Richard wrote - "How about with this...which post-Revolutionary families removed from the US to Canada who were not traitors to the American cause?"
Gusman - I haven't the faintest knowledge of which Colonial families moved from the U.S. to Canada or when they moved. Why don't you tell me who they were!
Richard wrote - "Is it your idea that such staunch Patriots would leave their fertile homeplaces for unplowed, cold, and unneighborly climes as Canada?"
Gusman - I don't pretend to be omniscient therefore I do not know the myrid reasons why people leave their home nation for another nation.
Richard wrote - "Oh, that's right, you have now tried to cover yourself with some sort of diversion about other possible families from outside the Ferdinandus^1 VS progeny. How weak. Your actual family has already been presented here."
Gusman - No conclusive evidence has been presented that the affidavit Van Siclen family is connected with any lineage known to Doug or yourself. Currently it is equally possible that the affidavit family may be linked to an unknown lineage. You and Doug cannot show who the father of the affidavit Van Siclen really was. You speculate and allege but neither are conclusive evidence of anything.
Richard wrote - "Not only have you no grasp of genealogy, you have not the slightest foothold on history"
Gusman - Is that comment supposed to be an insult or sarcasm? In either case - present your evidence which will prove that I do not have whatever it may be that you refer to.
Richard wrote - "I will say it again. Van Curen and I have been entirely generous of our time where your family is concerned. But, we are not here to do your research for you."
Gusman - Neither you or Doug have provided a single shred of valid data for the Van Siclen side of my family. All that has been provided is unproveable allegations leading to no place. I would prefer that both you and Doug would be less than "entirely generous of our time where your family is concerned". I have never asked for Doug's assistance beginning two years ago with our initial correspondence. I sent him some Eastling data and Doug took it on himself to attempt to merge the affidavit Van Siclen family into his lineage.
Richard wrote - If you want a photo of the plaque on the gate of the Van Sicklen Cemetery in Brighton, or photos of the headstones there, go get them and report back.
Gusman - Doug was good enough to provide a WEB address to his posted pictures and genealogy for which I am quite appreciative. You can review his posting if you care to bring yourself up to speed about the photos and his genealogy.
Richard wrote - "PS--What is this bull-hockey about portraits and photos? Are you reduced to making this up as you go along?"
Gusman - As I said - even a poor poker player doesn't reveal the hand he is holding until the hand is over.......you go on believing that I am running a bluff. As to my "making this up as you go along". I know of no reason that I should refrain from joining researchers like Doug and yourself who create fantastic linkages from coincedental birth dates and aks's and attempt to destroy the character of deponents dead over 75 years.
I have been wondering - do you think that a court would hear a character assination lawsuit filed by a great great grandson on behalf of deponents dead for about 75 years. Deponents who's character the defendant has denigrated and who's notarized testimony has been slandered and intentionally altered. The plantiff can prove from a published genealogy that the published genealogy contains parts of the altered sworn deponent testimony? You have an opinion?
Now that I have answered every paragraph that you have written why don't you just once grant me the identical courtesy by answering the questions I asked about how you would prove that a Revolutionary Veteran IS NOT listed in the Revolutionary files considering the variant spellings practiced in the 16th and 17th century.
How do you explain the absence of Doug's alleged grandmother's name Annetje Lawson, in the affidavits and on the DAR application, who if she had been the genuine grandmother, would have been known to the deponents for 31 and 40 years respectively and who if the alleged Annetje had been their grandmother would have personally been known to the deponents for 11 and 20 years respectively during which time the deponents would have walked, talked and probably visited with and at times lived with her during the lifetime of the alleged grandmother. Doug's only answer is that the deponents had "faded memories". Of course Doug cannot provide medical evidence or testimony of the deponents friends which would prove his allegations about faded memories.
You function like a mirror image of Doug - when he doesn't know how to answer a question I have asked Doug, without fail in his follow up response, never refers to the question I asked and in an effort to divert the readers attention from the posted questions, brings up a different subject or goes into a rhetoric discourse about anything unrelated to the asked question.
That is exactly what you did in your latest post to which I respond with my current post.