In a message dated 10/3/06 7:16:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sj-white@tiscali.co.uk writes: Hello I think it would be at best unfair and at worst naïve to call genealogy DNA testing a sham. In my experience of genealogy as an academic researcher, I have found far more errors in genealogical 'research' from human beings than both amateur and paid 'researchers' would like to think. And is it not at all possible, in centuries of "record keeping', that a woman might have had more freedom and licence that she would like to let on to the record collectors? Sue If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Sham is the only way to explain why two men would match 12 out of 12 on one test and 0 out of 24 on the 24. At the least he should have had a 12 point match out of the 24 since the same 12 points are retested for the 24 point test.. If you check into the testing as I have done since I ran the web page for the company you would understand better. That's my bit. I'm done. I hope this wasn't received as being a bit flamy, as it wasn't really meant to be. If the DNA testing cooks your carrot, then by all means. I'm keeping my two hundred dollars in my pocket thank you.

Hi No, it wasn't received as flamy; people like to discuss these things, it's interesting. My particular interest was when you said: "Now you all know that Waring is an English surname. There is no connection to Spain whatsoever and no Spanish in his background either. I have the Waring gentleman's workup back to the 1200's. There is no Spanish connection." Having a Waring surname isn't going to stop anyone having a different bloodline than that named. Nor is there such a thing as an 'English surname'.. And patriarchal lineage is as much about women as it is about men - but there's only a male 'word' to show for it. I can't say exactly why there should have been a discrepancy between one low resolution test and a later high resolution test, I'll look into it; but I don't think it fair to dismiss the entire process from one uncertain result, if that's what it is. In passing, I sometimes wonder, as a researcher of women's history, if some people don't like the idea of scientific testing because it might show up the long history of male 'lineage', and names, to be a 'sham'! But that would be too strong a word... :) Best wishes Sue On 4/10/06 1:14 am, "Reneelwaring@aol.com" <Reneelwaring@aol.com> wrote: > In a message dated 10/3/06 7:16:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > sj-white@tiscali.co.uk writes: > Hello > > I think it would be at best unfair and at worst naïve to call genealogy DNA > testing a sham. > > In my experience of genealogy as an academic researcher, I have found far > more errors in genealogical 'research' from human beings than both amateur > and paid 'researchers' would like to think. > > And is it not at all possible, in centuries of "record keeping', that a > woman might have had more freedom and licence that she would like to let on > to the record collectors? > > Sue > If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Sham is > the only way to explain why two men would match 12 out of 12 on one test and > 0 out of 24 on the 24. At the least he should have had a 12 point match out > of the 24 since the same 12 points are retested for the 24 point test.. If > you > check into the testing as I have done since I ran the web page for the > company you would understand better. That's my bit. I'm done. I hope this > wasn't > received as being a bit flamy, as it wasn't really meant to be. If the DNA > testing cooks your carrot, then by all means. I'm keeping my two hundred > dollars in my pocket thank you. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-SHROPSHIRE-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message