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: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: December 06, 2002 at 00:23:27
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusman of 1585

Dear Ed,

Since you say, "I maybe that 'thick' I may not be who knows. Unlike yourself I take nothing for grantit and believe no one, most especially when it relates to genealogy and you and you buddy, until evidence is presented supporting the allegations... ,"

...I must take it it that you will at least believe yourself. Therefore, do some doggone research yourself, man, or leave us alone.

In truth, I am very secure about my research and my research techniques (which are hardly new to serious researchers). I enjoy some recognition among modern New York Dutch family genealogists (I am cited, for instance, several times in New York Genealogical & Biographical Society's quarterly magazine, The Record. In a recent issue, for instance, my work was cited twice--in two different and separate family write-ups).

You, on the other hand, have claimed some sort of confirmation of your notions through the research of unnamed foreign 'gurus.' These persons you will not name and will not put in touch with us, because you do not trust me?

It is rare that I ask any genuinely interested researcher to trust me. Rather, I ask that they use that which I may provide from my research (which, here, includes the research of Doug VC and is subserviant to his, as regards your family). Like Doug, I really only engage you here as a way to inform those who may just now be interested in family research on what not to do, how not to do it and why one should not do it.

Doug has made it very clear that the reliance on family lore and self-defined ancestry is entirely suspect. He is entirely correct in this approach. You, on the other hand, find every excuse, real or imagined, to try to make something of those legends and memories. These are antithetical to proper genealogical research.

In your case, flat-out poisonous.

You cannot be more wrong in your approach, nor more wrong in your conclusions. And, it is clear from all of your posts over time, more wrong in how you came to be where your are--which is where you have been from the beginning.

You would trust Violetta Voorhees-who had a clear agenda--over practiced and recognized genealogists, who had no investment here except to make sure that the genalogy is both right and documented.

With or without your request, an Eastling (exact spelling) GenForum has now opened. Why not head over there with all of your meanderings and leave the serious researchers of descendants of Ferdinandus^1 Van Sichelaer to their deliberations here?

(It goes without saying, of course, that I will be monitoring The Eastling GenForum, so there will be no free ride for your proudly self-described ignorance.)

Yours,

Cousin Richard



Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/979.html
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

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