Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: December 06, 2002 at 00:23:27
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusmanof 982
Since you say, "I maybe that 'thick' I may not be who knows. Unlike yourself I take nothing for grantit and believe no one, most especially when it relates to genealogy and you and you buddy, until evidence is presented supporting the allegations... ,"
...I must take it it that you will at least believe yourself. Therefore, do some doggone research yourself, man, or leave us alone.
Gusman - You entered the discussion on your own early this year - I do not recall asking for an opinion from you.
Gusman - I have not more than a passing interest in the lineage of Cornelius Van Siclen - For me I consider it a waste of time and effort. There is no place to go beyond Cornelius Van Siclen. Believe what you and Doug will, you have discovered no connection with the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen except what exist in the imaginations of both of you.
Gusman - Regardless of how hard you try you cannot come up with evidence that will prove that Catherine Johnson was not born, that she did not marry Cornelius Van Siclen, that she is not the grandmother of the deponents. Your perceptions exist only in your imaginations not in proveable facts.
Gusman -The same is true for you efforts to destroy the affidavit record of Cornelius Van Siclen's revolutionary service.
In truth, I am very secure about my research and my research techniques (which are hardly new to serious researchers). I enjoy some recognition among modern New York Dutch family genealogists (I am cited, for instance, several times in New York Genealogical & Biographical Society's quarterly magazine, The Record. In a recent issue, for instance, my work was cited twice--in two different and separate family write-ups).
Gusman - That is nice. If you as qualified as you say then why are you so hung up on destroying the affidavit testimony. Look for the people who have fallen through the genealogy cracks. That is where you will find Cornelius and Catherine Johnson. Waddel has stated that there are plenty of them out there.
You, on the other hand, have claimed some sort of confirmation of your notions through the research of unnamed foreign 'gurus.' These persons you will not name and will not put in touch with us, because you do not trust me?
Gusman - I have claimed no confirmation of my notions through the research of Unnamed foreigh gurus. My notions are based solely on my belief in the veracity of the affidavis. At age 72 I long ago lost my awe of people with titles. Doctors, Lawyers, Indian chiefs, Generals, Bureaucrats ad infinitum and Self proclaimed reserchers - they all drop their pants to do what needs to be done.
Gusman - I mentioned the two researchers because they were two individuals who impressed me in every way regarding genealogy research. I did find out that they each spoke several languages and their non-genealogical work took them around the world They were so layed back that it was close to a year before I even knew they were both Doctors (not medical). Anything else? - No - I know nothing about them, exept what I became aware of through correspondence. Neither of them at any time wrote out a list of their accomplishments or told me how skilled they were, which I assume you did to impress me with your accomplishments. It didn't work, your ongoing put downs' of the affidavits as opposed to looking for people who had fallen through through the cracks when the affidavit descriptions failed to match the lineages you were familiar with, told me volumns about yourself and your genealogy expertise. And yes your are correct, I do not trust you in the field of genealogy and e-mail correspondence. Beyond those two items I know nothing about you.
It is rare that I ask any genuinely interested researcher to trust me. Rather, I ask that they use that which I may provide from my research (which, here, includes the research of Doug VC and is subserviant to his, as regards your family). Like Doug, I really only engage you here as a way to inform those who may just now be interested in family research on what not to do, how not to do it and why one should not do it.
Gusman - That is also nice. I will tell you this much and no more. Even though I don't trust you, you are head and shoulders above Doug.
Doug has made it very clear that the reliance on family lore and self-defined ancestry is entirely suspect. He is entirely correct in this approach. You, on the other hand, find every excuse, real or imagined, to try to make something of those legends and memories. These are antithetical to proper genealogical research.
Gusman - Of course he is correct. In addition to all of your other self proclaimed expertise do you also consider youself to be omniscient? Why don't you just knock off trying be a tin god. You haven't the remotest idea of what I do and don't do. You make yourself out to be somewhat foolish.
In your case, flat-out poisonous.
Gusman - I really don't know what your real problem is. Whether it be jealousy, about what I wouldn't know, envy because I have the character and integrity to stand for what I believe in the face of any opposition except perhaps a loaded gun pointed at my head. Perhaps it is just that you found it so easy to wow people seeking information that my refusal to acknowledge you self-perceived superiority makes you angry so you resort to on going insults and invectives.
You cannot be more wrong in your approach, nor more wrong in your conclusions. And, it is clear from all of your posts over time, more wrong in how you came to be where your are--which is where you have been from the beginning.
Gusman - Prove your allegations - just like always - nothing but talk with no proveable evidence.
You would trust Violetta Voorhees-who had a clear agenda--over practiced and recognized genealogists, who had no investment here except to make sure that the genalogy is both right and documented.
Gusman - Yes I would because all that Violetta did was make an unintentional error with the name of her veteran. And that error resulted because the Van Sickle name was in vogue in 1906 in the Eastling family and Violetta being 51 years and knowing what she and other Eastlings believed was the correct name of her veteran used it. The unintentional error Violetta made isn't close to being comparable to the Faux Pas Doug created when he researched the Van Sicklen lineage, married Maria Van Siclen and then had to eat road kill after a Van Siclen was found in the Brighton Cemetery. The both of you create a mountain from an ant hill. Another symptom of immaturity. Perhaps you could explain what you believe Violetta's agenda was. I didn't know she had one. Where did you get your information - omniscience at it again? I would like to read what you believe her agenda was. I think my posting tonight dealing with conspiracy will knock you out of your saddle.In view of the fact that you never knew her, never talked to her, never even saw a picture of her, yet there you set like a spider spinning a web around a dead moth. Truly Richard there apparently is nothing about you that appears to be professional
With or without your request, an Eastling (exact spelling) GenForum has now opened. Why not head over there with all of your meanderings and leave the serious researchers of descendants of Ferdinandus^1 Van Sichelaer to their deliberations here?
Gusman - When I have Eastling questions I will use the Eastling forum. Until you stop your huffing and puffing about the affidavits I will continue to use the forum to which my replies automatically send the posts. You apparently do not know that I connected with this forum while I was still using Van Sickle in the Eastling genealogy. That is not surprising you seem to make your rushes to judgment on a fairly regular bases. You do understand that there may be a few people who visit this forum who are interested in the ongoing dialog.
(It goes without saying, of course, that I will be monitoring The Eastling GenForum, so there will be no free ride for your proudly self-described ignorance.)
Gusman - Ho Hum aren't we having fun........Now would be a good time to discontinue your responses to my posts.