"The Chief" <The_Chieftain@att.net> wrote in message news:1749cb0b-7f78-4475-894c-822d3aa76ddd@k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... On Feb 17, 4:33 am, "John McQuaid" <j.mcqu...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Chief > > I will further condescend to add, that before you criticise me you should > at > least first understand what I have kindly replied to Patrice, who is after > all a serious genealogist. > > I told him " a) that the writing was very poor ( we all have those > problems > don't we?) and that b) no one seems to recognise the named places in > Ireland > which are in the document. > > Literally, I wrote: " The problem seems to be with the document. The > writing > > is poor and no one seems to recognise the name of the places in Ireland." > On > behalf of the group, I am sorry but we just seem to be guessing" > > Is this not fact? > > I do apologise to the group for assuming that I can speak for you and also > for not attaching a translation with the original post; this does probably > amount to bad manners. > > Regards (Dea-mhéin) > > John Chief: Oh, I understand what you wrote, the issue here is that you don't understand and misrepresented what the problem is , which does not lie "with the document", or in the handwriting. ________________________________________________________ That conclusion is illogical given the posts in this thread. I sent a post saying that I couldn't interpret 2 letters. Liz Owen initially interpreted the name as being St(e) Dopt or Dost. Renia thought it was Stedoft. You proposed Steduft but claimed that made no sense. Russell thought it was Saint (Something). Mary said he was born in Steford. Six different people and six different answers would indicate that there IS a problem with either the handwriting or the document.