Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than others. Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be used as a tool to search for specific documentation. I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the DAVENPORT_L list. What I'm trying to gently say is that none of us should accept, as fact, anything someone else has researched and offered to us on a silver platter. It just is not good genealogy research for anyone to do so. Conclusions and mistakes are made by the best. Grandma used to say "never believe anything you read and only half of what you see". A little extreme, but not to far from the truth. I'm sure this might offend someone, but if I do please tell me how I'm wrong. Cliff Davenport Mill City, OR<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< You are 100% correct and yes, I too have noticed a certain eagerness to promote and enhance "the product" that a little carelessness in the whether the 'ingredients' are genuine has been deemed acceptable. <ssm> Winn

Anything published on the Internet should include sources, so you can check on the accuracy. Unfortunately, about 99% of what is published is sourceless. A lot of it is correct, but it can only be used as pointers without the sources. On Sun, 2003-06-22 at 13:54, Winifred Auch wrote: > Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > > > > I have to wonder if my meager classwork on genealogy no longer applies. > > We were taught about several kinds of documentation. Some much better than > others. > > Documentation is something you personally are able to find. If you couldn't > locate the documentation on your own, the information shouldn't be included > in your project. But whatever information you found could and should be > used as a tool to search for specific documentation. > > I personally have found DAVENPORT information, on DAVENPORT websites, I > knew to be incorrect. Not posted by anyone currently writing on the > DAVENPORT_L list. > > What I'm trying to gently say is that none of us should accept, as fact, > anything someone else has researched and offered to us on a silver platter. > It just is not good genealogy research for anyone to do so. Conclusions and > mistakes are made by the best. > > Grandma used to say "never believe anything you read and only half of what > you see". A little extreme, but not to far from the truth. > > I'm sure this might offend someone, but if I do please tell me how I'm > wrong. > > Cliff Davenport > Mill City, OR<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > You are 100% correct and yes, I too have noticed a certain eagerness to > promote and enhance "the product" that a little carelessness in the whether > the 'ingredients' are genuine has been deemed acceptable. <ssm> > Winn > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237