Richard stated <I understood what Doug was doing and IT WAS NOT LYING.>
Gusman - What was Doug doing? Please explain.
As to Van Curen not lying - I provide the Dictionary definition of "lie": (1) To make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive (2) A false statement or action, esp. one made with intent to deceive.
Not really very difficult to understand - would you agree!
For your review I have included herein for comparison the statements by Van Curen and from Violetta's 1924 letter.
"Van Curen - 12 year old Maria meets Luther, a Canadian soldier serving the British, on a trip from Canada to New York Harbor (from a family letter relating the story of how the couple met)
From Violetta's 1924 letter - It was his pride that he had sailed into every port on the globe and had rounded Cape horn twice. It was on a trip entering New York Harbor he met Maria Van Sickle or Sicklen as it is sometimes spelled his future wife. This is all I could find out about him."
Gusman - Well Richard, I submit that Van Curen's version of what Violetta wrote is by dictionary standards, a deliberate lie.
While you are at it, why don't you could include your in depth version of - "what Doug was doing".
Richard <Now, let's all get back to genealogy>
Gusman - Violetta's 1924 letter is "genealogy". The letter is a historical document; part of the Eastling ancestral documents and qualifies as genealogical source data.
Richard <I believe that Doug is a good and thorough genealogist who well understands his topic>
Gusman - Apparently I was so naive that I at one time actually believed that two character traits inherent to a genealogist were integrity and ethics. I always believed that a genealogist was a person who dealt with facts and not in speculation, did not tamper with historical records without first providing and including source data for conflicting evidence. If you want evidence about "genealogy" as practiced by Van Curen, review the sum total of his face value evidence, after all of his speculations have been stripped away.
You apparently endorse Van Curen's tampered, distorted and convoluted version of the Luther & Maria initial meeting, you appear to support his version of the marriage of Maria Van Sicklen to Luther, without supporting documentation whatsoever, his version that there is no merit or value in legal documents called affidavits. Last but by no means least you appear to see nothing wrong with Van Curen attaching Eastling's to the Van Curen genealogy with an 1824 marriage (which he has since changed back to 1814), three missing children and a marriage between Luther and Mari Van Sicklen based solely on Van Curen's speculation without authenticated evidence, an attachment which he made merely because he believed it would irritate myself - ignore the ramifications of the effect Van Curen's fraudulent entry's could do to those seeking accurate data about Eastlings or Van Sicklen's.
Van Curen is your version of a "genealogist" you are welcome to keep it. As for me I prefer to continue in my naive belief that genuine, bonafide genealogists are people with integrity and ethics mandated by their profession, neither of which was displayed by Van Curen's latest fabrication of the Luther and Maria initial meeting, his on going vilification and assassination of the deponents characters and integrity, his failure to research the membership requirements of the DAR application as it pertained to non-blood line relationships,his tampering with historical affidavits historical letters, etc. etc.
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|