I want to apologize to Joel and all subscribers for my intemperate remarks which were made this morning and unfortunately sent as a reply to the Listserve. They were obviously intended as a private communication. After sending this in error, I quickly saw to my horror that it had been sent to the Listserve. I immediately sent an email to Joel apologizing for my comments, hoping it could be blocked from being sent. Though Joel and I have had a few minor disagrements over the years, as all people do in similar associations, I want all to know that I have the highest respect for Joel and his unsurpassed knowledge of Pate genealogy, also for his decades of unselfish sharing of that knowledge with others. I have praised Joel with all sincerity for these efforts both privately and publicly, and repeatedly. I have stated often that he is the greatest Pate genealogist in the world and in the history of the Pate family, with his work and dedication being equaled only by the late Jinks Pate-Lee. All I can hope is that my apology will be accepted and my words forgiven. I would not want anything to interfere with the success of the Project and this Listserve. Hopefully, we can rise above my intemperate remarks for the sake of the greater good. I would like to offer some explanation, though not excuses. First, Troy and I are very close friends, and we have become confidants. He has visited in my home a number of times, and we communicate often by phone and emails. So we feel comfortable in discussing things openly, knowing that our unguarded comments will remain confidential. Troy and I had discussed my paper on Sir John for about an hour just prior to me going to bed last night. So it was fresh on my mind this morning when I awoke and checked my emails. My email intended for Troy was just a snap reaction, sent with little thought, on seeing the Listserve digest this morning. (In all my years of sending emails, this was the first one, of all emails, that was sent to the wrong party.) I was frustrated because my paper on Sir John had not been posted separately in the digest, after the months I had spent preparing it, as I had thought that it would be. I had wanted it posted separately due to its length, and for the convenience of any wishing to copy it for their files. Again, I apologize to all and most particularly to Joel. I would not blame Joel for being angry. I would be too. I feel terrible, but, sadly, words hastily spoken cannot be recalled. All I can do is humbly ask his forgiveness, if for no other reason than for the sake and best interests of the Project, the Listserve, and our Pate genealogy. I request Joel, if at all possible, to expunge this entire exchange from the archives of the Listserve. A. J.

AJ: Please let me congratulate you on a marvelous and extremely significant work on Sir John Pate. When I discovered the Leceister account of the Eye Kettlebye estate and some few facts on Sir John, during my researches, that was fascinating. But you have opened my eyes to a great deal about Sir John and his relations that I could only speculate about. Thank you for providing all this to all of us interested in the family name. Though I cannot claim any direct connection to Edward Pate, his son Henry or his grandson Sir John, I will attach your work as a part of my own family genealogy. I hope you approve. Since you properly dealt only with all that you could find related to Sir John, I know this is not exactly attachable to it. But I have also been fascinated by the will of Dame Jane Skipwith who one researcher called the "aunt to the world" for her inclusion of so many people. In her will, she included some Pates (among them a Henry Pate) who she regarded as family. As I'm sure you know, a Henry Pate, his wife and (I believe) sister came to America and settled up in the Northern Neck of Virginia in Westmoreland County. Henry was listed on the accounts a merchant named Lund as was a Thoroughgood Pate. I'm writing this without my genealogy in front of me, so I'm a bit sketchy on dates and full names, but I was wondering whether you had encountered any of this in your researches and whether there was any possibility of relationships? Anyway, congratulations again on such a fine job on Sir John. William T. Pate