Pat I agree with you. I am enjoying reading all the Fuqua information. I am interested in information on Bridgett Fuqua and John Beasley. John and Bridgett had a son named Fuquay Beasley. I think it is possible my line of Fuquas are related to Bridgett Fuqua. The Beasley family was in Monroe County Tn in 1830. My greatgrandfather Jesse Fuquay was also there in 1830. Jesse moved to Gordon County Georgia abt. 1837. The Beasley family moved to Floyd County Georgia about the same time. So far I haven't found any proof of relationship. I would greatly appreciate any information. Phyllis Fuqua Scott >From: "Kith-n-Kin" <Kith-n-Kin@att.net> >Reply-To: FUQUA-L@rootsweb.com >To: FUQUA-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: RE: [FUQUA] Re: "Controversy" >Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:41:07 -0700 > >Did anyone notice? This "controversy" stirred up not only feelings, but >some good sharing and reporting >by Patty (different Patty, by the way, we just share names and relatives, >apparently <G>). > >I hope all of you understand that this process is much more effective when >a bit of dander gets disturbed. >And, I hope no individual takes what I am saying personally, because it is >not meant that way. I have had >my share of goofs, badly documented statements, etc. And, I've been called >on them, "in the nicest way >possible" - ok, well, maybe not so nice, but it made me think. So, I have >been making a personal effort >to learn more about this field of study. > >I have been reading up on the standards of research, publishing, sharing, >mouthing off about, etc., >genealogical research. The bottom line is, CITE YOUR SOURCES. Unless you >are making something up out of >whole cloth, you got the information from someone, who got it from someone >. . . The point of >documentation is to allow a fellow researcher (or yourself when you find >alternative information) a trail >to follow to get at the "most probable" scenario. > >Primary documents, such as was reported this week by Patty on Ralph's will, >give us a great deal more >information than the numerous "gleanings" someone has made over the years. >And, of course, as I mentioned >in another e-mail, if we had the probate, even better. I wonder if son >Ralph ever got his shilling. >Matter of fact, one might wonder why Ralph and the siblings listed at the >bottom of the will, who didn't >share as much in the largess, were they perhaps the older children and had >already received their share as >they married. Do we have any documentation on that? > >Anyway, if you choose to "adopt" a particular set of children for a person, >and put it in your website, >that's ok as an "working hypothesis", but you should at least have >documented the source for each >assumption, and the comment "unproven". Whether or not you put such >documentation on the website is up to >you, but if you don't, you should at least be willing to back it up via an >e-mail if there is a question. >AND, the danger of putting unsubstantiated relationships on a website is >that other people will replicate >them on other websites, on other websites, on other websites, ad-nauseum. > >I personally support high standards for genealogy, just as I do high >standards for journalism. There are >people who take both seriously and maintain high standards, and people who >will do a lesser job. What we >may not be wholly aware of is that putting something on the internet is >"publishing" so we become >journalists as well as hobbyists. "Pride of publication" should never take >precedence over "pride of >work". Most of us have been told of books written around the turn of the >century where "facts" were at >best unsupported, and at worst, fabricated to make someone a DAR, SAR, >descendent of some king or other, >etc. We shouldn't be doing this on the web, anymore than we would do it in >a published book. > >Each of us has a choice here, and I will say that the Fuqua materials that >I've seen that have Frank >attached to them are far more professional than most of the websites I've >come across. We would do well to >pay attention to what he has done. > >Ralph isn't "my line", but every breakthrough we have as a group may lead >to something for the rest of us. >Please, everyone, ask questions, "listen" carefully to the questions, share >your knowledge and your >sources. And, don't get your feelings hurt if someone seems harsh. >Remember, this is the written word we >are working with here and the feelings just don't come through. What may >seem abrupt may have been meant >as a short, concise answer to a question. I hope none of us ever "assume" >that everyone else is as good, >bright, clever as we are, has been at genealogy as long as we have, >"should" know something they obviously >don't, or that everyone has access to the same websites and so on. And, I >hope that if anyone offers us >honest criticism, we take it well. Otherwise, how do we grow? > >So, what does anyone know about Bridget Fuqua who married John Beasley? >Proof? > >Hee, hee, > >Pat (in Tucson) @ > @@@ > @ ^ ^ @@ > @(©¿©¬)@ > \_-_/ > > > > >==== FUQUA Mailing List ==== >You are invited to visit the new Fuqua website at: >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~fuqua > > >============================== >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 > _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

I agree it is a lot of fun. Did you ever knoq a FUQUA that served in the House of Representives in the CONGRESS OF THE U>S>A> Also, I knew some that milked cows and enjoyed it in making a living. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: phyllis scott <pfscott99@hotmail.com> To: <FUQUA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 9:28 PM Subject: RE: [FUQUA] Re: "Controversy" > Pat > I agree with you. > I am enjoying reading all the Fuqua information. > I am interested in information on Bridgett Fuqua and John Beasley. > John and Bridgett had a son named Fuquay Beasley. > I think it is possible my line of Fuquas are related to Bridgett > Fuqua. > The Beasley family was in Monroe County Tn in 1830. > My greatgrandfather Jesse Fuquay was also there in 1830. > Jesse moved to Gordon County Georgia abt. 1837. > The Beasley family moved to Floyd County Georgia > about the same time. > So far I haven't found any proof of relationship. > I would greatly appreciate any information. > Phyllis Fuqua Scott > > > > > > > > >From: "Kith-n-Kin" <Kith-n-Kin@att.net> > >Reply-To: FUQUA-L@rootsweb.com > >To: FUQUA-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: RE: [FUQUA] Re: "Controversy" > >Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:41:07 -0700 > > > >Did anyone notice? This "controversy" stirred up not only feelings, but > >some good sharing and reporting > >by Patty (different Patty, by the way, we just share names and relatives, > >apparently <G>). > > > >I hope all of you understand that this process is much more effective when > >a bit of dander gets disturbed. > >And, I hope no individual takes what I am saying personally, because it is > >not meant that way. I have had > >my share of goofs, badly documented statements, etc. And, I've been called > >on them, "in the nicest way > >possible" - ok, well, maybe not so nice, but it made me think. So, I have > >been making a personal effort > >to learn more about this field of study. > > > >I have been reading up on the standards of research, publishing, sharing, > >mouthing off about, etc., > >genealogical research. The bottom line is, CITE YOUR SOURCES. Unless you > >are making something up out of > >whole cloth, you got the information from someone, who got it from someone > >. . . The point of > >documentation is to allow a fellow researcher (or yourself when you find > >alternative information) a trail > >to follow to get at the "most probable" scenario. > > > >Primary documents, such as was reported this week by Patty on Ralph's will, > >give us a great deal more > >information than the numerous "gleanings" someone has made over the years. > >And, of course, as I mentioned > >in another e-mail, if we had the probate, even better. I wonder if son > >Ralph ever got his shilling. > >Matter of fact, one might wonder why Ralph and the siblings listed at the > >bottom of the will, who didn't > >share as much in the largess, were they perhaps the older children and had > >already received their share as > >they married. Do we have any documentation on that? > > > >Anyway, if you choose to "adopt" a particular set of children for a person, > >and put it in your website, > >that's ok as an "working hypothesis", but you should at least have > >documented the source for each > >assumption, and the comment "unproven". Whether or not you put such > >documentation on the website is up to > >you, but if you don't, you should at least be willing to back it up via an > >e-mail if there is a question. > >AND, the danger of putting unsubstantiated relationships on a website is > >that other people will replicate > >them on other websites, on other websites, on other websites, ad-nauseum. > > > >I personally support high standards for genealogy, just as I do high > >standards for journalism. There are > >people who take both seriously and maintain high standards, and people who > >will do a lesser job. What we > >may not be wholly aware of is that putting something on the internet is > >"publishing" so we become > >journalists as well as hobbyists. "Pride of publication" should never take > >precedence over "pride of > >work". Most of us have been told of books written around the turn of the > >century where "facts" were at > >best unsupported, and at worst, fabricated to make someone a DAR, SAR, > >descendent of some king or other, > >etc. We shouldn't be doing this on the web, anymore than we would do it in > >a published book. > > > >Each of us has a choice here, and I will say that the Fuqua materials that > >I've seen that have Frank > >attached to them are far more professional than most of the websites I've > >come across. We would do well to > >pay attention to what he has done. > > > >Ralph isn't "my line", but every breakthrough we have as a group may lead > >to something for the rest of us. > >Please, everyone, ask questions, "listen" carefully to the questions, share > >your knowledge and your > >sources. And, don't get your feelings hurt if someone seems harsh. > >Remember, this is the written word we > >are working with here and the feelings just don't come through. What may > >seem abrupt may have been meant > >as a short, concise answer to a question. I hope none of us ever "assume" > >that everyone else is as good, > >bright, clever as we are, has been at genealogy as long as we have, > >"should" know something they obviously > >don't, or that everyone has access to the same websites and so on. And, I > >hope that if anyone offers us > >honest criticism, we take it well. Otherwise, how do we grow? > > > >So, what does anyone know about Bridget Fuqua who married John Beasley? > >Proof? > > > >Hee, hee, > > > >Pat (in Tucson) @ > > @@@ > > @ ^ ^ @@ > > @(©¿©¬)@ > > \_-_/ > > > > > > > > > >==== FUQUA Mailing List ==== > >You are invited to visit the new Fuqua website at: > >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~fuqua > > > > > >============================== > >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 > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > ==== FUQUA Mailing List ==== > You are invited to visit the new Fuqua website at: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~fuqua > > > ============================== > 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 >