Gosh, I did not put myself in the category of "refusing to see the merit of various Abercrombie posts."Must seem frustrating with all of us coming in and randomly picking at your information!
I think I'm more along the line of "which of the 250 posts do I read, which one comes first, replaces which, and trying to figure out why my tree has some of this one and some of that one!"
I suppose if I put the wine glass down I might move a little faster (just kidding)!I thought I had it down, and now I see I missed a whole string of comments because of the way the onversations tiered on the list.Not used to GENform.
Fragmented messages that jump from person to person and state to state in a non-linear fashion fry my poor little ADHD brain that normally works quite well at wharp speed.But this takes a little slowing down and almost drawing pictures.LIterally, I will have to try to write columns with names, dates, DOB, marriages, etc, so I can sort out from the way its written here.Cant comprehend commpeting theories and marriages in paragraph style.My DNA disabiity - requirement to put things in a specific order to help me make sense of teh same information
I suppose your frustration is that I restated a set of grandparents you believe you had proved were not connected. I did not see that informatoin unil after I sent inqury.Too many trails to follow.
Forget the wine, give me a magarita.This takes serious concentratoin, followed closely by dancing on the table tocelebrate closure of this 5 year mystery.
So, who is going back to the old country to verify all of this theory?Anybody?I have ancestry.com but did not purchase the Canada and England package for another $100 or $200.... so my research stops at the border.
Sheri Lee texas ------------------------- Thank you for your kind comments. Unfortunately, some refuse to see the merit of various of my Abercrombie posts. See my GenForum post #1565...Marriages of James Abercrombie (1740-1819). Thanks. Tony Schoonover