I'd also asked if anyone had any information to add to the tree (didn't ask anyone specifically, just a general "anyone,") and she has informed me that she WILL NOT be telling me any information about her children and grandchildren. (All of that information is easily available, but if she's getting like this, then I'm not going to add it.)
Jayne ,'Jaynestown'
Spike's Bitches 49: As usual, I'm here to help you, and I... are you naked under there?
Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
Did you start the group, Hil? If so, boot her!
She's not in the group. Another cousin sent it to her.
Oooof. I'm sorry, Hil -- that just sucks.
This side of the family is a ton of people -- my great-grandmother was the third of 12 children in her family, and nine of those kids had kids of their own, so just by the time you get to my mom's generation, it's several dozen people -- so I figured that posting a chart to keep track of who was who might be useful.
It is useful, Hil. She is just ridiculous. People don't get that a locked post isn't available to the world at large.
I just don't even get what she thinks that anyone would do with that information.
Why not fill out her family tree anyway and put in some stupid, obvious mistakes, like double the number of children and add a few random spouses. Then forward for her input and claim it's all public record.
Just if you want to wave that red flag at the angry bull, that is.
I just checked, and found that she's on at least three other public trees on various genealogy websites. (Or, at least, her parents are, plus two children -- it doesn't show names for living people.)
I guess she figured if it's a security question like oldest cousin or mothers middle name or something?? But yeah, hard to hide.