The Pine Valley Deeds

[JESII]

Pat...you jackass...what did Tom Paul point out?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

You edited this reply because you originally had your facts wrong and TEPaul pointed that out to you.

So, let's not get too carried away with your sleuthing.

Oh, Patrick, get a life.      In my dyslexic manner I originally swapped the dates between the Lumberton purchase and the Crump purchase, which Tom was kind enough to politely point out.  Of course, you have never made a mistake in your postings.

In what sleuthing did I get carried away.  I have only posted the factual deed information.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________



One thing I forgot to mention is that the solicitor involved in the 1892 seizure and sale was one George H. Peirce who was involved with Crump and Pine valley in later purchases.  As pure speculation, is it possible that Crump heard of this land from Peirce who was involved with it as early as 1892.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

You edited this reply because you originally had your facts wrong and TEPaul pointed that out to you.

So, let's not get too carried away with your sleuthing.

Oh, Patrick, get a life.      In my dyslexic manner I originally swapped the dates between the Lumberton purchase and the Crump purchase, which Tom was kind enough to politely point out.  Of course, you have never made a mistake in your postings.

In what sleuthing did I get carried away.  I have only posted the factual deed information.

Bryan,

You, and especially other cretins are totally missing the point.

You're a meticulous guy, on a specific mission, but, if YOU could make such a significant mistake in reporting an event, is it possible that others could make significant mistakes reporting an event ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

Now do you understand ?


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________



One thing I forgot to mention is that the solicitor involved in the 1892 seizure and sale was one George H. Peirce who was involved with Crump and Pine valley in later purchases.  As pure speculation, is it possible that Crump heard of this land from Peirce who was involved with it as early as 1892.

[DMoriarty]

I have only posted the factual deed information.

Before you went back and changed it long after the fact, your own original opening post betrayed a much different intent than just passing on factual information, and many of your posts including the last aren't consistent with this new goal.  Namely you continue to oversell the significance of these deeds to the overall accuracy of the Uzzell and Nunneville accounts.   You cannot dismiss the entirety accounts because one detail is lacking.

In other words, I doubt there is any "factual deed information" about "nails in the coffins." 

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Bryan,

You, and especially other cretins are totally missing the point.

You're a meticulous guy, on a specific mission, but, if YOU could make such a significant mistake in reporting an event, is it possible that others could make significant mistakes reporting an event ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

Now do you understand ?

No.  Because I made a obvious dyslexic error, then reporters of events a century ago must also have made reporting errors?  I've never disputed that there were reporting errors back then (or even now).  There were many that I've seen.  Uzzell and Nunneville come to mind in this context, but so what?  I'm trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.  What are you trying to do but argue?

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Doubting David,

The deed information I have posted is factual.  It proves that some facts in Uzzell's and Nunnville's stories are wrong.  I never said that there whole account should be thrown away, although the errors do, in my opinion, undermine the credibility of the rest of their stories.

[Bryan Izatt]

As a piece of factual information I can confirm that in 1918 Crump owned an automobile as well as a horse and a wagon.  Oddly, the horse and wagon were worth three  times as much as the automobile. 

I guess it is possible that he both rode his horse on the land and drove his automobile onto the land, although I have no idea what road he would have used to get a car in.

I can also confirm that, as an avid hunter he was the owner of two shotguns in 1918.

[DMoriarty]

Doubting David,

The deed information I have posted is factual.  It proves that some facts in Uzzell's and Nunnville's stories are wrong.  I never said that there whole account should be thrown away, although the errors do, in my opinion, undermine the credibility of the rest of their stories.

You've proven that Crump didn't inherit this land from his father. Congratulations on that, I guess.  But it doesn't get you where you think it does.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Bryan,

You, and especially other cretins are totally missing the point.

You're a meticulous guy, on a specific mission, but, if YOU could make such a significant mistake in reporting an event, is it possible that others could make significant mistakes reporting an event ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?

Now do you understand ?

No.  Because I made a obvious dyslexic error, then reporters of events a century ago must also have made reporting errors?  I've never disputed that there were reporting errors back then (or even now).  There were many that I've seen.  Uzzell and Nunneville come to mind in this context, but so what?  I'm trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.  What are you trying to do but argue?

Bryan, if you recall, I was the one stating that the story should not be automatically dismissed as some were insisting, but, instead, that the story should be investigated.

I also indicated that the use or leasing of the land by Crump should be investigated.

I'm glad we're on the same page for once.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Doubting David,

The deed information I have posted is factual.  It proves that some facts in Uzzell's and Nunnville's stories are wrong.  I never said that there whole account should be thrown away, although the errors do, in my opinion, undermine the credibility of the rest of their stories.

You've proven that Crump didn't inherit this land from his father. Congratulations on that, I guess.  But it doesn't get you where you think it does.

Where is it that you think I'm trying to get to? 

All it proves is that two stories of the discovery of PV are erroneous in a specific detail.

You and Pat continue to try to intuit some agenda/goal I'm trying to achieve.

My only conclusion so far is that the discovery story is still open for me.  I fully understand it may not be for others.