I try hard not to post a chain of bickering at the Gen Forum.I have to make an exception this time.
Go back to the first message in this change of messages.It is posted by me.I state that I was looking to connect with descendants of Robert Allen, Jr., and Jane Turk (1749-1845).I said that Robert Allen, Jr., died in Augusta Co., VA in 1788.I said that the widow, Jane (Turk) Allen moved to Cumberland Co., KY with her 11 children about 1798.
The next post in the sequence was by Marian R. Cawthorn who descended from Robert Allen, Jr., and Jane Turk through their eldest son, Robert Allen, III.
The next message in the sequence is the first message from Sue Chappell.She says that she was told that this same Jane Allen married Hugh Allen and was trying to verify what support there was to the assertion that Jane Allen married Robert Allen, Jr.She was not asserting that Marian or I were wrong.She was asking us to prove what she had been told was wrong if we could.Nothing to take offense at with Sue's posting.
I responded to Sue.Sue gave no references about the specific Hugh Allen she was speaking.Since there had never been any controversy before that Robert Allen, Jr., married Jane Turk, immediately through of Hugh Allen that married Jane Anderson and suggested that there may have been a confusion between Janes.I didn't stop there.I explained that I could not prove this be a direct marriage record, but I listed a lot of evidence that strongly suggested that Jane Turk married my Robert Allen, Jr.
Sue responded to my message agreeing that I had set forth a pretty strong case to support the fact the Jane Turk married Robert Allen, Jr.
You read my message to Sue, along with the list of evidence supporting my assertion that Robert Allen, Jr., married Jane Turk and responded that same day Sue responded.You also responded for Sue Chappell saying that she was not referring to the Hugh Allen who married Jane Anderson as I supposed.Speaking for Sue, you said the was referring to Hugh Allen, son of Malcolm Allen.
You then said that according to Emma Suggin's book published in 1918 (great-granddaughter of James Allen and Margaret Anderson) "HUGH ALLEN , m. JANE TURK, (dau.of THOMAS TURK); who after his death she m. WILLIAM CRAIG."
Without acknowledging that you were in any moved by the long list of supporting documentation that I posted with my reply to Sue support that marriage of Jane Turk, daughter of Thomas Turk, to my Robert Allen, Jr., of even that it now appeared controversial to you, you blindly accepted the conclusions in Emma Suggin's book by saying - "The above information given by Mr. Pyle for the spouses and where they had settled, have so far proved to be correct. Except for a couple of them I have not found record of yet. The marriage of Hugh to Jane Turk being one.... But I think Mr. Pyle had to have had an Uncle that married Jane Turk, or he would not have known that name, or her fathers names."This decision to blindly follow hearsay on hearsay in a book published in 1918, a refusal to express you willing to give any weight to my long list of more direct sources, was objectively irresponsible.It was insulting to my 26 years of diligent genealogy research on my namesake.
At this point I responded to you asking you to send me competing primary sources to the list of primary sources I had provided to support the yet-to-be documented allegation that Hugh Allen married Jane Turk, daughter of Thomas Turk or that any Hugh Allen married a Turk woman in the time period we were discussing.In my opinion, there was nothing more to discuss on the topic and no without some competing primary source proof to back you your blind faith in this undocumented book.
The next posting by you says - "I am not, at this point saying who is right or wrong. I am asking questions.I think I even said that I thought there were some errors in Mrs. Whites book. However there is a lot of correct information in there, so I am curious to investigate what she reported. You might want to read it for yourself.The fact that her book deals with only familys that she is descended from makes me think that she spent a bit of time researching."Again you are giving way to much weight to this undocumented book and saying that it is good enough for you and should be good enough for me to question my assertion that Robert Allen, Jr., married Jane Turk.You did not bother to respond with on primary source to back up your undocumented belief.
At this point I initiated direct e-mail as I did not believe that our bickering should be posted any more at the Gen Forum.There was nothing nasty about my e-mail. I did say I felt you approach to this issue was irresponsible and again demanded any primary source documentation to back up your belief.
You did spend some more time looking into the issue and you found some evidence to cause you to distrust the information in the book that Hugh Allen married Jane Turk and you decided to post your finding.I am relieved that there is no longer an attach on what I believe is my correct genealogical connection with Jane Turk, daughter of Thomas Turk of Augusta Co., VA.You also took the time to leave a message for everybody to read that leaves them wondering how nasty I may have been in my private e-mail to you.I do not appreciate this part of your public posting.If you think I was abusive to you, report me to the Gen Forum abuse section.
YOU NEVER MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU WERE EVER TRYING TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION IN THE BOOK WRONG THAT HUGH ALLEN MARRIED JANE TURK as you claim in you last message.You were making it clear that you believed it the Hugh Allen - Jane Turk connection was correct and suggested that I was wrong and should be the one doing further investigation.I am willing to look at "new evidence" to prove my assumed genealogy wrong.The book was not new evidence to me.You were giving me no new evidence.You were ignoring a volume of evidence against your belief and indicating that you were prepared to continue to blindly follow what you have not proved to be an incorrect belief.In this respect, I am happy that I was an inspiration to you to seek and find the truth.
You say your wanted to push the issue of Hugh Allen marrying Jane Turk (while hiding you true desire to disprove the allegation) as a tactic to pull out what I had to prove my belief, sort of like Pavlov's dog.That is a sort of manipulation that I do not appreciate.