This is exactly WHY we post our messages and queries to the lists, websites, etc. to ensure that enough researchers can look at data, right or wrong, examine it, discuss it, hypothesise about it, bring in new data, correlate it or discard it. chemical researchers, medical researchers, or family researchers, it doesn't matter. all research requires an examination of the facts, the hypothesis, the falicies, over and over until a basis of data becomes factual. That doesn't mean absolutely correct. those records we call primary, are full of errors. someone didn't know, couldn't remember, lied...whatever. However, I can hardly see Bible records, considered a primary source in genealogical research, as "garbage". Actual research garbage is false data, especially that which is intentionally used to misslead the researcher, but also the wishful dreams of a victorian ancestor who would like to think that they are descended from Pocahontas, George Washington, or Betsy Ross, or the Captain of a ship, inventor or explorer, and who, in the process of such wishfulness, wrote down such unproven and usually unfactual information in their diary, or even, in their own research. in reality, many of those stories, as Sam Clemmens said, are greatly exaggerated. How many times I have followed such will 'o the wisps with careful documentation policies, I hate to say. (I had a very wishful grandmother.) if we keep our information to ourselves, how then do we verify it? documentation? well, ok, but what if it's wrong? I've seen something with three documents to it that was soundly disproved by another, so you can't swear by documentation. You can, however, trust full, thorough research. All I see is someone trying to untangle a confusing genealogy of common names, and asking for help in doing so. In the process, they are providing Bible records to many people, some who may be descendants and may not even know a Bible exists for this family. who of us hasn't found a confusing genealogy in their research? like the black sheep, if you haven't found one yet, you will. Cornelia >If you don't have any idea of the accuracy of this information, why in the world would you dump this >much garbage out there? Wouldn't be a better idea just to wait to see if anyone is interested in >this guesswork and then send it to them privately? >-----Original Message----- >From: DITTOBYTE <DITTOBYTE@aol.com>