Big changes have come to Genealogy.com — 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: Flim Flammers all
Posted by: caesare7 Date: June 29, 2001 at 10:33:56
In Reply to: Flim Flammers all by David Van Sickle of 1585

I will no longer respond to Van Curen posts, regardless of his choice of words. However, your choice of "juvenile" requires a response by myself and a reiteration as to what the Van Curen/Gusman debate was about. A point which you appear to have missed.

To David Van Sickle quoting yourself "I have no position, no opinion, no ax to grind. Give it a rest. Let the rest of us who use this form have it back."

You just wrote your position, voiced an opinion and are now grinding your ax.

The on going discussions about flim flaming didn't prevent anyone from posting inquiries for subjects not related to flim flaming. Your comment "...let the rest of us who use this form have it back" has a touch of the melodramatic about it...don't you agree?

No one forces you to read any message appearing on this or any forum. Your motivations for opening a posting are your own. Next time you see the names of the correspondents and or the subject flim flaming don't open the posts. Your solution is simplicity itself.

It was you who suggested Van Curen produce original documents. You now know your buddy Van Curen doesn't have and can't produce an original anything about Luther's marriage to a Maria Van Sicklen. Suddenly you want to end the dialog? Did you really believe Van Curen had anything original?

David Van Sickle said "The level of discourse, esp. from the anti-Van Curen side, is juvenile and unworthy of this form." That comment by yourself sounds as though it was written by Van Curen himself or after exchanging mail with him.

The forum accomplishes several functions. It is a medium where people can post requests for assistance in all areas of genealogy.

It is also a medium where various genealogy records can be exposed as either containing inadvertent errors or outright fraud. Individuals, in addition to myself, have previously posted exposures of inadvertent error and outright fraud in existing genealogies. I refer you to post 335 as one example illustrating a reference to errors in a lineage.

My posting of the Certification copy of Maria's bible entry is an exposure of an intentionally fraudulent entry in the Van Sicklen genealogy wherein Luther Eastling is shown married to Maria Van Sicklen, a marriage date has been falsified, falsification of a surname has occurred and the recorded birth of three children has been covered up.

It is Van Curen who created the issue of Maria Van Sicklen and based his allegations on nothing more than his subjective reasoning without documented evidence of any type whatsoever as to a marriage between Luther and Maria Van Sicklen.

Why don't you comment about the real and single issue involved in the Gusman/Van Curen debate? Van Curen's undocumented link between the Eastling and Van Sicklen lineage in Van Curen's genealogy.

Question. Why do you "discourse" only about the "anti-Van Curen side"? Why don't you comment about Van Curen's missing original marriage record document or source for same, a record that could prove the Bible entry was wrong. Why don't you comment about falsified names by Van Curen, including altered dates by Van Curen and the dropping of 3 children by Van Curen from the Luther family when their recorded births appear in Maria's bible entry.

Those are the REAL ISSUES.Issues which you have intentionally ignored after you discovered that Van Curen can't provide evidence of original documentation. It was your suggestion that Van Curen should post original documents. He has admitted he can't but you don't consider that important?

Who is the more "juvenile"? People who expose the falsification of existing records and do so with legal documents?

Or peope who refer to those committed to the exposure of falsified records as "juvenile".

Your comments reveal a disturbing inability to comprehend the significance of tampering with historical documents when there is no documented evidence to support the alteration of historical events.

I could cite a factual tampering with a historical original church record which had the name of a Cornelius Van Sickle changed to Cornelius Van Sicklen, and which had both a wifes name and child added to the genealogy record as a wife and son of the altered Van Sickle to Van Sicklen name. Neither a wife or a child for Cornelius Van Sickle appeared in the original church record.The child which didn't exist in the church record was even provided with a sex in the genealogy record. I have a copy of the original hand written church record and the genealogy in which the falsification of the Van Sickle to Van Sicklen name occurred. However I will not post that evidence of fraud because it has no connection with the Eastling/Van Siclen/Van Sicklen debate. I also have two copies of what was sent to me as being identical copies of a will. Unfortunatly the sender really messed himself up on that one. In one of the alleged identical wills a beneficiary was given a surname, in the other "identical will" the same beneficiary has no surname. Which of the alleged identical wills is the correct will? Both wills were received from the same person!

You also appear to have forgotten what you said about character assignation and words to that effect in your first posting about flim flaming. Your reference to dissenting opinions by the "anti-Van Curen" element as "juvenile" is no less a type of character assignation than calling someone a liar. Do we have a case of the dog returning to it's own vomit?

I point out to you, that it was only after a great deal of pro and con commentaries that Van Curen was finally forced to reveal that he has no original documents about the Luther Eastling marriage to a Maria Van Sicklen. If those commentaries had been choked off by people like yourself or the Web Master of this forum, readers of the forum would not know from Maria's bible entry that Van Curen deleted from the Luther family, the births of three children recorded in Maria's bible, we would never have known there existed a legal certified bible entry about Luther marrying Maria Van Siclen or legal affidavits, we would never have known that the Luther family is connected with the Van Siclen lineage and not Van Sicklen.

You understand that I have read the Van Sicklen genealogy created by Van Curen and no place could I find a record showing a source for an alternate theory or documents that would clash with Van Curen's presentation of his version of the Luther Maria Van Sicklen marriage. Van Curen does not reveal the existance of such documents.

My suggestion to you is that in the future, before using put down words such as "juvenile", you first contact both parties to a discussion such as you have witnessed and receive complete details of the debate from both parities.

I happen to support Certifications and affidavits as very valuable legal documents. I also believe that until those types of documents can be proven to contain errors, they must be accepted as factual and correct. It is easy to say those types of documents are filled with errors. It is quite another thing to produce evidence establishing the presence of the claimed errors.


Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/596.html
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