You know, Maurice, you have a terrible habit of constantly lambasting others whom you consider as inferior in your eyes, in relation to their research efforts, etc., yet these very same persons often give you much credit, if they have been provided with such data directly by you. An example is the sad case of poor John Collier, who gave you a massive amount of credit in an earlier version (which I have) of his publication of the veterans buried in the UK, yet you put him down so often (as you have also done against Roy Rawlinson, at the same web site). You condemn me for "riding on the back of Michael Mars," when I clearly have not undertaken any major research on this sailor. You accuse me, in published form on the Internet, of plagiarism, when all my sites have always included "proper and correct" citation of the sources I have used. You refer to others as stupid and egomaniacs. You state, without any justification, that my sites are there for my own glorification (this from someone who boasts of having his work shown on documentaries, etc.), yet the introductions often show the reasons why they are there. You refuse to discuss all this by private e-mail, even though I have twice provided my e-mail address, because you know I have further details, not for public view, which will prove certain points against you. You make assumptions (such as the supposed court martial, Yonge's service as paymaster on the LADY DAVIS, your statement that MOST of the papers of the ALABAMA were saved, when the ORN shows otherwise, etc.), then seem unable to spot the information that is provided by other sources (such as Yonge's parents' names from the LDS Family Search). When dates are shown to be incorrect, you blame the errors on the UK group who originally placed the information on the Internet. There is even one very major, glaring error shown for your biography on a crew member of the CSS ALABAMA on the Internet, which is definitely not the fault of the web master, as this same error was repeated by you on one of your postings at this Message Board, and this error will be shown to be such in my compilation of the crew of the CSS ALABAMA. I don't know how you could have made such a major error, as all the official published sources (dispatches by James D. Bulloch, the ORN, etc.), as well as information provided by a well known author in Massachusetts, show this as an error on your part. If this is how you conduct your research, even after you yourself declared, "Even I can make mistakes, but at least I haven't published my work and will only do so when I've cross checked everything first," then you are placing unreliable information on the Internet, as you also did in Marvel's volume (which you like to claim is all your own work). I don't know how many further errors there are at the Yonge page (as I have not bothered to check further data on the ALEXANDRA case, etc.) or at your biographical data on some of the crew, but to condemn others for their research abilities, while glorifying your own is inviting further disaster.
You state you don't give me all the information. To be honest with you, I do not seek nor want any information from you, and all the bits and pieces on the crew of the ALABAMA, that you have placed at this message board is not noted down, as I prefer to conduct my own research, and all will appear in due time. You may only have data from the allotment papers, Fraser, Trenholm and Co. records, the PRO, the GRO, and other sources in the UK, and you may place query messages at genealogical message boards, but do you know of the other very, very obscure information available from diaries, journals, letters and other similar records of CSN (and even USN) sailors and officers, as well as even deck logs of the USN vessels, POW records available at the National Archives, etc.? These should not be neglected out of hand, as you have neglected the service of Risien, Simpson and some of the others.
We all know that after the official July, 1863 muster roll of the cruiser, more personnel would have been shipped, and others discharged or deserted at places such as Singapore, Cape Town, Cherbourg, etc.
Finally, replacing information on Godwin with updated information, does not entail having to state that the previous information was flawed. Anyone reading the introduction and other similar prefaces, etc., at the particular page and the index pages (see the boxes at the bottom) can clearly see the statements of updates to information, etc. Once again, you are ignoring these notices.
I await your private e-mail response in relation to this discussion. I will provide two e-mail addresses so that you will be able to respond further: tfoenander@hotmail.com and tfoen@ozconnect.net