In article <20080222.79BEB38.B997@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) writes: > bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) writes: >> singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> > >> >Mid-West. To me, Midwest is everything between the >> >Alleghany Mountains and the Rocky Mountains. I've heard >> >other definitions from people born in some of those states >> >-- Texas in particular disapproves of it. (g) >> >> Likewise us non-Texans :-) > > Which brings to mind the question as to why Texas is > known as the Southwest. Texas is nearly in the center > of the east-west axis of the U.S. California is as > far south as Texas and quite a bit more west but isn't > considered part of the Southwest. Probably because California is on the West Coast - you can't go much farther west without getting your feet wet. Texas, well, maybe because to get there, back in the day, you had to go south and west from most likely starting places. Still, the Southwest, as a region, encompasses not only Texas, but New Mexico and Arizona, as well. All of which means absolutely nothing. Way I look at it, the way Joel Garreau describes the regional "arrangement" best in "The Nine Nations of North America", which I heartily recommend, tho' it is a bit out-dated. <snip> Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

In article <ovadncqiWfGoeyPanZ2dnUVZ_rWtnZ2d@rcn.net>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> writes: > Robert Grumbine wrote: > >> In article <HOOdnYzewLt2yiXanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@rcn.net>, >> singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>Mid-West. To me, Midwest is everything between the >>>Alleghany Mountains and the Rocky Mountains. I've heard >>>other definitions from people born in some of those states >>>-- Texas in particular disapproves of it. (g) >> >> >> Likewise us non-Texans :-) >> >> One definition of some historical relevance is that the >> midwest is the states composed wholly or in part of the >> old Northwest Territory -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, >> Wisconsin, and Minnesota. >> > > > It is simply easier and more diplomatic for me to be > all-inclusive. "Mid west" means something to the speaker and > ALWAYS includes something between the mountains. More than > that, one has to inquire of the speaker. > > I could be flip here with an example, but I won't. > > Cheryl Oh, go ahead! Why should _you_ be different? (My part of Texas is closer to California than to Houston. What does that make us here?) -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) writes: > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > [snip] > > > >Mid-West. To me, Midwest is everything between the > >Alleghany Mountains and the Rocky Mountains. I've heard > >other definitions from people born in some of those states > >-- Texas in particular disapproves of it. (g) > > Likewise us non-Texans :-) Which brings to mind the question as to why Texas is known as the Southwest. Texas is nearly in the center of the east-west axis of the U.S. California is as far south as Texas and quite a bit more west but isn't considered part of the Southwest. > One definition of some historical relevance is that the > midwest is the states composed wholly or in part of the > old Northwest Territory -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, > Wisconsin, and Minnesota. I'd forgotten about the "Northwest". When I first went to live in Minnesota, it took me awhile to understand from whence came all the Northwest's (as in Northwest Airlines, Northwest Bank, etc.) when it was nowhere near the northwestern-most part of the U.S.

Robert Grumbine wrote: > In article <HOOdnYzewLt2yiXanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@rcn.net>, > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >>Mid-West. To me, Midwest is everything between the >>Alleghany Mountains and the Rocky Mountains. I've heard >>other definitions from people born in some of those states >>-- Texas in particular disapproves of it. (g) > > > Likewise us non-Texans :-) > > One definition of some historical relevance is that the > midwest is the states composed wholly or in part of the > old Northwest Territory -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, > Wisconsin, and Minnesota. > It is simply easier and more diplomatic for me to be all-inclusive. "Mid west" means something to the speaker and ALWAYS includes something between the mountains. More than that, one has to inquire of the speaker. I could be flip here with an example, but I won't. Cheryl

In article <HOOdnYzewLt2yiXanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@rcn.net>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: [snip] > >Mid-West. To me, Midwest is everything between the >Alleghany Mountains and the Rocky Mountains. I've heard >other definitions from people born in some of those states >-- Texas in particular disapproves of it. (g) Likewise us non-Texans :-) One definition of some historical relevance is that the midwest is the states composed wholly or in part of the old Northwest Territory -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article <47bb2541.21325314@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, J. Hugh Sullivan <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:41:07 -0000, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) >wrote: > >>In article <3psdr3tni8ulkd0b7bo06bufjvblm8uslh@4ax.com>, >>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: [minitrim] >>>I find nothing in your summary objectionable. But you omitted one >>>concept I don't fully understand myself in its technical aspects, but >>>still use metaphorically when thinking about data and facts. >>> >>>That concept is the one of "fuzzy" truth values (and thereby fuzzy >>>logic). Very seldom can we assign perfect truth or perfect falsehood >>>to an alleged fact, and sometimes we aren't all that sure what >>>standard of truth we want to apply to a putative fact. >>> >>>Hugh has three possible ancestors to his earliest "proven" ancestor. >>>He could, by whatever means he chose, assign a fuzzy truth value to >>>each of them, thereby entertaining all three possibilities at once. >>>If he ever gets further information, the truth values he assigns might >>>change. >> >> Precisely. >> >> Or, as I mentioned more briefly elsewhere, I'd like to have some >>software support for working with the method of multiple hypotheses. >> >> To back up a second, I view all of the genealogy and family history >>I do as a matter of hypothesis building and testing. (My day job >>is in science, surprise). My great grandmother Anna, I met, for >>instance. Of course I only know that she's my great grandmother >>because I was told so, even if by people (her daughter, for instance) >>who should know. So maybe that's a pretty strong hypothesis. But, >>her parents, ... well, that's weaker if not entirely vacant. One of >>my great grandfathers, I have relatively good hypotheses about, but >>his parents are where I have a dozen candidates at the moment. Very >>low confidence w.r.t. any of them. Still, fair confidence that it's >>one of the group. >> >> Your ideas for display methods sound good (and like something >>I've thought about myself). >> >> One addition I'd make is that the boxes (mother's father's mother's >>mother) are themselves certain -- there certainly was such a person. >>Which person it is, not so obvious. But the slot itself is definite >>even if we only have uncertain candidates with which to occupy it. >>A different drawback to softwares is that they don't seem to permit >>us to attach multiple candidates to the box. We may be quite certain >>that they are only candidates for that particular box, while still >>being quite uncertain as to which person is the proper occupant. >> >Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis >Pronunciation: \hi-'pä-th?-s?s\ >Function: noun >Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-?sez\ >Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- >+ tithenai to put — more at do >Date: circa 1656 >1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an >interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the >ground for action >2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its >logical or empirical consequences >3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement > >How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >since additional eveidence will probably never be available. > >If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. 'an interpretation of a practical situation taken as the ground for action'. I may take some sole record as a ground for action, say entry to my dataset. But that is a pragmatic decision. The only 'fact' is that some piece of paper (internet record, ...) says something. As it may be a step up from total ignorance, I'll entertain the hypothesis that the record is correct. But whether it is correct is something to be tested. 'a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences'. I entertain, currently, the hypothesis that Edmund Sampson is an ancestor of mine, by way of a particular route. As his daughter is (hypothetically) born in the US in 1880, he should not appear in the English census of 1881. On the other hand, as he was born in Cornwall, he _should_ appear in the census of 1871 and 1861, perhaps 1851. So, as I look at the census records, I test these hypotheses, looking for Edmund Sampsons in the 1871 census (there are more than one) who are not apparently in the 1881 census (there seemed only to be 1 or 2). Not proof that he's my guy, and if I had a birth certificate, I still wouldn't know, since it's a long way from Cornwall to the states, the right guy could have been born somewhere other than Cornwall (including the US). Still, insofar as the family legends can be trusted, I have a stronger hypothesis for who it is. As I don't trust one of the sources for this much, it isn't a terribly strong hypothesis. Either way, the more ways a hypothesis can be tested, the more confidence I can have in it. If it's impossible to test, then there can't be much confidence. That's why the line between me and Charlemagne is a point of amusement, not serious. Even if I were to document well (as these things go) the line between me and the 'gateway ancestor', there are still another 900 years between her and grandpa Chuck. -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

rsegoly <roni.segoly@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > I posted before and got some directions but need help again, as I live > outside US and have less knowledge about their systems. > > I was looking for the family of Abraham Schleifer who immigrated to US > from Romania 1904. > > With help on another forum we found someone called Isadore Schoer > probably married to Bessie (Abraham's daughter). And a son of his > Oscar who died 1995. > > Any way of finding more relatives from there? > > I need someone I can either email or call. > > Many thanks > Any chance the followin is your person: >From Ancesty.com: --------------- World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 Name: Abraham Schleifer City: Brooklyn County: Kings State: New York Birthplace: Romania Birth Date: 17 Dec 1887 Race: White DraftBoard: 83 Source Citation: Registration Location: Kings County, New York; Roll: 1754616; Draft Board: 83. --------------- U.S. World War II Draft Registration Cards, 1942 about Abraham Schleifer Name: Abraham Schleifer Birth Date: 17 Dec 1887 Residence: Kings, New York Birth: Botosani, Romania Race: White Residence: 308 Kings - 3 Walk Pacific St. - Kings New York Age 54 yrs. Date of birth: 12-17-1879 Name and address of person who will always know your address: Louis Schleifer 281 Saratoga Ave. Bklin Employer's name: In Business for himself (Laundry ?) 38 Sumever(?) Ave. Bkleun Kings - NY Source Citation: Roll: WW2_2370689; Local board: Kings , New York.

Hello, I posted before and got some directions but need help again, as I live outside US and have less knowledge about their systems. I was looking for the family of Abraham Schleifer who immigrated to US from Romania 1904. With help on another forum we found someone called Isadore Schoer probably married to Bessie (Abraham's daughter). And a son of his Oscar who died 1995. Any way of finding more relatives from there? I need someone I can either email or call. Many thanks

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:01:40 -0800, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:06:43 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) >declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing: > >> 2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its >> logical or empirical consequences > > <snip> >> >> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. >> >> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. >> > Lack of evidence of proof does not constitute proof. I wish it did. >The matter >remains a hypothesis. And if one wants to rather strict, lots of >corroborating evidence will only promote it to a theory <G> > > Heck -- I could make the claim that the official birth certificate, >in my firesafe, of one "Dennis Lee James Bieber" refers to me is only a >hypothesis (after all, maybe the hospital had a baby swap <G>) So, how do you prove you exist if I think everyone who says you do is lying? 8-) Hugh WA4QZU > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:23:45 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote: >In message of 20 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > >> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:22 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> >> wrote: >> >> >In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> > >> ><snip on making hypotheses> >> > >> >> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >> >> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >> >> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. >> >> >> >> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >> >> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. >> > >> >Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his >> >marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died >> >in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. >> >> >The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 >> >and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age >> >marriage. >> >> That doesn't deny what I said. You tested and proved it wrong. > >Hardly a test. I knew it was rubbish the moment I saw the marriage >certificate as I already knew when both of them had died. It was rubbish to you, but apparently a fact to everyone else. So, is it a fact or a hypothesis according to the eye of the beholder? For an unknown number of years my gg grand was born in 1789. But by my analysis of statements and records I mathematically proved that he had to be born in 1790. In my mind 1789 was a fact, never a hypothesis. Two families in AR, each with two children. One father dies and children with the same names appear as two additions to the other family in the next census. They are the right age but also the right age to be the survivor's children. Without additional records, the choice of parents would be a hypothesis. The only fact is the coincidence of names. >I am uncomfortable about the use of the word 'test' for fairly simple >factual statements. 'Test' is appropriate for complete hypotheses which >are rather remote from facts, but so also is a long description of the >facts that the hypothesis is trying to explain. Over the last few years I have become more and more suspicious of data compiled by others regardless of the factual appearance. Dates on tombstones are often wrong if anyone cares to examine existing paper records. "In stone" would pretend to be a fact. Census records are considered "official". But ages are often lousy, as are states of birth. And I can document numerous families who never appeared in a census but I know where they were. My final thought is that our differences are not really in conflict. Even if they were it would require no change in our principles. Hugh

Hmm! Most of my 'locations' would probably lie in one of the fuzzy, less-photographed areas of the globe Now what would be really cool is a location+time coordinate, and use some genius product to go back to that street (or whatever) in, say, 1890. :-) Tony Proctor "Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A43B2D0161AEmgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... > I'm in the process of creating a KML file to identify all of my important > family history locations. For people not familiar with KML, it's Keyhole > Markup Language, something akin to HTML or XML but it's used in > conjunction > with geographic browsers like Google Earth. > > My plan is to start with only Placemarks but add images later on. Has > anyone done this? I'm especially interested in hearing from anyone who > has > shared their KML file(s) publicly as I plan to do. A URL for such a file > would be great. I'd love to take a look at what others have already done > along these lines. > > Thanks, Mardon

In message of 20 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:22 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > wrote: > > >In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > > > ><snip on making hypotheses> > > > >> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 > >> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries > >> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. > >> > >> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements > >> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. > > > >Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his > >marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died > >in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. > > >The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 > >and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age > >marriage. > > That doesn't deny what I said. You tested and proved it wrong. Hardly a test. I knew it was rubbish the moment I saw the marriage certificate as I already knew when both of them had died. I might then have double-checked that I was right by looking up my records of their respective deaths. But this was not a test of the original statement, merely of my reaction to it. I am uncomfortable about the use of the word 'test' for fairly simple factual statements. 'Test' is appropriate for complete hypotheses which are rather remote from facts, but so also is a long description of the facts that the hypothesis is trying to explain. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

In article <47bb79c3.42958901@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:22 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> > wrote: > >>In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> >><snip on making hypotheses> >> >>> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >>> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >>> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. >>> >>> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >>> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. >> >>Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his >>marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died >>in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. > >>The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 >>and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age >>marriage. > > That doesn't deny what I said. You tested and proved it wrong. I did > that with my gg grand's birth year. Perhaps the difference is that it > was not a hypothesis until someone tested. > >>Personally I think the much more reasonable method is to assume that all >>recorded statements are true and only assert them to be false when some >>contradictory evidence appears. > > I believe that is a restatement of what I said - and equally true. I > also think recorded statements are probably more accurate than people > statements in many cases. People often have ulterior motives for their > statements. It's astounding how many ladies get pregnant on their > honeymoon - or have premies. > > Hugh I think it was President Reagan who said it: "Trust, but verify". Certainly, a different context, but valid here, none-the-less. Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:49:22 GMT, Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> wrote: >In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > ><snip on making hypotheses> > >> How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 >> because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries >> since additional eveidence will probably never be available. >> >> If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements >> must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. > >Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his >marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died >in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. >The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 >and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age >marriage. That doesn't deny what I said. You tested and proved it wrong. I did that with my gg grand's birth year. Perhaps the difference is that it was not a hypothesis until someone tested. >Personally I think the much more reasonable method is to assume that all >recorded statements are true and only assert them to be false when some >contradictory evidence appears. I believe that is a restatement of what I said - and equally true. I also think recorded statements are probably more accurate than people statements in many cases. People often have ulterior motives for their statements. It's astounding how many ladies get pregnant on their honeymoon - or have premies. Hugh

In message of 19 Feb, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: <snip on making hypotheses> > How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 > because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries > since additional eveidence will probably never be available. > > If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements > must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. Not completely true. For instance my gt-grandfather at the time of his marriage in 1875 said his father was deceased. In fact said gt-gf died in 1888 and his father did not do that until 1897. The quality of the gt-gf's statement was that of a lie. He was only 19 and was dodging the need for his father to approve his under-age marriage. Personally I think the much more reasonable method is to assume that all recorded statements are true and only assert them to be false when some contradictory evidence appears. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:41:07 -0000, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote: >In article <3psdr3tni8ulkd0b7bo06bufjvblm8uslh@4ax.com>, >Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >>Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: >>>Bob has touched upon some classic philosophical issues. Perhaps by >>>exploring them a bit we can arrive at a better grasp of the significance >>>of data and their interpretation. >>> >>>The first thing that needs to be done is to be clear about the >>>difference between data and facts. >>>... >> >>I find nothing in your summary objectionable. But you omitted one >>concept I don't fully understand myself in its technical aspects, but >>still use metaphorically when thinking about data and facts. >> >>That concept is the one of "fuzzy" truth values (and thereby fuzzy >>logic). Very seldom can we assign perfect truth or perfect falsehood >>to an alleged fact, and sometimes we aren't all that sure what >>standard of truth we want to apply to a putative fact. >> >>Hugh has three possible ancestors to his earliest "proven" ancestor. >>He could, by whatever means he chose, assign a fuzzy truth value to >>each of them, thereby entertaining all three possibilities at once. >>If he ever gets further information, the truth values he assigns might >>change. > > Precisely. > > Or, as I mentioned more briefly elsewhere, I'd like to have some >software support for working with the method of multiple hypotheses. > > To back up a second, I view all of the genealogy and family history >I do as a matter of hypothesis building and testing. (My day job >is in science, surprise). My great grandmother Anna, I met, for >instance. Of course I only know that she's my great grandmother >because I was told so, even if by people (her daughter, for instance) >who should know. So maybe that's a pretty strong hypothesis. But, >her parents, ... well, that's weaker if not entirely vacant. One of >my great grandfathers, I have relatively good hypotheses about, but >his parents are where I have a dozen candidates at the moment. Very >low confidence w.r.t. any of them. Still, fair confidence that it's >one of the group. > > Your ideas for display methods sound good (and like something >I've thought about myself). > > One addition I'd make is that the boxes (mother's father's mother's >mother) are themselves certain -- there certainly was such a person. >Which person it is, not so obvious. But the slot itself is definite >even if we only have uncertain candidates with which to occupy it. >A different drawback to softwares is that they don't seem to permit >us to attach multiple candidates to the box. We may be quite certain >that they are only candidates for that particular box, while still >being quite uncertain as to which person is the proper occupant. > >-- >Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. >Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much >evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they >would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis Pronunciation: \hi-'pä-th?-s?s\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses \-?sez\ Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do Date: circa 1656 1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement How does one do any of those for most families prior to about 1900 because there is seldom, if ever, a way to contest recorded entries since additional eveidence will probably never be available. If you can't test the truth/accuracy seems like recorded statements must be accepted as fact thus no longer hypotheses. Hugh

In message of 19 Feb, SCP <cosfordparker@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 10:59 am, Tim Powys-Lybbe <t...@powys.org> wrote: > > > > What might 'vertical time line' mean?  Does it mean that time is on the > > X-axis or on the Y-axis? > > > > If time is on the x-axis, dates go from left to right and the people are > > listed vertically. > > > > If time is on the y-axis, then the people are on the x-axis and go from > > left to right. > > > > Or is it something completely different? > On a page, the time line runs from top to bottom. Dates are "listed" > on the left and corresponding people/events are "listed" on the right > (Sorry - math is not my strong point!) Thanks. I was wondering about a program I use but the axes are the wrogn way round. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:59:56 -0000, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote: >In article <47b851c4.5237220@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, >J. Hugh Sullivan <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote: >>Am I chastising a deceased equine? > > Rather. > > That issue of the 5 known candidates for a slot in your tree, and >an unknown number of unknown candidates, is why my annoyance with >software that tries to push conclusions rather than evidence. One >should be able to collect and work with candidates, rather than >having the choice only of 'leave it blank' and 'pick one'. The >candidates, some at least, you may well be able to run a tree >back farther, reliably (for however you define reliability). While >it may turn out that the candidate whose tree you've run back >another 3 generations is not _your_ ancestor, he quite possibly >is _someone's_, so a service to others (if you share your work, >which you've mentioned you don't, but for those who do). > > One ancestor of mine, relatively recent even, prompted my interest >in method of multiple hypotheses (written up by T. C. Chamberlin >for geology in the 1880s) for genealogy. Common first name and >common last name, and was born in a large city/county. About >a dozen candidates. More than I'm going to try to handle without >some support. I don't publish trees. I share one on one or in a small group where I can help. I am working with 5 small groups at present. Any more I discuss theories with a very limited group of people - because they are just theories. I find two current genealogy programs sufficient for my purposes. I track every Sullivan line ( every Sullivan in the census) I can (with lots of help) in VA and NC up to maybe 1850, give or take. I keep each line in a separate data base ready to merge when neessary. I merged two until DNA tests cast some doubt. I write papers, for myself mostly, on theories and the facts that led to my unproven conclusions. That's the method that seems to work for me. Hugh

In article <20080218.79DF4D0.8957@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, mojaveg@mojaveg.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com (Everett M. Greene) writes: > Dennis <nobody@nowhere.com> writes: >> (Everett M. Greene) wrote: >> >Chad Hanna <chad@chadhanna.co.uk> writes: >> > >> >>There >> >> are many such questions that perplex those outside the country, e.g. >> >> what exactly is the mid-west? >> > >> >Good luck in getting an exact answer to what is considered >> >to be the mid-western U.S. >> >> Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States. > > Oh, boy! Even more opinions... And still another, from Websters on-line dictionary: Main Entry: Mid�west Listen to the pronunciation of Midwest Pronunciation: \#mid-#west\ Variant(s): or Middle West Function: geographical name region N central United States including area around Great Lakes & in upper Mississippi River valley from Ohio -sometimes considered to include Kentucky on the E to North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, & Kansas on the W I would personally have said it's the area of the Great Plains, drained by the Missouri and Mississippi riveers, and includes the Ohio river basin, as well. As for putting Texas in the Midwest, y'gotta be kiddin'! For those of you who might be interested in a different view, I highly recomment "The Nine Nations of North America", by Joel Garreau, Avon Books, ISBN 978-0380578856. It has absolutely nothing to do with genealogy, but provides an interesting view of the regions/nations of North America - one that goes a long way toward explaining some of the regional quirks, oddities and differences. Southwestern Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

On Feb 18, 8:28 am, Jim <goget...@rogers.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 4:17 am, cosfordpar...@gmail.com wrote: > > > There used to be a shareware genealogy program (wish I could remember > > the name of it!) with a timeline capability to include every > > individual in the database and their dated events.  The format was > > vertical - terrific for seeing ancestor peer-groups and understanding > > the relativity of the various ancestors' life events. > > > Does anyone know of a current program that 1) produces a vertical time > > line and 2) can include the entire database (as opposed to just > > individuals and singular family groups)? > > > Thanks!  -- SCP > > An old DOS program called Cherry Tree had this feature -- and I loved > it! > Jim Yes! That was it! Thanks, Jim!