Direct to Douglas Van Curen in response to his post Oct 24 2002 20:49:14 with information to Mr. McCool.
Am I the only person who will respond to you?
Is it because you are so devoid of friends and lonesome that you keep returning? I know of no other reason, because you have not presented a single Certified record which would prove a single allegation that you have made. So why do you continue the argument when you know you have no evidence supporting you allegations.
I am compelled to continue responding in order to refute your on going allegations which could lead people away from the truth of the affidavits & Bible transcripts. Believe me - nothing would make me happier than to never see another posting by yourself.
If your character is as obnoxious as your postings indicate, it is understandable why you have no friends to divert you from genealogy!
Are you so devoid of friends or hobbies that you need to keep up a correspondence by continuing to look for new ways to wriggle out of admitting that you have no valid evidence which would prove the affidavits are wrong in order that you can continue the Siclen/Sicklen/affidavit dialog with myself”. I have told you that I don’t want to hear from you again - yet you continue merrily along writing essentially nothing meaningful and nothing for which you have evidence to support the allegations in which you indulge yourself.
If you are so convinced that mothers do not pass information on to their children about the children’s grandparents where is your evidence to prove your allegations? Ordinary common sense should tell you that is how information is passed from generation to generation.
We must have read a couple of dozen times how you allege that Violetta created the name Catherine Johnson - but we have our first time to read whatever evidence you have that would PROVE Violetta created a fictitious name such as Catherine Johnson. You have no evidence to support your allegation but that doesn’t slow you down or bring you around to exercising common sense - of which you appear to possess very little.
You used to write the same allegations about the Van Siclen appearing in the affidavits and Bible transcriptions until a Van Siclen marker suddenly appeared.
Interesting isn’t it odd how you harangue about a subject - then you are proven wrong - no apology from you -and you at tempt to divert to another subject.Best examples to date are your allegations about a marriage between Maria Van Sicklen and Luther which you couldn’t prove and after discovery of the Brighton Cemeter marker was forced to admit that it was Maria Van SICLEN and Luther who were married. Again no apology.
Next was your poorly undertaken research about what you perceived to be an incorrectly spelled Van SICKLEN, going to the extent of researching Revolutionary Van Sicklen’s, it mattered not to you that the Van Sicklen name had never appeared in the affidavits, the Bible translation or Violetta’s DAR application and at no other time or place. You alleged Van Sicklen was correct for the Eastlling lineage, and then you failed to prove your allegation for which proof should have been so easy to find if your allegations had been true.Someone finally flamed you with the Brighton Cemetery marker concerning the Van Siclen spelling.
Then you engaged in a continuing farcical display of puffery, egotism and error.
Since youlost the argument on the spelling of Van Siclen in the affidavits, now your big thing is your allegation that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran and Catherine Johnson was not a real person - neither of which you can prove with documentary evidence but you continue to resort to unprovable rampant speculation.A sane and rational person with just a small amount of common sense would realize and accept as fact that if the deponents knew the name Van Siclen, they also would know that the events of which they wrote were true. The sane and rational person would also recognize that people who use a spelling different than a spelling already submitted for a DAR application are not people who are conspiring to write a perjured affidavit.
As I have already said in recent postings, you create un-provable allegations, whereas I provide evidence in the form of a transcript - legal affidavits - and personal testimony. You choose to reject the evidence I present yet youhave not been able to present any evidence supporting your allegations about the documents I have submitted as being in error and neither have you or can you provide evidence supporting you own allegations that those self same documents are in error.
You are indeed a pathetic person.
Even in your dialog you can’t conduct yourself with decency. You have to constantly resort to sarcasm, ridicule, innuendo, unproven allegations in your attempt to prove whatever it is that you think such adjectives will accomplish. At times I become so thoroughly disgusted with your what could be interpreted as slanderous statements and character assination thatI too will reply in kind. There is only so much irresponsible dialog by yourself that I can put up with before I loose my temper and resort in kind. Were we not on the internet - I would tell you what I really think about your scurrilous type of individual - perhaps the word scurrilous in itself reveals my opinion about yourself.
You vocabulary is so deficient it defies explanation….recall two more or less years ago when you had a hang up with the word “empirical” and used it INCORRECTLY in nearly every paragraph you wrote?Recall how I wrote you a three page letter wherein I used the dictionary to correctly define empirical and provided examples of how the word was correctly used?A truly amazing thing happened - you actuallystopped using the word in your correspondence with myself, other Eastlings’ and I have my first time to see it on this forum - although I admit that for the longest time I was not reading what you posted - just too much drivel for me to deal with.
Empirical is a rather impressive word. Incorrectly used it reveals much about the individual so using, consequently in order that those who visit this Forum can avoid incorrectly applying empirical to the status of historical records/documents, I will include with this the New World Dictionary definition: empirical:1. Relying or based solely on experiment or observation rather than theory; 2. Relying or based solely on practical experience without reference to scientific principles.
Got another family folklore story for you.
“Folklore” has it that Luther C. Eastling fought at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Now we know that isn’t true because Luther was born in 1791 - three years after the Revolution ended in 1783 with the Paris peace treaty.Whereas Bunker Hill was fought in 1775.
Try this one for fit. The affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen fought at the Battle of Bunker Hill……..Is that fiction, folklore or fact? You plan on disputing it?When you do so, as you will - this time try to include evidence supporting your allegation that the story is merely folklore. We have the evidence in the affidavits that Cornelius was a Revolutionary Veteran - we do not at this time have evidence that Cornelius was at Bunker Hill but in all folklore there resides a kernel of truth. It is the researcher who must have the expertise to find it. Cherry pickers do not have that expertise.
The Crown Grant thing although of no interest to myself should be easy enough for you to prove. Think you can so prove? If you can then provide copies of the document establishing the Crown Grant or where the documents can be accessed on the Internet. I personally believe Revolutionary Veterans as a recipients is another one of your smoke blowing allegations.I would enjoy seeing your evidence. Can you include it with your next post?It would be the first un-tampered with evidence of any type which you will have provided to support and allegation you have made.
I cannot come up with a single reason I would want to research a 200 plus year old Canadian Crown Grant. If you believe you have discovered something to crow like a rooster about - feel free and unhampered and do so!
I wonder if you will someday reach a level of adult maturitywhen you can write anything with out referring to what you perceive as my inability to research anything.Where is the validity of your research for Eastling records when all of your research has resultedin flawed conclusions such as those in which you indulge yourself. Perhaps you could do yourself a favor and research the nature, purpose and how seldom affidavits contain errors or perjured testimony.
If I were to place on this forum a typed COPY of a letter written in 1849 to Maria Van Siclen, after the family moved to Hobart, Lake County, Indiana, wherein the health of Cornelius Van Siclen is discussed, and the name Catherine Johnson appears- how would you react to the letter - as authentic or folklore?
Although I do not have the letter, I have been told there is a person who is believed to own the letter.From what I have been told, the letter is telling Maria aboutCornelius’s deteriorating health and does some reminiscing about Cornelius at the Battle of Bunker Hill and Catherine Johnson, among other things,. I haven’t read it, having only recently been notified that there is such a letter.
With your propensity to ridicule and tamper with historical records it is unlikely that I will post on this forum the typed copy.
I have already presented affidavits andtranscribed Bible entries. Just yesterday I posted a personal testimony only to have you state thatyou do not believe my grandfather knew about Cornelius’s service and the name Catherine Johnson prior to 1907. Once again allegations you make without supporting evidence. I have no problem with your disbelief, that is your privilege and right.
My point is that in one posting you write “provide a single Eastling letter which mentions Catherine Johnson and I will believe it” - paraphrased. I do not have such a letter. On the other hand I have personal memories of my grandfather and his stories about Cornelius and Catherine. I reveal what I have guarded since this argument began and what is your reaction?You respond with - ‘ Isay you are wrong”. You weren’t there Van Curen, you aren’t omniscient. I was there and recall the stories about Cornelius.
Your next comment is - “…this is a question of “when” he gained that information. Since the name Catharine Johnson originated with Violet’s error, he did not know that information before she made the error.
1)You have first to prove your allegation that Violetta originated Catherine Johnson.That you cannot do.
2) You then must prove that my grandfather did not hear the stories from his father Cornelius Eastling. That you cannot do.
You go on to say - “Provide us with a letter written by your grandfather sometime in the 1800’s before Violet’s error … which contains a reference to the name Catharine Johnson…..I know you can’t”
I may be able to find a letter similar to what you request in the archives of one of his brothers,sisters or nephews and nieces. I haven’t bothered with contacting them because in light of the affidavits there was not the need to do so.
If I recover such a letter, are you willing to write a letter of apology that you doubted the veracity of my grandfather? I know of no reason to look for one if you refuse to write such an apology./
It is not conceivable to a sane and sensible individual that out of 10 adult people,not one of them would know the name of their grandmother, whether she lived a long or short life. Out of 35 adult people it is likewise not conceivable that a few, perhaps several, perhaps all would not know the name of their great grandmother.
You certainly did come from a unique family if the parents never talked to their children about their parents and grandparents and failed to tell their children their names.
Van Curen wrote Oct 24 2002 20:49:14 - “The remainder of you dialog is pure gibberish. You seem to think that naming children who were born in the 1800s somehow proves that the name Catharine Johnson was known prior to 1907.”
Are you Van Curen familiar with the clichés - “a personsees only what the person wants to see and a person hears only what the person wants to hear” ? An excellent description of yourself.
Here is what I wrote.
“Age range for 7 of Maria’s children for years 1848-1868:
Hiram from 23-43; Harford 23-43; Ferdinand 20-40; Cornelia 17-37; Cornelius 17-37; Cynthia 14-34; Fanny 11-31.”
Obviously you didn’t want to see or know the age range of Catharine’s grandchildren before 1906/1907. Their age ranges over 20 years demonstrates that each child of Maria was at a mature adult age decades prior to 1906-1907. As adults what is more natural than for them to want to know their grandparents names,if they did not already know the name of their grandparents. Ergo they ask their mother Maria, assuming that she has not early on told them.
Why do I have to explain those things to you as if you were an immature child.
I presented you with a fact that you can’t disprove or challenge - the adult ages of the grandchildren of Catherine over a twenty year period. In your response Oct. 24 2002 20:49:14 you choose to ignore their adult ages - responding as if only their names were written and describing the names as if they were "gibberish", apparently hoping thereby to divert attention away from their adult ages.
You did so because you know, as well as I do, that the age ranges are in themselves self-evident proof that those adults were mature enough to inquire about, know and remember the names oftheir grandparents decades before 1906/1907.At least you have discovered a new adjective in "gibberish".
Van Curen writes - “ And once again…While Cornelius marker says “Van Siclen”, the name on the Cemetery entrance is “Van Sicklen”, and the name on his son Ferdinand’s stone is “Van Sicklin”.
Are you attempting to tell me and the internet world that just because the Cemetery is named Van Sicklen that every one buried there is and must be a Van Sicklen?If that is the case, why aren’t the burials under stones that have no surnames. Obviously a surname is not required if the buried individual takes on the Cemetery name. According to you - all the people buried there have to be Van Sicklens‘, why then bother taking the time and expense of engraving their last names?Your rationalization is the most convoluted rationalization it has been my misfortune to encounter.
As I have told youa couple of times. I do not dispute your conclusion that a Cornelius Van Siclen & Hannah Lawson along with a son named Ferdinand Van Sicklin are buried in the Brighton Cemetery.
The person not buried in the Brighton Cemetery is the Cornelius Van Siclen or Catherine Johnson of affidavit fame. The affidavit Cornelius is buried in Quebec as stated in Fanny’s affidavit. Where Catherine is buried is not known.
Let me know if you want me to began a search of Eastling descendents of Maria for a letter written prior to 1906/1907 to or from my grandfather wherein the name Catherine and or Cornelius Van Siclen is mentioned.. I will not be surprisedif such a letter doesn’t exist among one of the descendents.