Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
"Doug wrote - This is so "EDDY". Clearly displayed is the same logic you use in every off-the-wall claim you make, from the exact spelling nonsense to your belief that people do not make mistakes or tell untruths under oath. First you say I am wrong...that the affadavits are not part of the contents of the DAR file....then you say they are. so, which is it? Are they or aren't they.
Gusman - Quoting WHAT DOUG WROTE. "The AFFIDAVITS WERE INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION and are a part of the "CONTENTS" of the DAR file."
Gusman what I wrote - Wrong again!. The application was submitted eight months prior to the Affidavits. The affidavits were not included with the application until nearly a year after the application had been submitted.
Expanding on Doug's quotation - "The AFFIDAVITS WERE INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICATION ..."
I replied with "The application was submitted eight months prior to the Affidavits..." I guess I should have added -and NOT with the affidavits.
Quoting Doug again - "First you say I am wrong...that the affadavits are not part of the contents of the DAR file....then you say they are. so, which is it? Are they or aren't they."
My comment that "The application was submitted eight months prior to the Affidavits..." makes it very clear that the affidavits were not submitted with the original application and therefore was not part of the DAR application file.
The affidavits in themselves became a new file eight months later. Only after DAR headquarters approved the affidavits as the basis of Violetta's membership request and the affidavits were filed, then the affidavits and the application because one larger combined file for Violetta.
Doug's problem is that he messed up when he failed to read the notaries date on the application and the creation dates on the three affidavits. That is why in another of his rushes to judgment before researching the facts he stated - "The affadavits were included with the application..."
The post to which I am responding is a classic example of the absurdity of these on going dialog's. Rather than providing evidence supporting Dougs allegations that Affidavit Cornelius was NOT a Revolutionary Veteran, he hypocritically applies exact spelling standards for affidavit Cornelius to the Veteran Records and at no other time, in order that Doug and Richard can to support their allegations that Affidavit Cornelius is not in the records.
Doug continues NOT to be able to answer why Violetta would include the name of her grandmother on her application when no name was required.
Dough cannot explain why Violetta would write any name but the name of the great grandmother she had heard from her mother Fanny and uncle Ferdinand througout her life, whatever that name may have been, as opposed to Violetta allegedly conspiring with her mother and uncle to create a ficticious name.
If the great grandmothers name. which was the name of affidavit Cornelius's wife that Violetta had grown up hearing had been Hannah then Violetta would have written Hannah, if Annetje then Annetje would be on the application. The presence of Catherine Johnson on the affidavit is unequivocal proof that Catherine Johnson was the name Violetta had grown up hearing.
Ed
Notify Administrator about this message?
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/eastling/messages/18.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|