It is too bad that this debate cannot be conducted on a somewhat more important and significant basis than to simply criticize my personal style habits, now as to whether or not I CAPITALIZE too often. COME ON (is this one so hard to "2nd guess"??!)... People's habits are often very different and, quite frankly, it is an OFFENSE to publicly concern yourself with such (didn't anybody teach you people manners, besides "netiquette," or how to get along with DIFFERENCES? Try to be tolerant of others or you will deservedly LOSE their help). I have been appalled and overwhelmed by the incredibly low-level of gen. accuracy and understanding displayed by far too many amateur genealogists on the web. I have learned that I simply do NOT much like such genealogists, quite frankly, as people who have seemed to me to be both far too greedy and far too knowing (when they simply are NOT "knowing" at all in the end, my emphasis understood yet?). Sorry, but I too share an increasing lack of respect, along w/ all those professional historians, for internet genealogists who have simply learned a lot of truly very offensive & discourteous stratagems just to elicit information, together with so-called "nettiquette" only designed to "deliver the goods" as soon as possible (without the least courtesy or respect to the deliverer). All this to be done at the least possible COST to themselves (usually, as herein, at virtually NO cost!). Some of you out there are simply GREEDY people who do not want to get off your "sofas" to work for yourselves for very important information which is CERTAINLY out there with just a little effort & expense! It is THIS then what the internet has been breeding amongst us? On the internet, I have been ripped-off MANY times with promises of significant information instantly abandoned AFTER I have given-up my very best for such people. What is WRONG with some of you on this medium, and with internet genealogy too, that it can breed such hostile, selfish and very arrogant people who are simply out for "all they can get" from others at NO cost to themselves??? As to my personal style : I have been constantly amazed, frankly, at some of the "factual" silliness passed in this medium, silliness too often accepted as obvious "fact," when anything else may be the case. We have seen an instance of this problem (whether it is pure "silliness" I have been trying very mightily to be generous concerning) in the posting of two family lists by Carl Dunn, re: his HUNCH about the TWO "James at Eltisley." This "hunch" may well turn out to be TRUE (as I think is VERY POSSIBLE, even probable---get it yet?), but so far it has been barely more than a "hunch" and worth VERY LITTLE more from what he has been able (or willing) to so grudgingly contribute to this debate without further insult or arrogance. No matter how helpful, accurate or important whatever else we may find out about this question may prove out to be...it helps virtually NO ONE (emphasis understood??) to post such "hunches" as though they are already PROVEN & obvious "fact" (as has been done several times now ), and without my "debater's" own willingness to better understand its very MANY factual equivocations. Carl Dunn wrote: "While I find it fruitless to discuss the matter of whether Thomas Disbrow was brother to Major General John, with Squires, I am impelled to challange him on his above statement concerning the baptism of Dina Disbrow." [snip] This sort of childishness is NOT helpful in this or any debate, and therefore I too will NOT address myself further to this List member in future. Should he have something NEW to contribute, of course, I will be delighted about it and would certainly much welcome it. Such a statement of his about "fruitless," in the light of ALL that has transpired on my part in this debate, is obviously inaccurate. I personally cannot further tolerate that attitude from any intelligent debater who should be willing to conduct himself with far more maturity. It has NOT been my place to simply endorse his side in this "debate" simply because he insists, with increasing stridency, that he ALONE is correct! It has been incredibly frustrating to me, under such circumstances, to be FORCED to take a side, whatsoever, in this matter. HENCE(emphasis added!), my own personal habits of "emphasis" so that some of you, anyway, may NOT mistake exactly where I am "coming from." Obviously, it's been "fruitless." Is this truly ALL that you people are concerned with worrying about in posting to this List: arrogant insults & style criticisms (meanwhile you say you are "enjoying" the debate?)?? Well then, please ENJOY it yourselves, and thanks so much for your appreciation of my many other contributions (which I sincerely hope may have been of at least SOME interest to some of you too). Since this debate has descended into repetitious and truly fruitless "argumentation," with further name-calling (and NO apologies for past childish insults tendered by my "debater"), it is now best that I take my leave of you for the time being...Way to go Carl, we'll see if it's worth my while to return to it after England (you can always read my book for updates, any those relevant to my thesis, of course---so, some you guys might spend some money then for a change..). Good luck, SSquires [AS I do try to observe my own promises, I will post CCL Burials/Marriages/Eltisley Disbrow, ...just as I, anyway, have so promised, before temporarily bowing-out from this List for the next few months...Meanwhile, some of you try to learn some better manners than "nettiquette," what say huh?!]