My letters to you may make queries about Mars, but I am sure they also make queries about other sailors, as do letters I have sent to others about certain CSN sailors, as well. Do these indicate that I am "riding on the back" of each individual sailor that I seek information upon, or that I am singularly concentrating any effort upon each one? NO! What they indicate is that I have been advised that certain persons (such as yourself) have data on certain CSN individuals, and not that I want to gain fame because I seek information on these individuals, or that I am creating a web site specifically for these individuals. The NORTH AND SOUTH magazine case has long been closed, and the person in question had made a public apology in a later issue of the magazine. That case covered one specific item which I definitely had provided information for, and nothing to do with any claims about providing all data for a roster, which now you admit did not all come from you. Besides, I did not place messages on the Internet, naming this person, or abuse his name to others in private messages full of vitriol. I just happened to make a comment in passing, about the item shown in N&S being originally sent the author by me, and not, either, with as much vitriol as you tend to intersperse your comments about others. The person I sent this comment to, unknown to me, knew the author personally, and of course it got back to him, thus the final kind apology.
Tell me, if now, years later, you finally admit that the full roster in Marvel did not come from you, how is anyone looking at the roster supposed to know what information for each individual was supplied by you, and what was not, so that the proper citation can be applied to you? You came out aggressively claiming the information was yours, and in the process, falsely accusing me of plagiarism, yet, prior to this, no one knew which was yours and which was not (and for that matter, we still don't know all those that are yours, just the names you have mentioned at one point or another, etc.) This is exactly what I have been trying to point out for all this time, yea, even since our first communication way back in 2001! Your original message to me, in its aggressive tone, did not specify which was yours (and even with each individual, you would need to specify which data is yours, and which is also available freely in other sources), and which came from other persons or institutions. I realise that you seek the glory of your achievements, and I don't deny that you know quite a bit on SOME individuals, but since Marvel did not specify for each man's name on the roster, which was your information, which came from the Alabama Archives, and which came from other books showing the men's names (such as Sinclair, Kell, Semmes, etc.), was I not right to cite Marvel as the source, instead of stating that all of it came from you? After all, if I stated that all the information came from you, there would most probably be another angry person somewhere who claimed that it was not you that provided information for such and such an individual, and that I was giving you false credit (though most others would probably approach this calmly and in a sensible manner, without condemning everyone under the sun, or placing false accusations in published form, or calling others stupid and egomaniacs, and who knows what other abusive names). It would have been quite appropriate to claim credit for certain pieces of information, within the entries for each crew member, as well, instead of claiming everything for those you have named. Let's take one famous example, and I will clearly illustrate what I am pointing at, so that you can see what I have been trying to state all along:

MICHAEL MARS - Marvel's roster includes several pieces of information there, including, I have no doubt, some of which comes from you, and some of which is available in published and other sources. His place of birth, shown as Ireland, is also indicated in Arthur Sinclair's volume (you state that you have this volume, so you will be able to refer to pages 56 and 206, both of which clearly name his birthplace). Now if you refer to Marvel's bibliography, he indicates Sinclair's volume as one of his sources, as well, so how is anyone, especially those who have been falsely accused of plagiarism or called stupid and egomaniacs, supposed to know whether Mars' birthplace information came directly from you or from the Sinclair entries? Furthermore, the entry about Mar's fate at Cherbourg is shown in a number of published sources, some of which are also shown in Marvel's bibliography. Once again, can you totally claim that this is your own personal data, and no one else's, because if you do, then you are claiming credit for information freely available in so many other sources which Marvel may have consulted.

I have been trying to point this all out, time and time again, but you constantly ignore all this - that nothing is ever completely yours, nor anyone else's for that matter. Instead of making blatant accusations against others, you should have at least taken up the issue with Marvel, discussing it in a calm and sensible manner, without creating so many enemies in the process. Furthermore, there is a lot more published information available on most of the officers as well, so that makes your claim to sole credit for information on many of them rather invalid. Semmes, Kell, Bulloch, Armstrong, Sinclair, Maffitt, Llewellyn, etc., are cases in particular, for whom so much data is available, and certainly none of this data is yours, as much of it is freely available in volumes by Semmes, Kell, Sinclair, the volume containing Fullam's account, etc. Then there is Yonge, whom we have discussed so many times before, and for whom there is a vast amount of information available in several sources, and especially the ALABAMA CLAIMS CORRESPONDENCE, which is clearly shown as one of the sources in Marvel's bibliography. Then there are the enlisted sailors for whom some information is available elsewhere - Bartelli, Edward Fitzmaurice, Mars, Minor, Marmelstein (although by rights he should be in the officers' category, as he was appointed after leaving the ALABAMA), Latham, Alcott, Brosman/Brosnan, Robinson, Mecaskey, Freemantle, etc.
You claim that the birth, marriage and death of these men you have researched, but when you refer to your work on the crew of the CSS ALABAMA, (instead of properly stating "SOME of the crew of the CSS ALABAMA," and perhaps indicating the enlisted men in particular), you seem to imply that information on the birth, marriage and death of persons such as Semmes, Kell, Fullam, Sinclair, and several others, are also yours. Everyone knows perfectly well that these are available in other sources.
As well you indicate that you write to the relatives of personnel for information, but this, as I found in the case of your article on Brooks, cannot always be relied upon. The short account written by Brooks himself, and available at the Georgia Historical Society, points to at least one error in your article on Brooks (while other sources, in dispatches and diary entries by Thomas Jefferson Page and Douglas French Forrest, both of whom served with Brooks, point to several other errors). I am sure you cannot fault the Brooks account, as it was written in his own hand, and I would be glad to send you a scan of the error in question, if you wish.
You say I am stretching your words, yet you yourself mention the Queen of England, immediately in answer to my message naming Queen Isabel of Spain, thus somewhat implying what I assumed. How else is one to take this?
Furthermore, you state that I am "making something out of it that isn't there," and "reading my words and getting something else" yet I have clearly stated, in my message of July 26, that Brooks' appointment as Chief Engineer was dated after the STONEWALL had left France. If you would be so kind as to write to the Georgia Historical Society, Library and Archives, 501 Whitaker Street, Savannah, Georgia 31401-4830, and request the appointment notice, sent to Brooks, by captain Thomas J. Page, appointing him as Chief Engineer, dated (AT SEA, I might add!) March 25, 1865, I am sure that they would be glad to send you a copy of this to confirm what you seek to deny. I received the Brooks account and one or two other papers from the GHS back in January, 2001. They have a number of other official documents in their collections, but these are currently irrelevant to my research. And you are not the only one who is in contact with a John Low descendant, as I have received a large amount of information from Phillip Sweetingham, whom, you may already know, held the CSS ALABAMA pennant, until he donated it to the Alabama museum some years ago.
You ask what I am reading from your comments that isn't there. Well, for one thing, a court martial that is not mentioned in Sinclair at all, a desertion which never happened for another, an appointment on the LADY DAVIS as paymaster that never happened, a promotion to chief engineer that did not occur in France, but while Brooks was on the STONEWALL, at sea, cross checks of everything first (before they are published) that obviously haven't been done, statements that Yonge's parents names are not at the LDS Family Search, when they are (your statement on this was - see your own posting of July 24 - "It [Yonge's parents names] either came from my article on the site or his relative, but you won't find his parents names under the LDS or Alabama Claims"), your comment that Simpson was not on the ALABAMA when he was, according to a fellow sailor, your statements that you don't give me all the facts, and that you might even give me bits of information to side track me - I don't ask for anything from you, as I realise, like the Yonge and Param Brooks data, they may be incorrect, and I am sure that some of your other information is incorrect, and furthermore, if you are giving me information, I am certainly not taking any notice of it - which, if you have done this with the information at the UK web sites, and in Marvel's book, might be used against you by these persons, your statement [referring to Risien], in your message of June 6, that "the Confederate Veteran is not proof of a man's service," and then changing your tune, in your message of July 26, when you state, "I doubt the service of Risien on the ALABAMA, I don't recall saying I doubt his Naval service." So these are some of the comments that I am reading that aren't there, or that are there when they certainly aren't at the source of the material (which source you often fail to indicate).
Furthermore, here is a case in point, when you ask, "As to the crewmen in books written between the 1950's to the 1980's, where does it say Caren, Horwood, etc., died in Liverpool." If you read my original posting with this intimation you would have noted that it was in answer to your satement that nothing of the actual crew had not been covered in other publications prior to your research, not to Caren, Horwood, etc., in particular. If you would be so kind as to refer back to Sinclair, Fullam, Semmes, and several other volumes, you would most certainly see information on some of the individuals, such as George Freemantle, Addison, and others that I mentioned a few paragraphs above, so don't take this out of context, once again.
I have previously explained the circumstances of coming across your genealogical queries on some of the crew members, as shown on the Internet. Don't keep on trying to assume that I am monitoring your queries, as I have my own searches to do. If my searches sometimes come up with your own searches then it is a matter of the technologies to the Internet, which I explained to you yesterday, and which you still seem to be unaware of. What is this nonsense of dangerous ground you are stating against me? Is this a threat, or are you trying to frighten me? If so, don't bother, because I am not cowed by such threats. You would know my disposition if you see some of my other web sites, and know of my characteristics. I will continue to search for material on the CSN sailors, including, in spite of your threats, anything on the CSS ALABAMA sailors, and if, in the process, your queries happen to come up, then so be it, and I will not bow to threats. If you don't like others seeing the data shown on the Internet, then don't place it there, simple as that.
And, by the way, if you read the entry on Redden, you will clearly note that it states that he "CLAIMED" service on the CSS ALABAMA. That entry in the ORN notes his own words about this, but you obviously had not bothered to check it prior to your blast. I knew, from reading some of his words, as well as the data in the other sources, about Redden, that it was not possible, that is why I placed the word "CLAIMED" there. You are therefore ignoring what certain entries imply. Redden himself claimed four months of service on the ALABAMA, yet I knew he had returned to England, prior to her commissioning. As a matter of fact one of my previous messages to you shows clearly that I had doubts about his service. Refer back to this if you wish. I think it was in a message posted in June. So once again you state that I have so many errors, without knowing the facts. Furthermore, if there are any errors, they are most likely included in the sources mentioned, such as Marvel, which I assume you provided information for??? Then you ask if I have placed a caution at this site, and for the umpteenth time I repeat, there are update notices at the index page and introductory notices at the actual web sites show that I will add information, and make amendments as they come to hand, which is a lot more than what your pages show. Once again, I repeat, read these statements before making any of your own, as you are just showing how you work, as you have clearly done with Yonge, Brooks and others.
Do you read, and understand the statements that I make, as you keep asking the same questions which I have answered for your benefit, yet seem to have missed, so often before?
Perhaps I will now make references to past answers to avoid repertition, in the future.