Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Dave
I have read her book, her article, and I read the James Forum when I get a chance. I merely stated that I am trying to see Betty's point. Betty is the one who states there is new information and "obvious" proof. I haven't seen it yet.
I use my initials on my posts. It is ach. It is not Arch. Are you so petty that you will even attack and misspell someones name because you have a different opinion? I have my eyes wide open and I am trying to see Betty's point. I have tried many ways to look at Betty's point of view.
There is a faction on the Forum and evidently you are apart of that group that instead of helping someone to understand the information Betty has presented in a kind and intelligent way you resort to name calling and insult to get a point across. I am not impressed and I don't believe others are either. Where is all of this brilliant information Dave? There was nothing new in the article and there is no proof of JLC's association with anyone as the diary was not printed. Betty read it and told about it. What kind of proof is that? First names on some, last names on others, initials for other.
Which is it Dave? Is JLC and confederate *Betty says he is. Or is he an Ex Union soldier. Or is he a deserter.
I think JLC may have been an outlaw, but I don't see any proof that he is Jesse James. Not in the pictures, not in the stories about the diaries. Print the diaries in their entirity and that would be somewhat better than just saying Betty read a diary. Betty said the diary is Jesse James. Betty said JLC said he was JWJ and this makes it so. Why are you so disturbed that others want more proof than what is offered?
Spewing venom is not going to open anyones eyes but it certainly will close those that are open.
ach
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/james/messages/6757.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|