> Only about 2% of my information comes from internet sources.
From what I've seen of one or two of your posts here, that 2 percent is quite wrong and highly misleading.
> I would also like to bring THIS to your attention:
My goodness, me. How dare I take the information YOU had personally given me, combine it with census, marriage records, and other publicly available data and post the results on the internet??
True, I did not cite you as a source, since to do so would have revealed your street address because RootsWeb's upload software does not, in fact, completely fulfill all it promises and occasionally living people's data is not suppressed.
I did, however, cite all the remaining sources. Perhaps I should go back thru that portion of my database and make sure I've also properly cited you, and re-upload?? Of course, proper citation of you as a source would necessarily include your street address, so you must decide if it's worth the risk.
> I ask you, PLEASE, to remove it; it will only serve to confound and otherwise mislead other researchers.
And your mistaken belief of an unproven descent from David and Christina (Forney) Abernathy won't confuse and mislead other researchers??
I cannot even get people to remove the error from their databases that shows my death!
How do you expect me to fix your relatives' mistakes?
If, that is, the individual(s) who submitted full birth and death data on your Abernathys to the LDS site were, in fact, your close relatives?
That certainly wasn't the case with the individual who uploaded to the LDS site the erroneous data showing my death, as well as my birth a good decade before my parents ever met AND in a city that I never set foot in until I was in college! So it's entirely possible that this isn't the case here, either.
Dreadfully sorry, buster, but an unpalatable fact of life is that marriage data, birth and death information is a matter of public record, and there is no law prohibiting anybody from indulging in research directed at discovering anyone else's family tree.
Interesting divertisments aside, the essence of the matter remains as it has from the very beginning, several years ago.
No insult, Otis, just what I see as truth: you STILL have not even _begun_ to demonstrate that David and Christina did, in fact, have a son named David.
Frankly, I don't believe you will ever be able to do so.