At 10:08 AM 8/30/00 -0400, gayl wells wrote:
im sick and tired of orin wells thinking he has everythng down to a
tee
I don't have everything down to a "tee". I never claimed to. I would like
to apologize for the wording of the message I posted regarding this to the
list. After I wrote it I went to your site and realized you had made
significant changes. I wanted to revise the message but it was too late.
i have taken everything off of my site except the zachariah line;
I did not see anything in the Zachariah Line that is incorrect. In my
private message to you I did thank you for removing what most researchers
of the Little Wells Family agree was incorrect.
now he is criticizing the other info i have on the other connections;
Based on research conducted by several independant researchers over the
past 20 years, the information on the Frances Belcher/Hugh Welles family
shown on your site is incorrect. Everytime I see information on any family
with which I have any familiarity that has a little different twist to the
information I have seen previously, I try to ascertain the source it I can
learn it. In this case I was able to track down the source and have
contacted the person who has admitted that he is the source of what you
have although you may not have obtined it directly from him or his
material. He has admitted he has no proof to back it up and that it came
from the research papers of his now deceased mother. Whether you obtained
this from a WFT CD, the LDS Ancestry File, the IGI, someone else's internet
site or some other submission by another researcher, it orginally came from
the researcher in Idaho and it is wrong (until someone can provide proof
that it is not).
i have a statement on my site saying the first part of the info is not
been established
I saw this and in my message to you I said that I believe this is good and
I am glad to see it.
its people like orin that make the genealogy a distasteful area; if
he
wishes to put on the net about my site then here is his rebuttal
Sometimes my tongue seems to fall under my foot. I regret having posted
what I did and I apologize to you out in the open for having done so. You
have clearly spent a lot of time researching your families and have a lot
of cited references to back up much of the material. I am glad to see this
because often this is the critical missing part of what some put on the
internet. You have also done an impressive job of preparing your web site
that equally reflects a lot of care and time in the effort.
does he think i am going to take of(f) everything he thinks is
wrong:<<
I would hope when someone can present to you research and documentation as
to why something is wrong that you will give it a fair hearing. Just
because I believe something is wrong does not necessarily mean it is.
However, I seldom challenge information uless I have good reason to believe
it to be wrong. If I am guessing, I will own up to it up front.
>I have had several people tell me, to ignore him and his remarks
<<
That is fair. I make mistakes too. Sometimes my remarks are not well
thought out before I commit them to an e-mail. When my mistakes are
brought to my attention I make every effort to correct them.
sorry this time i cant: he has put it out for everyone to see I hope
all
you wells out there will research yourself and dont take any of the
information anywhere on the net for facts until you get documentation yourself
This is excellent advice.
as for me I have stopped researching the wells family and putting it
on
the net:
Please do not do this. Especially, please do not use me as the reason for
doing so.
if he had been nice about this pestered me to death until i took all
the
wells information off before
zachariah and i complied with his wishes<<
I was unaware that you had done so and shame on me for assuming you had not
before I went back and looked.. I don't think I had exactly pestered you
regarding this. I believe I may have sent you two messages last year or
earlier this year. Feedback from two other researchers had indicated you
had not been too receptive to their comments on this issue (parents of
Zachariah being Richard Wells and Ann "Nancy" Brown.and several Wells
"children" who were clearly, IMO, not connected to that family). I was
wrong about you not having rectified this.
>now he is at it again:all the wells information is coming off now
information on the wells family is going to be put on the net for anyone
to see<<
I hope you will not remove all your Wells information. I would just like
to see you consider the areas where it may be flawed and consider
correcting it.
i am interested in finding the truth about the wells family and it may
not
necessarily be your truth Orin.<<
No, it may not. If I am wrong on something regarding any Wells, I hope
anyone will feel free to correct me.
Gayl,
We have had some useful exchanges in the past both on and off the list. I
hope my inappropriate remarks made yesterday will not permanently destroy
the chances that we can do so in the future. I have to admit to another
oversight. For some reason I did not associate the Gayl Wells of this list
with the Gayl Wells of your site. If I had, I probably would have done
differently. However, it does not excuse the remarks made yesterday and I
was clearly off base in making them.
Here in the open in front of about 75 researchers I ask your forgiveness.
Orin R. Wells
Wells Family Research Association
P. O. Box 5427
Kent, Washington 98064-5427
<ORWells(a)bigfoot.com>
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html
Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb