Re: Ghika/Gyika [Roumania (ex Transylvania/Hungary)]

"... Who she knew, or what her political connections were, entirely
irrelevant. You claimed that she did her research in the archives of
various countries. Repeated it again when questioned. When that proved
untenable, you shifted your argument to claim that she did her research
in the embassies in Istanbul. When that argument fell apart, you
finally admitted that she did not investigate or examine anything to do
with the Hungarian Gyikas..."

Sonny boy, I shifted nothing, you suffer from amnesia. She made her
researches in Constantinople, and, as I also mentioned it, in several
other archives, such as the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc.
You cannot get it, can you ?

".. Nope, you have simply changed your story every step of the way..."

No, sonny boy, I always brought more and more details. You're lost
among them, it seems, and make preposterous confusions.

"... Perhaps because he wasn't dead. "

No "perhaps". The perhaps is always yours. He was dead in 1766.
If you claim otherwise, bring the proof.
You cannot.

"... The paragraph you cited isn't clear on a date of death. The
paragraph you cited said nothing about his age."

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter. Say he was 15 ; as he was dead in 1766,
he could not father a son in 1780. Say he was 34 ; as he was dead in
1766, he could not father a son in 1780. Say he was 1300 y.o. ; as he
was dead in 1766, he could not father a son in 1780.
Period. Your ridiculous theories always fall apart when maths comes in.


"... The paragraph you cited said nothing about the rest of Scarlat's
children, dates of birth and death, or their progeny. The paragraph you
cited indicates doubt as to when he may have died."

Unfortunately for you, that paragraph is extremely clear in what George
is concerned. Dead 1766. The other children do not matter.
And, BTW, you're repeating the same worthless arguments.

"... Why not try looking at your own quoted post. It is there. If you
cannot, look up the family website."

I don't have to look up the family website ! I don't trust it.

"... You have admitted that the information about Emmanual Gyika being
the father isn't in the patent of nobility, as you had tried to imply.
You were asked the question three times, before you finally admitted
that it didn't give any such information. "

Nope. Wrong again. I denied detailed information being presented there,
not total lack of it.

"... English is such a difficult language isn't it? "

As French and Roumanian are for you. Voulez-vous qu'on change la langue
? Croyez-vous vous débrouiller mieux en français ? J'en doute, mon
p'tit.

"... What I told you was that the Ghyka family website shows Gheorghe
as the
originator of *one* branch of he Gyika family emigrating to Russia,
rather than Hungary."

:))))))) No. :)))) You posted on Apr. 30, 2006 : "the family records
from the Rumanian side that I have seen". Really ? Do you know what a
"family record" means ? Obviously not. All you had seen was the site,
which, in for REAL genealogists, is not a "family record", but a
secondary source, like the ones you refute. Family records = family
archives or documents from the Civil Status concerning (in this case)
the G. family.

And NOW, you try to change your original opinion, saying : "what I
[you] told you [me] was that the Ghyka family website shows Gheorghe as
the originator of *one* branch of he Gyika family emigrating to Russia,
rather than Hungary." You fully admit that you saw no family records,
but a site.
Here is another proof of the way you forge things : it is not
G[h]eorg[h]e who went to Russia, as you just stated above, but Ion :

http://www.ghyka.com/Index_15/fi01/fi01_239.htm

Surprise. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Grotesque error, typical to you.

".. It lists very many more sources than you have done so far. "

Hahahaha ! :))))))
http://www.ghyka.com/Docu.htm
Given the fact that the "sources" cited there are mostly in Roumanian,
you have - once again - no idea what you're talking about. From that
list, only 4 concern a general history of the Ghikas, and one of them
is Sturdza's book, denying any connection.

You're more and more ridiculous.
One more, I accept your humble apologies for all the stupid remarks you
made, given your incompetence.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [SLE] Firefox 2.0 out
    ... > After seeing your 36 paragraph description I have come to ... > definitions of "dead simple". ... Check the headers for your unsubscription address ... Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Grateful Dead Press Conference
    ... Cruz, in a way. ... archives of the legendary band - 30 years worth of correspondence, ... the UC Santa Cruz archives. ... scene when the Grateful Dead first hit the stage in 1965. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: Grateful Dead Press Conference
    ... Cruz, in a way. ... archives of the legendary band - 30 years worth of correspondence, ... the UC Santa Cruz archives. ... scene when the Grateful Dead first hit the stage in 1965. ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: To the nutty professor--Press Release
    ... Cruz, in a way. ... archives of the legendary band - 30 years worth of correspondence, ... the UC Santa Cruz archives. ... scene when the Grateful Dead first hit the stage in 1965. ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Grateful Dead Press Conference
    ... Grateful Dead archives going to UC Santa Cruz ... archives of the legendary band - 30 years worth of correspondence, ...
    (rec.music.gdead)