MAESSEX-L Archives

Archiver > MAESSEX > 2001-02 > 0981311090


From:
Subject: Re: [MAESSEX] Apology
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:24:50 EST


In a message dated 1/30/01 12:08:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

> Listmembers [cousins],
> This has been a 'not so good' week. I should not have allowed that to flow
> over and affect this list.
> I should have kept my fingers still and waited for a better day.
> Please accept my apology.

In private correspondence, I have been attempting to get Marianna to
acknowledge that she owes ME an apology. She refuses to acknowledge
that. And now she will not even answer my mail. If this matter had not
appeared publicly, by the LISTOWNER, then I would not have pursued
it publicly.

This is the last private mail slightly edited, that I sent her 2 Feb.

[---- ---], MARIANNA! your reply makes me very angy!

Steve Wallace said publicly:
"so I am using my personal family data as a starting point, and hunting for
the PATERNAL (not parental) line of these five Proctors"
adding
"all in my DIRECT ancestry, ending our Proctor surname with an Elizabeth
Proctor."

I insist that it is TOTALLY reasonable to interpret DIRECT in this numbered
context as "one after the other", but I asked to make sure.
But that isn't even the issue. The issue is that you PUBLICLY chastised
me for my question!
THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY MESSAGE.
YET YOU _CONTINUE_ TO INTIMATE THERE WAS.

[in view of your comments ...]
you are FINALLY acknowledging that you were scolding me!
IT'S ABOUT TIME!!

[you suggested reading questions carefully and not jumping to
conclusions.
]I DIDN'T jump, I asked!
[and to gently ask the poster if uncertain]

I DID GENTLY QUERY THE POSTER.!
My entire message was ...
"Are these 5 entries below supposed to be successive generations?"
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS UNGENTLE ABOUT THAT???

YOU WROTE YOUR MESSAGE IN RESPONSE TO _MY_ POSTING.
You owe ME an apology NOT the list. I cannot believe you do not
understand that, and I still EXPECT an apology from you.
NOT, a DEFENSE of what you wrote! (or a two-faced "generic" rewrite, that
would have served EXACTLY your same purpose of criticizing ME, but allow
you to do it "sneakily", completely without reference to me)

I treated Steve Wallace in a perfectly ladylike fashion, and I highly resent
that you CONTINUE to imply that I did not.

This thread: