You tell 'em Cornelia, and I'll cheer you on. Unlike Brian R. Donnelly, I didn't think it was garbage, either. In fact, though I can't quite nail down a solid connection from what DITTOBYTE sent, her post was the FIRST thing posted on the COLLINS-L since I've been a subscriber that even might the people I've been searching. I'm thankful that it was posted. If anyone doesn't want to read this stuff, they can delete it. C.L. Collins Cornelia Warner wrote: > 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>