I have replaced my Slatton Webpage because of the following email. I did leave the old webpage that has links to other Hancock Co., TN related families at: Old Slatton Information Keep in mind that this information prompted the emails below!

Subj:   Persistently ignoring us? 
Date:   Sun, 7 Jan 2001 2:17:00 AM Eastern Standard Time 
From:   "Clinton Slayton"  
To:    
 
Mr Payne

I represent a growing (but private) website of Slaton/Slaton researchers who
wish that you would not POST materials from W John Slayton that are
undocumented and incorrect. Please read the material below:

>From: "Clinton Slayton" 
>To: 
>Subject: Please remove Mary Rodes-William Slaton
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:33:07 -0500
>
>Unless you have documentation, please remove the reference to William
>Slatton/Slayden marrying Mary Rodes. This man is almost certainly my
>ancestor and there has been no evidence to prove or even suggest that a
>marriage took place between William and Mary Rodes. If your information has
>come from W John Slayton then you should demand documentation for proof.
>
>sincerely
>Clinton Slayton


I found the information
in the Virginia Magazine which is my source from the editor, Edgar
McDonald's article on the Rodes family.

James Rodes

>There is no such article in the Virginia Magazine of History & Biography,
The Magazine of Virginia Genealogy, or it's
>predecessor, the Quarterly. The only survey of the Rodes family was done in
the 1899-1900 Quarterly issues of VMHB, not by 
> Edgar McDonald. All "Mary Rodes" are either given marriage partners or
listed as early deaths. Please remove the
> information presented there, as you are perpetuating a fraud. Modern
treatments of the Rodes family, such as Culpepper's
> also fail to mention this unproven link.
****************************************************************************
*******************************************

Previously, W John has tainted Internet sites with his guess that William
had married Elizabeth Terrell. Now he has Mary Rodes.

The full birthdates given for John 1, and the misleading language, such
as,"he moved with this father, " and "his brother" adn "his sister," are all
designed to produce the effect that this anecdotal style is based on
knowledge. It is not. This is not W John Slayton's, family, it is mine. I am
a direct descendant from Captain John.

The reason the links you have to "Clayton Slayton" and "Joe Slaten" do not
work, is because neither I (CLINTON) nor Joe ever posted these, but are
working to get them removed. "Elrod Slatton" is also suspected to be W John
Slayton. I do not have time (nor do you to read it) to retell all of the
crimes committed against genealogical research by W John Slayton. Here are
some references, please contact any or all:

GEORGE R SLAYTON
By Clinton Slayton - Oct 21, 2000
Subject: Say it ain't so!
George, did you actually post this on Genforum?:

I have been associated with John Slayton by mail, phone and even e-mail for
several years. I have bought several of his books which are top notched
genealogical books displaying primary sources. I consider him the best when
it comes to the Slayton name in research. If there is no proof , he states
so but can add great insight for further angles to try and research. He has
my upmost respect and look forward to more books written by him.
George Slayton

Subject: Absolutely not!
Hi Clinton: NO! I have never posted anything on Genforum.com, certainly not
what you sent. I don't understand why anyone would feel it necessary to post
something in someone else's name. If I accuse anyone of so doing, I am sure
that he would deny it. As I said in my last email, I am not sure that
anything can be done to stop it except to let people know what is taking
place and to be cautious of whatever they find.
Pardon my delay in replying but I was tied up and did not check my email
until tonight (Saturday).
Thanks.
George R. Slayton
grslay@mindspring.com

JOE SLATEN
About the time I think it couldn't get worse, it does.  Are you familiar
with the ROOTSWEB WorldConnect Project?  There are 3359 Slaten/Slaton entries,
last updated 1-21-2000.  It looks like another W. John project to me.  There
many, many entries accredited to me that I never had a thing to do with.  On
the page there is this quotation:  "All questions, comments or suggestions
regarding information on this page should be addrfessed to: Joe Slaten,
jslaten@aol.com."  I thought something was amiss when he gave me credit for
the line of Wade Hampton Slaton, b., Feb 1801.  I thought, "Why not give
this credit to Clinton? This is his immediate family line.  I know nothing about
this."
There were hundreds of entries bearing my name, George R. Slayton, and Elrod
Slatton...I believe this whole project is the work of W. John Slayton and it
must have taken him weeks to do it...After every entry, he puts the responsibilty for things wrong with it on somebody else.
I'm ready to join your effort in silencing this menace to genealogy
research.  I will recruit every person I can.
thinking about legal steps to stop W. John.  I hope [this person]comes up
with something.
I have thrown away hours and hours of work due to the way he has polluted,
tainted, prostituted {whatever}, Slaton research...I still contend that the
only way to go is to strip all Slaton {any way you spell it} information
from the internet and start over again.  And even as I'm saying this, I
acknowledge the seemingly impossibility in doing so.  Quite frankly I am at a complete
loss here.
Joe
jslaten@aol.com


Your site looks like a helpful and well-thought-out project. Please do not
compromise it with the half-baked information. The primary researchers for
much of this material are myself, Newton Owen of Louisville (Rials family),
Alton Green & Hallie Price Garner (Greene Family). At no point did W John
Slayton (jslayden@juno.com) request or receive our permission to merge
together genuine research with his guesswork. He will generally not respond
to any requests to provide documentation. Other sites have responded to our
requests for removing without legal recourse on our part. Since it is
offensively presented as fact rather than as guesswork, we prefer that it be
removed in toto. The gist of the family' outline is correct, and most of it
came from myself, but it is so interspersed with W John's guesswork and
made-up dates that is would be like picking through a minefield. I would be
glad to copy-and-paste a version with the unproven material removed and a
more accurate presentation, but we need some kind of response before going
to the trouble.

sincerely
Clinton Slayton