Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Judy, if you would be so kind as to refer to YOUR TWO original documents that you passed to me at one time where that transcribed "D'CD" is correct on Richard BRACEWELL JR (II) married to ELEANOR by 1725 you might want to keep an open mind on the 1727 and later dated RICHARD married to an ELEANOR as being a Separate couple. Afterall it does state Richard BRACEWELL is D'cd by 1725 who sold the land and he was married to ELEANOR.
Meanwhile there is an ELEANOR BRASWELL listed in the Will of THOMAS WIMBERLY dated 1732. And the Eleanor who married Richard BRACEWELL II is suspected of being a BRYANT surname with Wimberly not even considered.
That makes for TWO Richard BRA**s married to an ELEANOR reasonable, espcecially since in a PROVEN record "A" Richard Bracewell who married an ELEANOR is said to be DECEASED by 1725.
This is a case where more evidence is needed in order to make ANY claims one way or the other, because the proven documents CONTRADICT each other. If you have a case where the documents contradict each other the research MUST be reworked with open minds in order to prevail. To shut the door and ignore the reference of the D'cd Richard Bracewell II by 1725 who married an Eleanor is to refuse to look at ALL of the eviedence. Since you now seem to be in the company of the BRASWELL BLOGSPOT gang who are notorious for picking and chosing the information they have selected for posting their "side", it doesnt' surprise me that you posted this email to me on a public forum and not in a private email such as you HAD been doing. You and I had many private emails back and forth and you admittedly told me you knew very little on making connections and you wanted help from me, that it was all new to you and it would take a "LONG, LONG time to catch up" is what you told me. WEll, looks like the Braswell Blogspot team is pulling your strings to post just like they wanted me to do? Did you have run your post by the group first in private emails? That's what usually happens....the entire GANG is CC'd on everything and you get suggestions on a "come-back" and how to "handle" the situation. I don't do that Judy, what I say comes from my brain and my fingers. I don't run anything by anyone....no strings on me. They are all about games Judy, don't plug into the games. They are so petty. Good sound, PROVABLE research is what everyone should strive for.
A note to ALL of the researchers out there NOT on the Braswell Blogspot "SIDE"........it gets a little lonely trying to be the voice of reason when there is a GANG mentality set up to shoot you down, one after another. They are sitting there lining up their bullets aimed directly at me (or anyone who questions them, try it and find out) and all I did that started this whole mess was try and defend the LAurens Co BRACEWELL line, of which NO ONE at the Braswell Blogspot research team has ponied up any evidence for on their claims about SAMPSON yet that I've seen....AND then I wanted to point out questions that I found in the records of which gets responded to with old information that NEEDS to be questioned. The Braswell Blogspot "gang" doesn't like you to question them and that's why I do it. Because the researchers need to know that you MUST take a stand and look at all of the records for yourselves (don't let others do the work for you), it may be difficult to gather and research all of these records, but if you want true answers then I'm afraid its the only way. Then and only then after you gather your own information you too will see there are contradictions and lack of proof in making some of these currently held believed Braswell lines. From what I see there are WAY to many separate Braswells lumped as one person here and there in different time periods.....in some cases 2-3 SEPARATE Richards are lumped as ONE RICHARD. Ridiculous and sloppy! Information that contradicts itself ISN'T good and sound research.
Question everything, PROVE everything and when in doubt WRITE to the courthouses and get your OWN original copies of everything for yourselves. That is the only way to work in an environment when there is a "side" that wants to shove it's ideas so far down your throat that you won't be able to voice a question to anything they have put together.
Or you could just visit Russell Bracewell's website at
http://www.bracewellarchive.org
because of all of the websites that I've seen dealing with BRASWELL and BRACEWELL research thus far, his seems to be the best quality of an UNbias opinion and he is not censoring anything going up on his webpage.
Think for yourselves.........trust me it's necessary. I for one LOVE to question everything until firm proof is found, so I don't fit well into any "cult like" group: I'm an independent thinker. I don't need the "group's" approval for validation. I love SOUND evidence and I don't like contradicting information standing as proof.
Take care, I'm done with this nonsense of the Braswell Blogspot team wanting me to defend my research when they have no proof OR sources listed to claims made all over there website. The future will bring change, it just takes time.
And remember..........."Time tells all truths"..........
Kay
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/braswell/messages/1095.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|