Pam, I tend to agree with you. There does not seem to be enough chat on this line. People tend not to pay any attention to e-mails unless it directly involves their part of our very large family. I posted my interests some time ago and did not have any response, or should I say very little. However the response I did have did not go any further once the respondent believed that I was not part of their line. I believe, or would like to believe, that if we could all easily go back far enough, we would find that we are indeed part of the same family. Tom

> I tend to agree with you. There does not seem to be enough chat on this line. People tend not to pay any attention to e-mails unless it directly involves their part of our very large family. > I posted my interests some time ago and did not have any response, or should I say very little. However the response I did have did not go any further once the respondent believed that I was not part of their line. > I believe, or would like to believe, that if we could all easily go back far enough, we would find that we are indeed part of the same family. > Tom Well, let's start the search. How about each of us post his/her ''who, what, when, where, how'' of their THORN connection. Nothing ventured nothing gained. I would suggest just the initial connection, tho, to keep from crowding the place up. Bill my connection is at a maternal 4Xgreat grandmother......Dicie THORN [b. about 1783 in NC - d. before 1860 in Westville, Kershaw, SC]. She married John HOLLAND [b. about 1780 in NC - d. before 16 Aug 1861 in Westville, Kershaw, SC]. This couple had 8 known children. Dicie was the d/o John and Nancy [?] THORN.

I guess that's ok if you want your inbox flooded with mail. I tend to like the normal flow of queries and often if the influx is overpowering, I tend to unsubscribe. Mary Frances Colson Tom Thorne wrote: > Pam, > I tend to agree with you. There does not seem to be enough chat on this line. People tend not to pay any attention to e-mails unless it directly involves their part of our very large family. > I posted my interests some time ago and did not have any response, or should I say very little. However the response I did have did not go any further once the respondent believed that I was not part of their line. > I believe, or would like to believe, that if we could all easily go back far enough, we would find that we are indeed part of the same family. > Tom

Yes I see what you mean! I do not appologise though (well maybe a littlle) for this sight has been quite quiet for some time, I thought it about time we stated our interests, even just for the sake of any new comers. There is nothing worse than joining a new list and having no-one answer your interests. I will be more tactful next time. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert and Mary Frances Colson" <mcolson@the-cia.net> To: <THORN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:18 PM Subject: Re: Chat > I guess that's ok if you want your inbox flooded with mail. I tend to like the normal flow of queries and often if the influx is overpowering, I tend to unsubscribe. Mary Frances Colson > > Tom Thorne wrote: > > > Pam, > > I tend to agree with you. There does not seem to be enough chat on this line. People tend not to pay any attention to e-mails unless it directly involves their part of our very large family. > > I posted my interests some time ago and did not have any response, or should I say very little. However the response I did have did not go any further once the respondent believed that I was not part of their line. > > I believe, or would like to believe, that if we could all easily go back far enough, we would find that we are indeed part of the same family. > > Tom > >