Tony,I have read most of your posts and when I read oldest to newest I found some that, in my opinion, need more than a "strong probability" to be considered proof.Going back to post #1375 20 Oct 2007 you first state "I am VERY confident in my Abercrombie conclusions".I totally agree that the colonial Abercrombies of Laurens Co SC are NOT directly descended from James (1668) and Mary (Gordon) Abercromby (with a Y). Those that have simply copied and pasted these parents into their trees are simply collectors.Where I am asking for primary proofs such as marriage records, etc arises with post #1370 dtd 11 Oct 2007.You state "There is a strong probability the greater James Abercrombie family of Laurens, SC first migrated from the NJ/Maryland/PA tri-state area, then generally south to NC/SC...with later generations on to GA and Alabama." Please note that James Abercrombie, a contributor to this site, in his reply (msg #1376) asks you for proof regarding you CLAIM regarding the NJ and PA connection, but in your reply #1377 instead of citing primary sources you state "It is difficult to answer your general inquiry in a few short paragraphs" and "See Lancaster, PA historical records".Are these records online or do you expect us to travel to PA to obtain the "proofs" you already have?In my almost 30 years of research I have always been willing to share any proofs I have found. Now will you??Sorry not done.... Moving forward in regards to post #1395 6 Nov 2007 you state "I am of the opinion James had at least two additional sons...Thomas (who died young) and Colvill." I agree regarding Colvill, but Thomas? Is this your assumption since you claim Thomas of NJ is an ancestor?In this post you also state "the first son of James Abercrombie would have been names most likely after this father" but in post #1396 you state "the greater Abromcrombie Family generally named a first born son after the paternal grandfather" then go on assuming John (1736) was a first born son and that his father and grandfather were both named John.Here is where I am totally confused if John (1736) was a son of James (b abt 1709).In post #1676 you are back to the given name of James (1740) father being James since James (1740) named his first son James. IF John(1736) and James (1740) were brothers, which I agree with, in your opinion did they use different naming patterns and we are still no closer to determining who the father was of our James (b abt 1709)?
Hopefully you will directly address the above and not make references to previous posts without including the number.