Posted By:Gusman
Email:
Subject:Re: Van Curen are we being flim flamd
Post Date:August 13, 2001 at 14:54:03
Message URL:http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/652.html
Forum:Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum
Forum URL:http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/

MY RESPONSE IS WRITTEN WITH "CAPITAL LETTERS". THE INTENT IS NOT ONE OF SHOUTING BUT I WANTED TO PLACE MY RESPONSES WITHIN THE SYNTAX AND BODY OF YOUR POSTING. THE ONLY METHOD WHEREBY I FELT COMFORTABLE PLACING MY RESPONSE THEREIN IS WITH THE USE OF CAPITALS. SO I APOLIGIZE IN ADVANCE IF THE USE OF CAPITALS OFFENDS ANYONE - THAT IS NOT MY INTENT.


QUOTING MR. MCCOOL - "You are a very reckless fellow... NOT AT ALL RECKLESS BUT I DO SPEAK THE TRUTH AS I SEE IT.....AND MANY TIMES I CALL A SPADE A SPADE AS THE OLD CLICHE GOES....I CANNOT TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO EXAGERATE, WHO WRITE OR WHO SPEAK IN INNUENDOS, ALTER RECORDS OF ANY TYPE WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING THEIR ALTERATIONS WITH CONFIRMING EVIDENCE WHICH WILL JUSTIFY THEIR TAMPERING AND YES! WHEN I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT A PERSON IS LYING, I CALL THAT PERSON ON THE FALSEHOODS BEING PROJECTED, AND WHEN A LIE IS BEING EXPOUNDED I CALL THE INDIVIDULE A LIAR WITH NO ANDS', IFS' OR BUTS'....THAT IS HOW I WAS BORN, HOW I LIVE AND HOW I SHALL DIE......and, it seems clear, a man with no shame.....WHAT IS THERE THAT I SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF SAYING OR DOING???? IS IT FOR INSISTING THAT THE CERTIFIED BIBLE ENTRY AND THE EASTLING AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PERJURED AND CONSEQUENTLY ARE "FILLED WITH ERRORS", IS IT FOR SPELLING A SURNAME USING THE EXACT SPELLING USED TO WRITE THE NAME BY THE PERSON WHO HAD THE SAME LAST NAME. PERHAPS IT IS THE LANGUAGE I HAVE USED IN MY POSTED RESPONSES. AS TO THE UNCALLED FOR LANGUAGE, I KNEW AS I WROTE IT THAT IT IS OBJECTIONABLE BUT WROTE IT ANYWAY BECAUSE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS OF ENDURING THE DIALOG THAT HAS BEEN DIRECTED TOWARD ME I WAS MERELY RESPONDING IN KIND TO THE TYPE OF RIDICULE AND LANGUAGE THAT I HAD BEEN SUBJECTED.

I am not Mr. Van Curen's mentor, but I would like to be yours.....AFTER READING THAT SENTENCE I THOUGHT I MAY HAVE USED MENTOR INCORRECTELY SO LOOKED IT UP IN THE DICTIONARY. QUOTING THE DICTIONARY - "A WISE LOYAL ADVISER - A TEACHER OR COACH". THE PRECEDING WAS COPIED FROM SECOND COLLEGE EDITION, NEW WORLD EDITION.I ASSURE YOU, I INTENDED NO INSULT TO YOURSELF. IF I INADVERTENTLY LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN MY USE OF MENTOR WAS IN EVERY SENSE OF THAT WORD THE DIFFINITION PROVIDED BY THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION I OFFER MY APOLOGY. I HAVE NEVER BELIEVED THAT YOU EVER DID RUN WITH THE SAME PACK AS MY ANTAGONIST AND IN THE HEAT OF A MOMENT WHICH I SHOULD NOT HAVE PERMITTED TO OCCUR MADE A COMMENT NOT JUSTIFIED FOR APPLICATION TO YOURSELF IN ANY MANNER. AGAIN I OFFER MY MOST SINCERE APOLOGY.MY INTENT HAD BEEN TO HONOR YOURSELF NOT ONE OF INSULT.

I WOULD WELCOME YOU AS A MENTOR IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD, HOWEVER, I AM UNCERTAIN AS TO YOUR INTENT WHEN YOU MADE THAT OFFER. I HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO RIDICULE AND SARCASM SO OFTEN DURING THE NEARLY TWO YEARS OF THE MARIA VAN SICLEN CONTROVERSY THAT MY INITIAL REACTION IS ALWAYS ONE OF SUSPICION AND CAUTION.

If you will accept this arrangement, my first suggestion is that you "stand down." I WOULD LIKE TO "STAND DOWN" AND ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS PRIOR TO BRINGING THE MARIA VAN SICLEN SUBJECT TO THE INTERNET, I TERMINATED THE DIALOG FOR A FEW MONTHS AT A TIME. THEN ONE DAY WHILE BROWSING THE GENEALOGY FORUMS I READ WHERE TWO UNRELATED LADIES HAD ADDED THE EASTLING VAN SICKLEN LINAGE TO THEIR GENEALOGIES. I IMMEDIATELY SENT THEM E-MAIL NOTIFYING THAT THE VAN SICKLEN CONNECTION WAS BASED ON FRAUDULENT ENTRIES WHEN COMPARED AGAINST THE CERTIFIED BIBLE ENTRIES AND AFFIDAVITS. I THEN POSTED THE DOCUMENTS I MENTIONED TO THE INTERNET AND EVERYONE READING THIS FORUM KNOWS "THE REST OF THE STORY." AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO DROP THE SUBJECT, I FEEL COMPELLED TO RESPOND WITH THE TRUTH MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO AT LEAST ALERT PEOPLE WHO INNOCENTELY ADD TO THEIR GENEALOGIES THE EASTLING LINKAGE AS READ IN THE VAN SICKLEN GENEALOGY. FRANKLY I COULD EVEN LIVE WITH THE FRAUDULENT VAN SICKLEN/EASTLING CONNECTION IF THE VAN SICKLEN GENEALOGY CONTAINED SOURCE FOOT NOTES ACKNOWLEDGING THAT NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS EXISTED THAT CONFLICT WITH THE VAN SICKLEN/EASTLING CONNECTION. PERHAPS YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND, EVEN AS HARD NOSED AS I APPEAR TO BE, I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT DIFFERENT INTERPETATIONS CAN BE PLACED ON OLD RECORDS BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. HOWEVER, MY POSITION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT IF AN OPPOSING INTERPRETATION IS PLACED ON AN EXISTING RECORD, THE SOURCE OF THE BASIS FOR A NEW INTERPRETATION SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUDED SO THAT RESEARCHERS IN YEARS TO COME CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHICH INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT.

My second suggestion is that you begin to study genealogy, quietly and to yourself......FRANKLY MY GOOD FRIEND THERE IS NOT MUCH TO STUDY IN GENEALOGY. THE BASIC CONCEPT IS THAT EITHER A PERSON GETS LUCKY AND UNCOVERS DOCUMENTS BEING SOUGHT OR REMAINS UNLUCKY AND FINDS NOTHING. AS FOR THE INTERRPETATION OF NAME SPELLING, I THINK THE WOMAN WHO WROTE QUITE SOME TIME BACK ON THIS FORUM ABOUT A BIBLE THAT SHE HAD THAT SPELLED HER FAMILY NAME SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS AND ALL IN THE SAME BIBLE. SHE SAID IT BEST. WHICH NAME DO I USE?

ABOUT ACCURACY OF HISTORICAL RECORDS - I AM CERTAIN YOU HAVE READ BOOKS WRITTEN BY SOUTHERN CIVIL WAR WRITERS DESCRIBING A BATTLE AND THEN READ BOOKS BY NORTHERN CIVIL WAR WRITERS DESCIBING THE SAME BATTLE - WERE IT NOT FOR THE NAMES OF THE COMMANDERS, THE READER MANY TIMES WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE THAT THE SAME BATTLE WAS BEING DESCRIBED, EVEN TWO MEN SIDE BY SIDE WILL DESCRIBE A FIRE FIGHT DIFFERENTLY. NEITHER IS LYING BUT WHO IS THE MORE CORRECT? IT IS WHO EVER THE READER CHOOSES TO BELIEVE. SO IT IS WITH GENEALOGY RESEARCH. I HAVE UNCOVERED RECORDED CIVIL BIRTH RECORDS THAT DISAGREED WITH THE BIRTH DATES CELEBRATED BY PERSON HIMSELF, I HAVE ENCOUNTERED FAMILY TRADITIONS THAT ARE CLEARLY NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT BUT WHEN PROPERLY INTERPRETED IT IS DISCOVERED THAT WHILE THE DATE AND EVENTS MAY BE TRADITIONALLY INCORRECT, A SINGLE FACT THAT HAS A FACTUAL BASIS WEAVES IT'S WAY THROUGH THE TRADITION, A GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER WHO TRADITION HAD IT FOUGHT AT BUNKER HILL DURING THE REVOLUTION BUT WHO IN REALITY WAS BORN NEARLY 20 YEARS AFTER THE REVOLUTION ENDED. TURNED OUT THAT THE MAN HAD ACTUALLY FOUGHT FOR THE BRITISH IN THE WAR OF 1812. THE SINGLE FACT WEAVING IT'S WAY THROUGH THE REVOLUTIONARY BUNKER HILL TRADITION IS THAT THIS MAN WAS A SOLDIER IN A WAR. NOW YOU CAN BELIEVE OR NOT AS YOU WILL - THE REVOLUTIONARY BUNKER HILL TRADITION WAS CONTAINED IN OLD LETTERS AND GENEALOGIES. WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT DURING ALL THE YEARS OF IT'S EXISTENCE NO ONE BOTHERED TO CHECK THE BIRTH DATE OF THE MAN AND THE DATE OF THE REVOLUTION. EVEN THAT IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND. THE REAL BIRTH DATE OF THE MAN HAD APPARENTLY BEEN LOST TOO LONG AGO TO REMEMBER AND WAS "ACCIDENTALLY" UNCOVERED BY AN ASSOCIATE RESEARCHER IN YEAR 2000. WRONG WAR, WRONG SIDE BUT YET A REAL FACT WAS CONTAINED WITHIN THE TRADITION, HE HAD BEEN A SOLDIER WHO HAD FOUGHT IN A WAR. CURIOUS THING ABOUT THE MARIA & CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN DIALOG. THE DEPONENTS IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS STATE THAT CORNELIUS VAN SICKLEN FOUGHT IN THE REVOLUTION FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK BUT NEVER MENTIONED IF CORNELIUS FOUGHT WITH THE BRITISH OR THE COLONISTS. BEING FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT SIDE HE FOUGHT ON. I SUSPECT MY ANTAGONIST HAS NOT YET CAUGHT UP WITH THAT SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT FACT. WE WHO READ THE AFFIDAVITS ARE LEFT TO BELIEVE WHAT WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE. WOULDN'T IT BE IRONICAL IF AT SOME FUTURE TIME IT IS DISCOVERED THAT I HAD TWO RELATIVES IN MY EASTLING/VAN SICLEN ANCESTRY WHO HAD FOUGHT FOR THE BRITISH IN THE REVOLUTION, ONE IN THE REVOLUTION AND ONE IN THE WAR OF 1812. PERHAPS THAT IS WHY MY ANTAGONIST CAN FIND NO COLONIST RECORDS SHOWING THAT CORNELIUS VAN SICKLEN WAS A REVOLUTIONARY VETERAN. WOULDN'T THAT BE IRONICAL? I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF ONE MAN WHO WAS A FULL YEAR YOUNGER THAN HE THOUGHT HE WAS THROUGH OUT HIS LIFETIME UP TO WHEN HE APPLIED FOR RETIREMENT. LETTERS AND AFFIDAVITS WERE REQUIRED FROM PEOPLE WHO RECALLED HIS BIRTH (JUST A COUPLE LEFT - MY FATHER). I KNOW THERE ARE NO CIVIL BIRTH AND OR DEATH RECORDS FOR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING MY GRANDPARENTS WHO WERE BORN IN 1875 AND 1885 RESPECTIVELY. I KNOW WHERE PEOPLE WERE BURIED AND THERE ARE NO GRAVE MARKERS OR ANY INDICATION THAT A BODY WAS EVER BURIED. MY AUNT WHO DIED A FEW DAYS AFTER BIRTH, BURIED ON THE FARM WITH AN UNCARVED STONE FOR A MARKER AND 60 YEARS LATER THE HILL ON WHICH SHE WAS BURIED WAS BULLDOZED LEVEL FOR FARM REQUIREMENTS. THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE FARM HAD NEVER KNOWN THEY LEVELED OUT GROUND CONTAINING A GRAVE. I HAD A GREAT AUNT DEAD NEARLY 50-60 YEARS NOW. I HAVE A DOCUMENT FROM THE INSTITUTION WHERE SHE LIVED AND DIED WHICH GIVES THE NAME OF THE CEMETERY IN WHICH SHE IS BURIED. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INDICATION OF ANY TYPE THAT THE LADY IS BURIED IN THAT CEMETERY INCLUDING THAT CEMETERY'S INDEX OF BURIALS. I KNOW OF FAMILY SURNAMES WHERE THE FATHER NAME ON HIS GRAVESTONE IS SPELLED ONE WAY, THE SONS SPELLED ANOTHER WAY AND A VARIATION OF SPELLING BETWEEN THOSE SONS. AGAIN MY OWN FAMILY BACKGROUND. I KNOW WHERE FARMS ARE LOCATED IN NORTHERN WISCONSIN WHICH WITH IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WERE RESURVEYED BECAUSE ERRORS IN THE ORIGINAL SURVEY HAD BEEN DISCOVERED IN LAND RECORDS.SO MUCH FOR THE UNEQUIVOCAL ACCURACY OF LAND RECORDS. SOME FARMERS LOST ACRES OTHERS GAINED.I HAVE READ ABOUT THE DESTRUCTION BY FIRE OF THOUSANDS OF WORLD WAR II VETERAN RECORDS. THE HIGHEST EDUCATION DEGREES THAT CAN BE GRANTED WILL NEVER UNCOVER THE BATTLES FOUGHT IN BY NOW DEAD VETERANS WHO'S RECORDS WERE DESTROYED BY FIRE. FOR MANY OF THOSE VETERANS STILL LIVING, THEY CAN'T EVEN PROVE THEIR WAR SERVICE WITHOUT FIRST BEING SUBJECT TO LABORIOUS EXCERCISES SEARCHING OUT, PEOPLE WHO KNEW THEM AND PROVIDING DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN LOST.

SO MUCH FOR-"study genealogy, quietly and to yourself". YOU ARE NO DOUBT FAMILIAR WITH THE EXPRESSIONS "NEVER CRITISIZE ANOTHER MANS LIMP UNTIL YOU HAVE FIRST WALKED IN HIS SHOES".

THIS HAS DRAGGED ON ALTOGETHER TOO LONG. IT WAS NOT WHAT YOU EXPECTED.

IN CLOSING, I REPEAT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GET OFF THE MARIA VAN SICLEN DIALOG BUT AS LONG AS THE DEPONENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS CONTINUE TO BE VANDALIZED AND DEBASED AND AS LONG AS THE CERTIFIED BIBLE ENTRIES OF MARIA CONTINUE TO FALSIFIED I WILL CONTINUE RESPONDING TO VAN CUREN.

AT LEAST UNTIL SUCH A TIME AS THE WEB MASTER CUTS ME OFF. I AM SURPRISED THAT IT HAS NOT ALREADY HAPPENED.

THANK YOU FOR WRITING....WHATEVER YOUR INTENT MAY HAVE BEEN...I WAS INTRIGUED BY WHATEVER THE MESSAGE WAS THAT YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO CONVEY.