Carl Dunn wrote: "A comparison shows 3 differences: 2 of them are baptisms where the year is different, OS vs. NS - Anna 1618/19, and Isaac 1624/25 The only one showing difference in parents was Elizabeth 1622, where my abstract shows James Jr and Mr. Squires does not show Sr. or Jr. " [snip] Please don't throw up obfuscating issues and a blizzard of repeated argumentation now, Carl, either MINE or yours.... There are actually at least 4 major differences between "my" CCL vital records material and the very limited amount of VR-listed material which Carl Dunn has repeated from Barbara Hutchings (from her late 2000 posting to the Archives). ALL of these errors, however, are VERY major ones in the List Archive, in my estimation, and no matter HOW these may have crept into the Hutchings/Dunn material. AS far as I'm concerned there may be FAR more errors involved here in the original year 2000 posting than just these Dunn has listed from the archived Hutchings material (I have not and will NOT be bothering to waste my further time looking for any such just in order to prove some arcane ego points, while embarrassing anyone who worked quite so hard as Hutchings to benefit us all once ---those of you who wish to indulge in a cross-word puzzle of trivia concern like that than do so yourself in our arcane Archives!). One of the above referenced errors which I certainly have noticed ! from Carl's material (via Hutchings transcriptions) also overlooked an entire baptism, this for a daughter named "Dina," if I'm not mistaken, while another garbled spelling of the name "Sarah" (such that I had virtually no idea who it was). Are these mistakes in the original Hutchings posting from 2000? I have NO idea now, nor do I want to know frankly and I do not care to embarrass her to find out by wasting further time in trying to consult these difficult to access Archives (whew!). So then, the "new" VR material I have posted is accurate to the level of any normal human attempt to make such, certainly for this or any similar forum. My goodness Carl, please do try to understand that this is NOT, I repeat,... NOT ...some sort of ego contest between just us!! Of course, as everyone else perhaps seems to understand (I do hope!), I have been and am still trying to be exactly FAIR to ALL the so-called "facts" here. Note once again please:: ALL "facts" are subject to questions/various interpretations, even including these of your discovery & very honest concern, just as with so many other VR "facts." And yes, I have run into an identical situation with multiple "John Squire" names in the late 17th c. East Hampton VR, among other such VR "facts" elsewhere, just as I've been at some great pains here to point out to this forum. OFTEN, there are other "facts" which can come to the "rescue" by shedding some light, but NOT always when considering ALL variables too. Such questions are exactly as any historian (& not a few "professional" genealogists) seem to accept, while ALWAYS necessarily pointing out. Unf! ortunately, however, this is certainly NOT the understanding of far too many amateur genealogists, themselves who always seem to harbor a very naive conviction that there is that mythical "forlorn hope" out there, that so-called irrefutable document somewhere (well SOMETIMES there may just be, but don't always count on this & from almost 400 years out into the distant past!). Carl, thank you for making sure all of us on this List did NOT get away without examining your concerns in this forum. But it really is time to move on now perhaps, don't you agree. We have done all we can with this for the time being. It is certainly TRUE you have something here, as you have about exhausted all there may be to say about your concerns. BUT, perhaps too there is still FAR les than you are also now still FAR too anxious to still argue for....There is simply NO need to repeat either yourself or now me. My statements you have now repeated were, perhaps, a far too courteous attempt to find some common ground with you. Well, COMMON GROUND THERE MAY YET PROVE TO BE, I simply am NOT prepared to say yet. but be assured that I anyway, certainly do have a concern for whatever the truth of this matter may be and will be seeking out further angles/solutions as aggressively and objectively as possible. But that must wait until my tip to England. Be assured t! hat I certainly do not have any concern at this point simply to prove MY point at any cost, or to disprove yours. Really now, my own patience with this repetitious argumentation is limited. Please demonstrate greater factual/analytical originality so as not to waste my time or others,...otherwise I may have to shut off MY OWN participation in this forum, perhaps even after my up-coming trip to England. Who needs it... It just may NOT be worth bothering with much further! It is up to you Carl, sad as that may be.... SSquires