Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: VanSickle Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Van Curen are we being flim flamd
Posted by: Zulu Date: June 26, 2001 at 17:17:52
In Reply to: Re: Van Curen are we being flim flamd by Van of 1585

I apologize to David Van Sickle for what I am about to say but this has to be said.

Van has written "Gusman....can't even establish where he got the notion of the VAN SICLEN exact spelling from".

I too read the Maria Van Siclen/Van Siclin Bible entry where Maria calls her father Van Siclen and also the remaining two affidavits of Fanny and Ferdinand who also talk about Van Siclen.

I have to agree with whoever called D.G. Van Curen a liar that he indeed lies when he writes that "Gusman....can't even establish where he got the notion of the VAN SICLEN exact spelling from". Mr. D.G. Van Curen is the perfect representative of the classical liar.

Readers, take a second look at the certified bible entry and the affidavits and determine for yourself if Ed Gusman has not established "where he got the notion of the VAN SICLEN exact spelling from". Van Curen's lie is immediately apparent in it's sufficating stupidity written in front of millions of readers of the forum.

I regret the need for responding to a correspondent such as Van Curen, who has brought this forum to the deplorable level that Van Curen has placed it with all of his ongoing lies, innuendo, and exagerations.

Where is the innuendo and exageration. Read again the Violetta Voorhees 1924 letter, count the number of times that Van Sickle is mentioned and the number of times Van Sicklen is mentioned, once. When you finish read again how Van Curen refers to the use of Van Sicklen by Violetta in her 1924 letter. That is innunedo implying that because the Van Sicklen name appeared a single time in the 1924 letter, the Van Sicklen name is the correct name of Maria.

Van Curen insults the intelligence of every researcher to this forum. It is a mystery how Van Curen has the gall to place on this forum in front of potentially millions of readers, some of the things he has said.

How about this one. Van Curen writes that the bible entry "Luther Eastling married Maria Van Siclen, July 22 1814" " NOT repeat Not a marriage record". Maria Van Siclin if you prefer,they are both the same,

Dave, do you remain convinced that Van Curen is the picture of integrity after being forced to admit that he has no record of marriage for Maria Van Sicklen; after writing that Maria's bible entry "is NOT, repeat is NOT a record of the marriage of Luther to Maria Van Siclen". Any thoughts about my response to Van Curen's comment that "Gusman doesn't have a notion where he got the exact spelling for Van Siclen from".

Did you catch in one of Van Curen's postings how he named three women, Lawson, Lassen, Lossing married to one man Cornelius Van Sicklen, at the same time. Neat trick using the alias indicator, aka, to make his comment appear to be one woman with three different alias's. Why do you suppose he needed three different names? I'll tell you why, He doesn't know who the real mother of Maria Van Siclin/Siclen really is and he figures if he lays down enough smoke he will direct a readers attention away from the affidavits. After I read the names of Lawson, Lassen and Lossing, I decided that Van Curen has no real evidence about who the mother of Maria Van Sicklen or Maria Van Siclin/Siclen really is. His writings are all huff and puff, no substance. The affidavits name the mother of Maria Van Siclen/Siclin as Catherine Johnson.


Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Agreement of Use
Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network