Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”

Dear Ed,

Here's another beauty---

"I care not. I included this to illustrate that you do not have a lock on Annetje Lawson versus Hannah Lossing when you allege that Hannah Lossing is a mispelled name. Hannah Lossing may have been a descendent of Lossing beginning prior to 1681. Perhaps you should expand your vision about the viable ancestry of Hannah Lossing. You would do well to come up with the parents of Hannah Lossing before you turn her into Annetje Lawson. I do not allege that Hannah Lossing is not Annetje Lawson, she may very well be. I would like to see Hannah's parents name before I make a conclusion as to the viability of you transpostions."

You want Doug to "expand his vision" on the extended Van Siclen-Eastling ancestry, while you flat-out refuse to put both oars in the water? You paddle in an endless circle of badly informed affidavits by self-interested deposers, and want someone who have never been 'Gusman-cross-eyed' to take a wider look at your family!?!

Ed, I think your stubborn denials and deliberate obfuscations prove conclusively that you are a descendant of Anthony Jansen van Salee and Grietje Reinerse--a couple of very obstinate persons "of your blood-line."

Cousin Richard