In a message dated 7/23/2006 5:32:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: Ain't that what said? I sure thought that's what I wrote and I looked at it again I still think so. Richard Richard- I think you and I are in agreement on this issue--what I'm arguing with is Debbie's statement that even if she sends me a photocopy of a Birth Certificate SHE is still my source of knowing when Mary Smith was born and not the certificate itself (or she claims it has to be BOTH). That is what I've been arguing about in this thread. If I have a birth certificate who sent me the photocopy is irrelevant (other than pure courtesy of maybe thanking the person for doing so). I never stated that if the ONLY means I have of knowing something is because Susie told me that this isn't my source. But I refuse to accept Susie as my source when I've got a BC--no matter WHO sent it to me or how I acquired it. Joan

Joan - you keep answering the wrong parts of my responses to you. How you acquired the photocopy can be an important part of the citation because you may have to rely on the accuracy of whomever sent you the copy. But ... As I said in my most recent comment on this issue (which isn't exactly on topic here), if somebody sends me a photocopy of a record, that person is usually a part of the source citation. If I hire someone to get me a specific record (I often do this for NARA files, for example), then that person isn't a part of the citation. Or if long ago I copied from a county index and now I need a copy of an indexed document, I can often get it through a volunteer at a local genealogy society; if so, then the document is the source of the volunteer isn't mention. One more: If someone says they have such and such a document and they quote from it in a message to me, I will include the name of the person as a part of the source citation. If I later decide I need a copy of the document and send for it, I probably will cite it without reference to the person who originally alerted me to it. (If the person was among those who gave quite a bit of help, the recognition of that would come in an acknowledgement section.) Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: <JYoung6180@aol.com> To: <COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [COPYRIGHT] Private e-mails update - VICTORY! > > In a message dated 7/23/2006 5:32:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, > richardpence@pipeline.com writes: > > Ain't that what said? I sure thought that's what I wrote and I looked > at > it again I still think so. > > Richard > > > > Richard- > > I think you and I are in agreement on this issue--what I'm arguing > with is > Debbie's statement that even if she sends me a photocopy of a Birth > Certificate > SHE is still my source of knowing when Mary Smith was born and not the > certificate itself (or she claims it has to be BOTH). That is what > I've been > arguing about in this thread. If I have a birth certificate who sent > me the > photocopy is irrelevant (other than pure courtesy of maybe thanking > the person > for doing so). I never stated that if the ONLY means I have of > knowing > something is because Susie told me that this isn't my source. But I > refuse to > accept Susie as my source when I've got a BC--no matter WHO sent it > to me or how > I acquired it. > > Joan > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's mailing lists are filtered and attachments are removed. A > virus that is distributed as an attachment will not reach you through > a RootsWeb mailing list. For further information about Viruses, > Trojans, Worms etc., go please to: > http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/virus.html. Think to keep your Anti-Virus > up-to-date! > > ============================== > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx >