discussion.

 

Obviously, your alleged research on Asa Ulfsdatter was, shall we say, at the level of an amateur. It should be obvious to all that your research on Asa Ulfsdatter can not be trusted. Your supporters can not be trusted.

 

Well, I see your reasons now.

One of the most positive aspects relating to the academic scene in Norway, is that there exists a mutual respect for a scolar's level of competence, which usually prevent personal attacks like the one above. They do exist, but rarely, and they usually have consequenses in our academic world. One frequent comment after such attacks is related to their only positive outcome; they are very helpful in describing the attacker's level of intelligence and competence.

 

They do have consequences in this forum too, as your attacks on Lars Løberg are mean, strictly personal, and beyond the subject of the debate, which are violations of rule #6. We are used to having a decent and polite level of communication between members in this forum, and I will ask the moderators to exclude you from further debates here.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Lars Løberg

No reason to worry, Olaf. "JR" has more to answer for now than he can possibly survive intellectually.

 

I have never claimed to know all relevant sources that relates to the Sørum family or all the relevant Ulfs. Anyone who claims so, is per definition a liar. Such a person has never existed, nor will such a person ever exist. The thrill about dealing with Medieval genealogy is that you will allways find new sources or sources than can be combined in a new way that suddenly reveals new, unknown information. Thus, it is a field of constant development.

 

The Swedish sources that Anita so graciously has brought into the debate have two distinctly separate bearings. They prove that Ulf Homgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdotter had a daughter who was grown up and married in 1426. Does that falsify any of my conclutions in my article on Åsa Ulfsdatter? I say not. My conclution was and still is that we don't know who her parents were. I held it for possible, even likely, that Ulf and Cecilia had children, which has now been proven a fact. But that doesn't link Åsa to this family. My article published in 2004 is still valid.

 

My article led to a debate in 2005 in which Tore H. Vigerust brought forward DN XVI:151. This diploma proves that even though Cecilia Jonsdotter may have had children and even grandchildren, all her descendants were dead before 1445. Her closest relatives in 1445 were grandnephews and grandnieces. She had no issue left. Vigerust found this information confirmed also in 16th century documents in Ervallaarkivet. Thus, Åsa Ulfsdotter possibly couldn't have been a daughter og Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdotter.

 

This, of course, says all that needs to be said of the so called "research" of "JR". He has not been willing to present neither his sources, nor his methods. But he has presented a conclution that he believes to have more than a 90 % certainty. We have now seen solid documentation of his conclution being wrong, wrong, wrong. The claim has been duly falsified. Thus, I propose that the words "new research" in the subject line of this tread is to be deleated. Whatever "JR" has presented here, it is certainly not research.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
JR Olsen

Olaf Larsen

 

A know-it-all tends to stink after awhile. You are not aware of the private discussions between myself and Lars Loberg. You are not aware of the attacks I received from Lars Loberg in those private discussions. That is the reason for challenging him to a public discussion. I gave him every bit of respect until he said such things as "you are not even an amateur"; "your research is not evidenced based or empirical"; "it is genealogy garbage". Of course, I had to give him a quick lesson on the meaning of empirical.

 

Olaf Larsen, would you like to forward another apology?

 

Lars Loberg

 

The best that you can do now is damage control. Too little, too late. I do not know about people in Norway, but I am 90% certain that people outside of Norway will see your article on Asa Ulfsdatter as genealogy garbage.

 

I will not waste anymore of my time here, unless someone with intelligence has something intelligently to say.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
JR Olsen

Before I exit this forum for good, I have one last thing to say.

 

I learned one thing from the posters on this thread.

 

Many Norwegians hold prejudice towards foreigners. SHAMEFUL!!!!

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Inger Karin Haarbye

Before I exit this forum for good, I have one last thing to say.

 

I learned one thing from the posters on this thread.

 

Many Norwegians hold prejudice towards foreigners. SHAMEFUL!!!!

Det er vanligvis en hyggelig tone på dette forumet, etter gjentatte personangrep og manglende vilje til å bruke fullt navn, håper jeg denne krangelen nå kommer til en ende!

Endret av Inger Karin Haarbye

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Lars.O.Wangensteen

 

I will not waste anymore of my time here, unless someone with intelligence has something intelligently to say.

 

I have.......: Good bye :-)

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Are S. Gustavsen

It is fair to say that the initiator of this discussion, J R Olsen, has failed in more than one way in his dealings with Norwegian genealogy and particularly concerning Medieval genealogy.

 

  1. No new research on Åsa Ulvsdotter har been presented by the initiator. So far it is all hot air and empty sentences.
  2. The initiator has yet to state his full name, thus he is per definition operating with a hidden agenda. Whether or not the moderator of this forum will address the other violations concerning the rules of conduct is a separate issue.
  3. Regardless the discussion has proved to be more of a personal ranting towards individuals rather than being an actual fact-based argument.

The conclusion seems to be, if the new research cannot be presented in this discussion within the normal framework of an open public discussion under the full name of the so-called researcher, then there is no such research present. The research simply does not exist. It's either a complete hoax, a misguided view on what genealogy is all about or a personal cry for attention on totally different grounds than publicly stated.

 

Sincerely,

 

Are 

Endret av Are S. Gustavsen

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
JR Olsen

It appears that others do not want me to leave here. They continue with their personal attacks.

 

Are G, you are amusing. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth, but you asked for it, so here it is.

 

1. I was sitting here with a copy of the information that Anita H posted (Katarina Ulfsdatter). I was waiting for the right time to post it, but her did it first.

 

2.  DN XVI:151, 1445 - The Norwegian historians' interpretations are wrong. Many on the International stage would easily observe the false interpretations.

 

3. Previous research by Norwegians (Swedes too?) has been proven wrong by  the Swedish diploma regarding Katarina Ulfsdatter.

 

4. The research relating to Arnstein Ulfson is not proof. It is nothing more than opinions and more misinterpretations.

 

5. Norwegian historians are doing a dis-service to genealogy in Norway (at least when it relates to Asa Ulfsdatter)

 

6. You and others could not comprehend a basic explanation of my research. You would not comprehend the complexities to my research.

 

7. I refer you to #28 of this thread.

 

8. I refer you to #1 of this thread.

 

9. My research on Asa Ulfsdatter involved research depths that you and others could not possibly comprehend.

 

10. You and others do not have the capability to comprehend how I used social science to study social mobility during the medieval times in Norway

 

11. In part, I used psychological aspects to human reasoning in my research

 

12. In part, I used psychological aspects to human competition in my research

 

13. I used four components that are embedded in the core of each and every human (past and present) in my research

 

14. I used methods that I learned over decades, and have no interest in sharing with anyone.

 

15. I have a proven track record for locating information that others could not locate.

 

16. I have a proven track record in genealogy

 

17. You focus on primary sources. So do I, but I also know where to locate supplementary sources.

 

18. You are a genealogist-for-hire. Your statements here are bias.

 

19. You and others accept interpretations as proof.

 

20. No person outside of Norway takes the Norwegian research on Asa Ulfsdatter seriously. Want proof, search the internet.

 

21. Why did you not want the discussion to continue on NSF? Do not lie.

 

22. I only wanted to post my findings on this forum and leave it at that. I refer you to Lars Loberg's first posting on this thread.

 

23. You and others have given the impression that you are too clueless to comprehend my research.

 

24. Perhaps some time after my publication I may decide to write a detailed account on my research on Asa Ulfsdatter. That decision will be mine, and not based on anything you say.

 

25. Research papers are written for comprehension by researchers. Historians and genealogists do not have the ability to comprehend such writings.

 

26. A lot more could be stated, but why bother. You and others will continue your game of manipulation and intimidation in attempt to control what others believe about Asa Ulfsdatter.

 

27. Why do you care so much about my statements? Do you always attempt to control what others say?

 

 

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Are S. Gustavsen

"J R Olsen", #69,

 

Let me comment in the same orderly fashion you just provided:

  1. You may or may not have known about the 1426 letter prior to Anita Holck's posting as of recently. Who's to say? And what good would it do you to hold new information back, when the claimed purpose of your own discussion is "new research". It sure looks like other people are doing the research while you arbitrarily reserve the right to claim partial credit for select parts of it.
  2. You offer no proper argument as to why "The Norwegian historians interpretations are wrong" regarding the reading and understanding of DN XVI, no. 151. You have not yet presented the interpretations themselves, far less demonstrated why they allegedly should be "wrong". Hence there is nothing to observe for "the International stage", whatever such an entity may consist of.
  3. Again, who are these researchers and how and by whom have they been proven wrong regarding Katarina Ulvsdotter? Her existence (for the purpose of scientific genealogical research) was hardly known until a couple of days ago.
  4. Again, which research and by whom regarding Arnstein Ulvsson? You are not presenting the material you are opinionated about, hence you are yourself the one resting your case solely on opinion and misrepresentation.
  5. Which Norwegian historians are you referring to regarding the matter of Åsa Ulvsdotter? Are you sure you don't really mean genealogists? Or are you perhaps referring to historians performing genealogy? Are you at all able to distinguish between the two in this matter?
  6. Are we to believe that your research is so complex that no one may understand it? Not even a basic explanation?
  7. What is the context? What part of #28 are you referring to?
  8. What is the context? What part of #1 are you referring to?
  9. How is it that personally defined and hidden "research depths", that cannot be accessible to the public, should hold any importance for the purpose of genealogical research?
  10. How are we to believe that you hold any merits in social studies when you refuse to identify yourself properly even in colloquial social studies? Aren't you involuntarily becoming the object of study rather than remaining a researcher by choosing this approach?
  11. "Psychological aspects to human reasoning" is as of yet not a part of approved methodology regarding medieval genealogy.
  12. "Psychological aspects to human competition" is as of yet not a part of approved methodology regarding medieval genealogy.
  13. You are referring to "four components" without stating which these are and what they may constitute. There is also a lack of reasoning as to why introducing these components is relevant to the argument.
  14. You have not presented any methods and you have no reference to your background whatsoever, simultaneously you are confusing the public with hidden methodology while appealing for blind public support of something that you will not share for your life. That's an oddity of sorts. Contradiction in terms, one should think.
  15. "Track record"? How can you have a proven track record, when the public has yet to see anything credible presented or published by your hand. It is fair to say the complete opposite to be true. Nothing is proven.
  16. If you have a proven track record in genealogy, you will have to reference your work. Until you can show a reference to any published work by your hand, this will remain a bluff.
  17. Correct, I do focus on primary sources. What sets us apart is the fact that I actually understand what I read and I am able to discuss my findings publicly. Furthermore, I am capable of making reasonable deductions on complex issues.
  18. Being a professional genealogist would hardly make my statements biased. Some issue separation would be in order here on your part.
  19. How would you know whether I or others would accept interpretations as proof? You need to reference examples of our work to substantiate such an allegation.
  20. Really, no person outside Norway? Are you sure this is not an exaggeration? What is the "Norway research" anyhow? And how could the Internet itself constitute proof? On the same note, I thought you were relying on certainty rather than proof. I may be mistaken.
  21. You are more than welcome to continue the discussion you started (at www.genealogi.no) as long as you abide by the forum rules. You were asked to identify yourself, but chose to remain borderline anonymous ("Richard"). A discussion on medieval genealogy can be done anywhere. However, it is entirely up to the participants to make the discussion a fruitful one. The need to call other people a "liar" usually is a cover for something else. But that may be a part of a more psychological approach, rather than a fruitful contribution to this topic.
  22. What you really want is a mystery to the public. We are capable of reading your postings, but I, for one, still remain puzzled. This due to the lack of coherence on your part.
  23. Again, when you haven't presented your "research", how in the world anyone can be judged clueless thereof, by you, is per definition a contradiction of terms.
  24. No one is forcing you to do anything. However, in order to participate in a fruitful discussion on the matter at hand, I highly recommend that you try stepping out of the self-defined academic sandbox you have made for yourself. It is very helpful trying to understand the specifics of a field of study before barging in claiming ownership of the truth without merits in the very same field. As of now there is no research on Åsa Ulvsdotter by your hand, at least not known to the public. That may change. I believe you have been invited to submit an article on the subject. What is stopping you?
  25. Please listen to your own statement: "Research papers are written for comprehension by researchers. Historians and genealogists do not have the ability to comprehend such writings." Last time I checked, historians and genealogists are per definition researchers. That is what constitute their work, research. How historians and genealogists possibly could be viewed as people with no ability to comprehend research papers, is beyond me. The statement is otherwise utter nonsense.
  26. I, for one, participate in these discussions with an attitude of good faith. A lot can be learned in a mutual exchange of thoughts between equal-minded people. There is no requirement to hold a academic title in order to participate in a genealogical discussion, but it sure helps to have an academic mindset. Rarely I see participants engage in manipulation or intimidation of sorts. There may be heated discussion and of course participants not being used to the bluntness of these discussions may feel inferior caught in this heat. However, the demand for participants to actually provide proof and reference for allegations and statements put forth, should not be mistaken as intimidation. It is purely a matter of sincerity or the lack thereof. Moreover, when you are stating "what others believe about Asa Ulfsdatter." you are actually at the core of the matter, perhaps by chance. Genealogy is namely about what you can prove, not about what someone may believe.
  27. I do care about a lot in this world. Especially about the use and abuse of the public arena regarding medieval genealogy. Your statements in themselves are an invitation to inform about sound scholarly approach based on science. I cannot control other people's postings (at least not in a personal capacity and without just cause), far less their opinions. However, I do exercise the right to participate in public debate attempting to positively influence people to apply sound thinking and some restraint in complex matters.

Sincerely,

 

Are

 

 

 

 

Endret av Are S. Gustavsen

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
JR Olsen

Yawn, oh am I back in here. I must be sleepwalking. Ok, this has become boring.

 

Are, as usual your post is full of crap. I only skimmed over the contents.

 

As for the information on Katarina Ulfsdatter, the information is online. Check the Swedish Medieval Diplomas. The fact that you and others neglected to find this (and other information) reveal that you are not fully competent in research. I will not waste my time detailing this.

 

You do research. That in and of itself does not entitle you to call yourself a Researcher. If you do not know the difference then you are not intelligent.

 

Again, I refer you to #1 (read all). That was and is my purpose for being here. My objective has been reached. Now, if you wish to continue with the personal attacks, then realize that Americans are reading this thread. They will remember the name Are S Gustavsen. If they desire the services of a genealogist, you will not be contacted (since you have demonstrated here that you are not a qualified genealogist, at least when it comes to medieval genealogy). They will also question your motive for the personal attacks. What are you hiding?

 

Lets put this thread to rest. Time to move on.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Anita Holck

Ja, hva har egentlig hr. Olsen funnet?

 

Han starter debatten med følgende: "Jeg tenkte jeg skulle dele mine funn med dem som er interessert i Åsa Ulfsdatter..." (#1)

 

Hvilke funn?

 

Jeg kan ikke se at han har kommet med noen funn eller brakt noe som helst nytt inn i debatten omkring Åsa Ulfsdatter, alt han kommer med er sine egne oppkonstruerte sannsynlighetsberegninger:

 

"If proof is wanted, then conduct proper research and the results will clearly reveal the science behind the statements. I am not here to conduct research for others. If one believes that my statement are wrong, well, provide the proof/science to back up your claims. Don't simply say that I am wrong, prove it or at least provide a high level of certainty that I am wrong."

 

"Jeg er ikke her for å drive forskning for andre"......

 

Så greit da, bare å kaste ut noen udokumenterte tall og påstander og forlange at andre skal gjøre arbeidet med å tilbakevise dem (# 7 og # 10).

 

Merkelig forskning.....

 

Og i # 61: "What else did this foreigner locate that was missed by you and perhaps others?"

 

Tja, si det. Det er jammen ikke godt å vite ...

 

"As for the information on Katarina Ulfsdatter, the information is online. Check the Swedish Medieval Diplomas. The fact that you and others neglected to find this (and other information) reveal that you are not fully competent in research."

 

Jaså, det var Hr. Olsen som fant Katarina Ulfsotter?

 

Egoet er det i hvert fall ikke noe i veien med. Splitter pine ...

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
JR Olsen

To The Moderator

 

Since I am the author of this thread, do I have the right to request that this thread be locked to prevent any further posts on this thread? All that was needed to be said has been said. It will only lead to arguments. This is a great forum. I hate to see a few ruin it.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Lars Løberg

Are took the time to answer "JR" on each and every point. I find that to be a waste of time, since most of his points were smoke without fire, constructed only to take focus away from his weakest of many weak points, his # 2.

 

Claiming that Norwegian histotians have interpreted DN XVI:151 wrong without stating why we have done it in a wrong way is to throw out an allegation without even trying to substansiate or to explain. This is too easy. And he does it this way because he knows that this is the only way he can hold on to such a ridiculous claim. As soon as he starts to explain himself, he also reveals his own lack of knowledge and competance in the field. I've allready trapped him into doing so once, in the debate he initiated in the NSF forum. As soon as he discovered that he had been caught red handed, that he had been arrested in an obvious misinterpretation of a 1419 diploma, he ran away from that debate wityh his tail between his legs, using more or less the same words as here:

 

 

 

 

I will not waste anymore of my time here, unless someone with intelligence has something intelligently to say.

 

This was the third debate with me where he suddenly lost all interest after having completely lost the debate.

 

One who doesn't understand or interpret the 1419 diploma correctly can of course, by share luck, understand or interpret a 1445 diploma, but when he claims to do so while all Norwegian historians allegedly interpret it wrongly then his credibility isn't particularly good. More so, the interpretation isn't only shared by Norwegian historians. It goes for all lawyers and genealogists dealing with Medieval sources as well. The document is, in fact, quite easy to interpret. From a legal point of view we know exactly why it was needed, what provitions in Scandinavian laws that calls for such letters to be written and Anita even did us the favout to put into a connection of other legal documents in the same line in respect of this particular gift and subsequent confirmation letters. We all know why tyhe 1426 diploma was neccessary, we all know why the 1445 diploma was neccessary and it is quite simple to reason out why in this case both diplomas were needed and why the persons were different in the two diplomas, though still related to Cecilia Jonsdotter.

 

In 1426 Cecilia still had descendants alive. They, then, had to confirm her gift. In 1445 Cecilia no longer had descendants alive, thus, her closest relatives alive had to give their confirmation since no descendants any longer existed. This is what the lawyers read out of the documents. The genealogists draw then a second conclusion - that since Cecilia no longer had descendants, then Åsa Ulvsdotter possibly could not be her daughter.

 

It has bothered me a while why "JR" feels so strongly about his own false statement in this case, but his writing about his methods makes it quite clear. "JR" is not a scholar. A scholar is educated and trained in quoting his sources, listing his references and building his arguments step by step so that any other scholar or researcher can redo the experiment, test the hypothesis, follow the logic. That is also how we historians and genealogists build our presentations. "JR" does his "research" differently. He claims that he has tested his "method" over decades and that it works for him, but that it doesn't neccssarily work for others. That is, he doesn't want us to know how he builds up his conclusions. He doesn't want us to redo his experiments or his testings. And, frankly speaking, we don't need to do so either. Not as long as DN XVI:151 tells us that he is wrong and has been wrong all the time.

 

For us, DN XVI:151 settles the case once and for all. For "JR" this is a whole lot more serious than simply being wrong in the case of Åsa Ulfsdatter. If the method that has served him so well for decades suddenly starts failing, as it does in this case, then that also harms any other result or conclusion he has come to using the same method. It simply destroys he entire reason d'etre. That is simply ruining for him. No less than that.

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
JR Olsen

.Lars Loberg, you also continue to bore me. Just a minute..YAWN!!

 

Ok, now to continue...

 

"In 1426 Cecilia still had descendants alive. They, then, had to confirm her gift. In 1445 Cecilia no longer had descendants alive, thus, her closest relatives alive had to give their confirmation since no descendants any longer existed. This is what the lawyers read out of the documents. The genealogists draw then a second conclusion - that since Cecilia no longer had descendants, then Åsa Ulvsdotter possibly could not be her daughter"

 

Wait..I have to stop laughing before I can type.

 

If that speaks for the intelligence of Norwegian historians and genealogist, well, Norwegians will never know their true history. To repeat myself, Norwegian historians do not have a strong reputation when it comes to interpretations.

 

"JR" is not a scholar" Of course, I am not a scholar. I refer you to #1. I stated that I claim not to be an expert at anything. I stated that I am not here to convince anyone of anything. I presented the information, and now others will decide how much or how little value to place on it. You and others work hard at attempting to convince others that you are an expert at everything. Want to know something, ask Lars Loberg. Oh wait, Lars did neglect to locate the information on Katarina Ulfsdatter. What else did Lars Loberg neglect to locate?

 

Seriously, Lars, how much actual research did you do? Did you take the research of others, make minor changes, then claim that it was your research? Saint Olaf is watching you, you better not lie.

 

 

 

Del dette innlegget


Lenke til innlegg
Del på andre sider
Gjest
Dette emnet er stengt for flere svar.

  • Hvem er aktive   0 medlemmer

    Ingen innloggede medlemmer aktive

×

Viktig Informasjon

Arkivverket bruker cookies (informasjonskapsler) på sine nettsider for å levere en bedre tjeneste. De brukes til bl.a. skjemaoppdateringer og innlogging. Bruk siden som normalt, eller lukk informasjonsboksen for å akseptere bruk av cookies.