In a message dated 7/23/2006 2:26:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, richardpence@pipeline.com writes: On the contrary, the person who supplied the information is indeed the source. Richard- The source is how you know the information. And if I have a document such as a birth certificate, baptimal record, marriage license, etc. THAT is my documentation and my source. It doesn't much matter whether I obtained the baptismal record from the church or from Mary Smith or whether the document came tumbling down out of the sky. I know the information because I have it on a document. If the only way I know the information is because I got it from Mary Smith's GEDCOM then Mary Smith's GEDCOM is my source (even if Mary cites sources such as birth certificates in her GEDCOM--if I haven't seen them then Mary's GEDCOM is my source). If Mary Smith told me about information in her privately held family Bible then that is my source and Mary is a part of it because she supplied the information. But the point I've been trying to drive home all along is that if I have a baptismal record that is my source--I could have obtained in any manner. When the only reason I know the information is because I got it from another person or that person's GEDCOM or private family info, then the person is the source. Joan

Joan Young <JYoung6180@aol.com> wrote: > The source is how you know the information. Precisely. If Sarah Smith wrote me a letter and said our mutal great unlce was born in 1850, then that is the source of the information. That does not mean, however, that I won't someday get a "better" source, such as a Bible record from another cousin. > And if I have a document such > as a birth certificate, baptimal record, marriage license, etc. THAT > is my > documentation and my source. Sure. Never have I said otherwise. > It doesn't much matter whether I obtained the baptismal record from > the > church or from Mary Smith or whether the document came > tumbling down out of the sky. I know the information because I have > it on a > document. Of course. But my point is that if someone wrote you a letter and said that s-and-so was born on a particular date WITHOUT any other piece of paper or citation, then THAT is the source. It can't be otherwise. > If the only way I know the information is because I got it from Mary > Smith's GEDCOM then Mary Smith's GEDCOM is my source (even if Mary > cites sources such as birth certificates in her GEDCOM--if I haven't > seen them > then Mary's GEDCOM is my source). If Mary Smith told me about > information > in her privately held family Bible then that is my source and Mary is > a part of it > because she supplied the information. Exactly and without a doubt. But suppose Mary never said anything about any Bible. The she is the source. And, again, it can't be otherwise until you get a different source. > But the point I've been trying to drive home all along is that if I > have a > baptismal record that is my source--I could have obtained in any > manner. Nobody said anything differently. And we never heard anything about anybodyt sending anyone a baptismal certificate, did we? > When the only reason I know the information is because I got it from > another > person or that person's GEDCOM or private family info, then the > person is the > source. Ain't that what said? I sure thought that's what I wrote and I looked at it again I still think so. Richard