Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup] Re: WorldConnect Project Andercestry

Expand Messages
  • Sandy Norris
    Don t remember who said this but I ll quote him anyway, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.   When I research for other people, I always
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 1, 2008
      Don't remember who said this but I'll quote him anyway, "you are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts."  When I research for other people, I always point out when it is my own opinion and when I can support the claim with documentation.  Sometimes people listen and sometimes they want their claim to be true, they are able to rationalize away the facts.  It is beyond comprehension.  I have tried, to no avail, to straighten out my own line that someone posted on LDS and, I now understand, there is a book being written using the bogus information on LDS.  I have been known to use some very entertaining language when talking about this sort of misinformation getting out.
       
      Fran, I'm looking for John B. Norris in Kentucky.  I haven't found anything you can hang your hat on yet.
       
      Sandy 

      --- On Wed, 10/1/08, Fran Bolton <Jfrbol@...> wrote:
      From: Fran Bolton <Jfrbol@...>
      Subject: [BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup] Re: WorldConnect Project Andercestry
      To: BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 12:40 AM

      I can offer one explanation for that wrong info on William C Anderson
      on Rootsweb, it was not done by any of his family, or on behalf of
      any of his family. As we know, there is a mountian of evidence to
      which tree he actually descends from, prepared by his kin. Someone
      outside the family might not recognise they have the wrong person on
      a family tree, because they are not familiar enough with all the
      family members to see their mistake.
      However, she did cite the 1860 Breckinridge KS census as her source
      for William C Anderson's family, when that census clearly shows that
      William to be William T "Bloody Bill Anderson", with his known
      sisters and parents, instead of William C's siblings and parents, and
      that should have raised a red flag. Fran

      Fran--- In BloodyBillMysterySo lvedGroup@ yahoogroups. com, "Sally
      G." <sallyfromhouston@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > I think I got that name right. I'm a little upset tonight. I was
      sent a
      > link to the about mentioned site because of some postings regarding
      my
      > Andersons. Laura Way is twisting our lineage to separate out parts
      of
      > our family so that she can support the claims that our William
      Columbus
      > Anderson is not from this family but from another family so he can
      be
      > made into Bloody Bill. She has William and Martha's oldest son is
      the
      > son of another woman William supposedly had been married to and who
      did
      > not die making him a widow. By making this statement about William,
      Ms.
      > Way is saying that my family's William C and Martha could not have
      been
      > legally married..... you get the drift. This has been an argument I
      have
      > had with this group but they ignore it so that they can re-write
      our
      > family history. Its shameful. Its a terrible smear on Martha and
      > William. I just wanted to warn you should you be using that site
      for
      > any research. Just double check any postings that were made by
      Laura
      > Way. That's all, just double check them.
      >


    • William & Gay Mathis
      The only way for someone like that to understand the ramifications is for another just like them to take their family tree and twist it to suit themselves with
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2008
        The only way for someone like that to understand the ramifications is
        for another just like them to take their family tree and twist it to
        suit themselves with inserted untruths..

        Not so funny when it happens to them..
        ******************************

        Gay

        --- In BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sally G."
        <sallyfromhouston@...> wrote:
        >
        > I think I got that name right. I'm a little upset tonight. I was
        sent a
        > link to the about mentioned site because of some postings regarding
        my
        > Andersons. Laura Way is twisting our lineage to separate out parts
        of
        > our family so that she can support the claims that our William
        Columbus
        > Anderson is not from this family but from another family so he can
        be
        > made into Bloody Bill. She has William and Martha's oldest son is
        the
        > son of another woman William supposedly had been married to and who
        did
        > not die making him a widow. By making this statement about William,
        Ms.
        > Way is saying that my family's William C and Martha could not have
        been
        > legally married.....you get the drift. This has been an argument I
        have
        > had with this group but they ignore it so that they can re-write
        our
        > family history. Its shameful. Its a terrible smear on Martha and
        > William. I just wanted to warn you should you be using that site
        for
        > any research. Just double check any postings that were made by
        Laura
        > Way. That's all, just double check them.
        >
      • Fran Bolton
        Sandy, you said sometimes they want their claim to be true, they are able to rationalize away the facts. That is exactly what we have found to be true in our
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2008
          Sandy, you said "sometimes they want their claim to be true, they are
          able to rationalize away the facts." That is exactly what we have
          found to be true in our study of William C Anderson's newspaper claim
          he was Bloody Bill. Those that want the claim to be true go one step
          farther than rationalizing away the facts, they declare the facts
          have been altered for one reason only, to keep them from learning the
          truth. The ironic thing is they have the truth, and all the documents
          and records to prove it, but still insist that powerful Smokescreen
          Gang has altered primary records as far back as 1860, one in
          particular is the 1860 census. Which of course makes no sense,
          because Bloody Bill was not known by that name until years after he
          was killed in 1864. They couldn't make that accusation if they knew
          how the census records were taken, where they were stored, and who
          had access to them.
          In looking at the information on Rootsweb we are discussing, it
          doesn't take a member of the family, or persons with a knowledge of
          the family, to see the many glaring mistakes that should have raised
          a red flag to the poster as it was beng prepared:
          1.A child listed being born to a woman with the last name of her
          second husband, who she hadn't married yet.
          2.Two different sets of siblings for the same man.
          There are many, many others too numerous to describe, but this is an
          example of how much time was spent reviewing the work before posting
          it. I know there is a lot of copying of other people's research into
          family trees, but in this case of grafting William C Anderson onto
          Bloody Bill's tree, it is original, the brainchild of one person, and
          he deserves the full credit. Fran
          --- In BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup@yahoogroups.com, Sandy Norris
          <sandynorris@...> wrote:
          >
          > Don't remember who said this but I'll quote him anyway, "you are
          entitled to your opinion but not your own facts."  When I research
          for other people, I always point out when it is my own opinion and
          when I can support the claim with documentation.  Sometimes people
          listen and sometimes they want their claim to be true, they are able
          to rationalize away the facts.  It is beyond comprehension.  I have
          tried, to no avail, to straighten out my own line that someone posted
          on LDS and, I now understand, there is a book being written using the
          bogus information on LDS.  I have been known to use some very
          entertaining language when talking about this sort of misinformation
          getting out.
          >  
          > Fran, I'm looking for John B. Norris in Kentucky.  I haven't found
          anything you can hang your hat on yet.
          >  
          > Sandy 
          >
          > --- On Wed, 10/1/08, Fran Bolton <Jfrbol@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: Fran Bolton <Jfrbol@...>
          > Subject: [BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup] Re: WorldConnect Project
          Andercestry
          > To: BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 12:40 AM
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > I can offer one explanation for that wrong info on William C
          Anderson
          > on Rootsweb, it was not done by any of his family, or on behalf of
          > any of his family. As we know, there is a mountian of evidence to
          > which tree he actually descends from, prepared by his kin. Someone
          > outside the family might not recognise they have the wrong person
          on
          > a family tree, because they are not familiar enough with all the
          > family members to see their mistake.
          > However, she did cite the 1860 Breckinridge KS census as her source
          > for William C Anderson's family, when that census clearly shows
          that
          > William to be William T "Bloody Bill Anderson", with his known
          > sisters and parents, instead of William C's siblings and parents,
          and
          > that should have raised a red flag. Fran
          >
          > Fran--- In BloodyBillMysterySo lvedGroup@ yahoogroups. com, "Sally
          > G." <sallyfromhouston@ ...> wrote:
          > >
          > > I think I got that name right. I'm a little upset tonight. I was
          > sent a
          > > link to the about mentioned site because of some postings
          regarding
          > my
          > > Andersons. Laura Way is twisting our lineage to separate out
          parts
          > of
          > > our family so that she can support the claims that our William
          > Columbus
          > > Anderson is not from this family but from another family so he
          can
          > be
          > > made into Bloody Bill. She has William and Martha's oldest son is
          > the
          > > son of another woman William supposedly had been married to and
          who
          > did
          > > not die making him a widow. By making this statement about
          William,
          > Ms.
          > > Way is saying that my family's William C and Martha could not
          have
          > been
          > > legally married..... you get the drift. This has been an argument
          I
          > have
          > > had with this group but they ignore it so that they can re-write
          > our
          > > family history. Its shameful. Its a terrible smear on Martha and
          > > William. I just wanted to warn you should you be using that site
          > for
          > > any research. Just double check any postings that were made by
          > Laura
          > > Way. That's all, just double check them.
          > >
          >
        • Fran Bolton
          One needs to look at the motives. Fran--- In BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup@yahoogroups.com, William & Gay Mathis ... is ... to ... regarding ... parts ...
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 1, 2008
            One needs to look at the motives. Fran--- In
            BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup@yahoogroups.com, "William & Gay Mathis"
            <lgmathis2002@...> wrote:
            >
            > The only way for someone like that to understand the ramifications
            is
            > for another just like them to take their family tree and twist it
            to
            > suit themselves with inserted untruths..
            >
            > Not so funny when it happens to them..
            > ******************************
            >
            > Gay
            >
            > --- In BloodyBillMysterySolvedGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sally G."
            > <sallyfromhouston@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I think I got that name right. I'm a little upset tonight. I was
            > sent a
            > > link to the about mentioned site because of some postings
            regarding
            > my
            > > Andersons. Laura Way is twisting our lineage to separate out
            parts
            > of
            > > our family so that she can support the claims that our William
            > Columbus
            > > Anderson is not from this family but from another family so he
            can
            > be
            > > made into Bloody Bill. She has William and Martha's oldest son is
            > the
            > > son of another woman William supposedly had been married to and
            who
            > did
            > > not die making him a widow. By making this statement about
            William,
            > Ms.
            > > Way is saying that my family's William C and Martha could not
            have
            > been
            > > legally married.....you get the drift. This has been an argument
            I
            > have
            > > had with this group but they ignore it so that they can re-write
            > our
            > > family history. Its shameful. Its a terrible smear on Martha and
            > > William. I just wanted to warn you should you be using that site
            > for
            > > any research. Just double check any postings that were made by
            > Laura
            > > Way. That's all, just double check them.
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.