Betty, I assume you are talking to me, since you addressed your following email only to me, personally. I believe my following message that you attached after your message IS SELF-EXPLANATORY! I was simply thanking Joe and Kim for their replies stating their opinions in regard to the message I had posted previously. There was no source included, because a source was not required for this particular thank you message! I agree it is not an easy task to refer back to the previous messages in order to know what some are referring to, however, that is exactly what I have to do and I suggest you do the same and I think it will be clear what I was thanking them for. Botton line: I don't have time to find every post in order to cover everthing for you....but if you will look at the most recent post - namely: 1. 7/1/2006 post from Kim Stracener Zapalac > _Zapnyou@aol.com_ (mailto:Zapnyou@aol.com) > Which reveals the fact that she went to the time and trouble to find and posted to the list the complete May 1626 document regarding Sara Maycock's land. Note: This is the first time the whole document has been posted, including the names of men and the source for where it can be found. 2. See my [Kathynn3@aol.com] 7/8/06 post [which included above # 1 again]. 3. See 7/8/06 two different post from Joe > _janders45@hotmail.com_ (mailto:janders45@hotmail.com) 4. See 7/8/06 2nd post from Kim Stracener Zapalac > _Zapnyou@aol.com_ (mailto:Zapnyou@aol.com) 5. See my following 7/8/06 post that you attached after your message [which is my thank you to Kim & Joe for responding with their opinions. .......and surely all of this should clarify for you, and I think you will find that sources were included on all post that required sources....certainly, a thank you does not require a source. BTW you said this has been going on for months, and you get more confused with each persons comments.....have you responded with your help/opinions/documents? If you did I guess I must have missed them. I am sending a copy of this to the list in case someone else is confused and needs explanation. Sooo now I guess I'll get backlash from someone complaining about that too...huh? O' Well! O' yes, one more thing, just for the record.....if I find it necessary to mention Julian and Gregorian dates again, I will certainly do so. It is your responsibility to handle it on your end however you choose to do so. ~Kathlynn~ ************************************** In a message dated 7/8/2006 8:50:07 PM Central Standard Time, halbet@angus1841.com writes: Could not some kind person put a primary source on this page for all of us to see and solve this questions once and for all? This discussion has been going on for months and I just get more confused with each person's comments. Please don't any of you send me any emails telling me that all I have to do is press the "delete" key. I would not dare miss reading one of them for fear I might miss something. No, I am not just lurking. I would really like a definitive reference for this Saray Maycock and to really understand if there is an answer to the question. Forget about the Julian or Gregorian dates. Thank you for your time and work on this subject. betty in ga ----- Original Message ----- From: <Kathlynn3@aol.com> To: <PACE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock - Virginia Magazine Source Reference > Thanks Joe and Kim, for your reply. And I agree Kim, before we carve > this > in stone we definately need the original document to make sure someone > hasn't > changed the wording.... > > I am really beginning to have reservations about taking earlier > researchers > word for anything. It has been proven that they tamper with the wording. > > I really don't understand why anyone, earlier researchers as well as > current > researchers, would state as documents but enter it in their own statement > form according to their own personal discernment [instead of entering the > actual document word for word] OR extract only a tidbit of the actual > document OR > change Julian dates to Gregorian dates without out explanation. > > To me this just shouldn't be done. Only the word for word document should > be > stated [without changing the wording according to how they themselves > discern it] and also include where the document was found. > > Agree? > > ~Kathlynn~

Dear Cousins, I personally find all of these discussions interesting and informative which explains why I subscribe to the Pace list. I now find myself more knowledgeable about the Julian and Gregorian calendars, for which I am grateful. I think that Kathlynn is totally justified in desiring to see original documents and in questioning previous conclusions. At some point we all have to examine the available evidence and form our own conclusions as to what most likely happened. And the original documents are better than another persons best guess as to what that document means; after all, our own interpretation might differ from theirs. I think that people on this list ought to feel free to express their opinions and others ought to feel equally free to disagree with those opinions. But always in the context of a family reunion - explain patiently to Uncle Joe why he is wrong, but try not to alienate him to the point where he will write you out of his will. So, here's my opinion, formed from following discussions on this list, and totally unsupported by references to specific documents or links to previous posts: 1. Samuel Maycock died in the massacre. 2. His daughter, Sarah, born shortly before or not long after the massacre, survived him. 3. His wife, Mrs. Samuel Maycock, died in the massacre or not long after, possibly in the epidemic following the massacre. 4. Capt. Roger Smith took the orphan Sarah into his household and appears to be acting as her guardian, witness the Council's declaration of young Sarah's right to 200 acres of land. 5. Blanks to be filled in here. 6. On coming of age (perhaps mid teens), the orphan Sarah marries George Pace, son of Richard. I realize that my opinion makes no material contribution to the advancement of Pace research. I offer it in the hope that someone will correct me where I am wrong and help me to formulate a better hypothesis which will always be subject to change in the face of new evidence or when presented with a more logical interpretation of current evidence. Best regards to all, Joe Anderson ----Original Message Follows---- From: Kathlynn3@aol.com To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] Sarah Maycock questions?? Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 01:05:19 EDT Betty, I assume you are talking to me, since you addressed your following email only to me, personally. I believe my following message that you attached after your message IS SELF-EXPLANATORY! I was simply thanking Joe and Kim for their replies stating their opinions in regard to the message I had posted previously. There was no source included, because a source was not required for this particular thank you message!