Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
-
In reply to:
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Richard Rifenbark 6/11/07
Rick,
The Rifenbarks with whom I've reviewed this issue and I belive Debra's message is indicative of the larger Van Gilder problem of refusing to accept responsibility for wrong doing.The Van Gilders, for the most part, can't be faulted for the quality of their stock.The stain Adam's murder left on their pedigree is beyond their control.However, what they can do is accept responsibility for the 251 years of silence and apologize for John Van Gilder's hate crime.
I trust I speak for all of Adam's ancestors.
- Jack Rifenbark
More Replies:
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Richard Rifenbark 6/11/07
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Jack Rifenbark 6/11/07
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Richard Rifenbark 6/14/07
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Jack Rifenbark 6/21/07
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
John Van Gelder 6/25/07
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
helaina yerry 6/25/10
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Jack Rifenbark 6/27/10
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Fred Van Guilder 5/22/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Jack Rifenbark 5/22/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Fred Van Guilder 5/22/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Debra Winchell 10/28/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Jack Rifenbark 5/22/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Debra Winchell 10/28/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Debra Winchell 10/28/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
Debra Winchell 10/28/12
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758
-
Re: John Van Gilder 1698 1758