Of course I am a fan of yours. You have more knowledge in oa single one of your brain cells than I do in my whole brain. But my point was Lesley gave the sources that the children were named John. You said they were named Thomas but did not give your sources. One of you is right and one is wrong. I am guilty of not following the entire thread. However, because there was such a blatant discrepancy between what you both said, and she gave the sources but you did not, I hardly think my question regarding sources was silly. Thank you for the put down. Ruth In a message dated 12/11/2010 11:15:20 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I know I'm not a fan of Ruth's anymore but this is a silly question. Has she not read the posts in this thread or even the subject line? The sources are in the posts given. I was simply pointing out that Lesley made an error in giving the name John when she should have been stating the name Thomas. There was no John marrying Elizabeth Chiesly. It was Thomas and it is his parents she is talking about. Peter From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas Kincaid&Elizabeth Chi... Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:52:15 -0500 (EST) Peter, What are your sources for the children born 17 May 1730 and 11 Jul 1731 being named Thomas and not John? And what is your source for a Thomas instead of John marrying Elizabeth Chiesly? Ruth In a message dated 12/11/2010 8:37:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Except that the 17-May-1730 and 11-Jul-1731 baptisms she cites were not for a son John but for sons named Thomas. It wasThomas Kincaid who married Elizabeth Chiesly not John Kincaid. Just to be clear, even if a mother was a Kincaid when we do Y-DNA testing it is the father's DNA that is being passed on. There would be no Y-DNA trace of the mother in a participant today. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that the participant has a separate paternal lineage than the ancestor in question because they match no other Kincaid. Until a matching result is found for a participant in another branch of Thomas, one assumes that the participant's Y-DNA is not representative of the Kincaids of Dalderse or Grange or Candie. Legally the participant represents the line but genetic representation is another matter. Peter To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca id%20%20DNA.xls To join the DNA project, go to: www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Kincaid&Code=J21027 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I in no way got this impression when publicly called me sexist this summer when you misread my comments about Arabella Kincaid of Kincaid. I asked for an apology but did not get one. I'm not sure how I could be a fan in such a situation. I do not claim to know a lot more than the average person here. I simply take time to look things up and know how to do this reasonably well. I know I tend to be on the defensive (due to many previous attacks on me) and this may cause me to misread things. However, when I saw the message asking me for the source for Thomas Kincaid having married Elizabeth Chiesly in a thread about a person being vetted to them, I saw this as someone just wanting to give me a hard time. It all just seemed silly to me. However, my reply certainly had the tone of my bad mood and I do apologize to all for that. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2:25 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn KincaidtoThomasKincaidandElizabeth Chie... > Of course I am a fan of yours. You have more knowledge in oa single one of > your brain cells than I do in my whole brain. But my point was Lesley gave > the sources that the children were named John. You said they were named > Thomas but did not give your sources. One of you is right and one is > wrong. > > I am guilty of not following the entire thread. However, because there > was > such a blatant discrepancy between what you both said, and she gave the > sources but you did not, I hardly think my question regarding sources was > silly. Thank you for the put down. > > Ruth > > > > In a message dated 12/11/2010 11:15:20 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > I know I'm not a fan of Ruth's anymore but this is a > silly question. Has she not read the posts in this > thread or even the subject line? The sources are > in the posts given. I was simply pointing out that > Lesley made an error in giving the name John > when she should have been stating the name Thomas. > There was no John marrying Elizabeth Chiesly. > It was Thomas and it is his parents she is talking > about. > > Peter > > > > > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas > Kincaid&Elizabeth Chi... > Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:52:15 -0500 (EST) > > > Peter, > > What are your sources for the children born 17 May 1730 and 11 Jul 1731 > being named Thomas and not John? And what is your source for a Thomas > instead > of John marrying Elizabeth Chiesly? > > Ruth > > > In a message dated 12/11/2010 8:37:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > [email protected] writes: > > Except that the 17-May-1730 and 11-Jul-1731 baptisms she > cites were not for a son John but for sons named Thomas. It > wasThomas Kincaid who married Elizabeth Chiesly not John > Kincaid. > > Just to be clear, even if a mother was a Kincaid when > we do Y-DNA testing it is the father's DNA that is being > passed on. There would be no Y-DNA trace of the mother > in a participant today. > > Unfortunately, it is quite likely that the participant has a > separate paternal lineage than the ancestor in question > because they match no other Kincaid. Until a matching > result is found for a participant in another branch of Thomas, > one assumes that the participant's Y-DNA is not representative > of the Kincaids of Dalderse or Grange or Candie. Legally > the participant represents the line but genetic representation is > another matter. > > Peter