|Posted By:||Ed Gusman|
|Subject:||Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”|
|Post Date:||December 07, 2002 at 20:41:49|
|Forum:||Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum|
Gusman - I included two letters in a post to yourself Dec 6. One dealt with Dutch names, the second with Eastling names.
Richard - While your thesis is convenient, it has no bearing on the identifications before you (us).
Gusman - It has every bearing on the identification of Hannah Lossing. Until such a time as Doug or yourself can provide a fathers name from a birth/baptismal record for Hannah Lossing - neither yourself or Doug can conclusively state that Hannah Lossing was not a Lossing descended from earlier Lossing generations. Huff and puff all you desire about spelling conventions, errors in spelling, marks made by people. All of that is rhetoric as is the post to which I respond herein. Until the moment the father of Hannah Lossing is known, Hannah Lossing remains Hannah Lossingl.