J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > It's also totally acceptable to me. But if I find a Groleau in my line > I'll ask about your recording standards. Every page of my WorldConnect DB starts with > WARNING: Database does contain errors. and ends with > Accuracy NOT guaranteed; but [please send corrections] > This data may speed up your search; it can NOT replace it. and GEDCOM snippets downloaded from there (no longer allowed) contained a header (1) chastising anyone who fails to check sources and (2) forbidding commercial use. None of that stopped several people from merging or copying it without the disclaimers, nor stopped Kindred Konnections from selling the entire file. -- Wes Groleau Even if you do learn to speak correct English, whom are you going to speak it to? -- Clarence Darrow

Denis Beauregard wrote: > you will never know that point. Someone you may think to be a good > genealogist may appear to be a clown when you find out you are a > better one. And the opposite is possible. Someone who published > a reference book may have seen data that were lost later, so even if > this source has a lot of errors, it can be the only source for some Or someone respected (P. William Filby) might allow his name to be put on crap (some parts of "Germans to America") -- Wes Groleau Change is inevitable. Liberals need to learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "good." Conservatives should learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "bad." -- WWG

Joe What I found since yesterday The brother of my great grandfather was called Abraham, he immigrated from Romania to Pittsburgh US via London, probably 1902, with him was part of his family. The record we found on Ellis Island database was probably of his son Mortiz, entering 1904, and therefore the address on the manifest is also the same (Pittsburgh, I can't understand the rest only the number 37). I know Abraham's daughter was called Mina (spell?) and she married Samuel Hayman. They were connected or owned insurance company, and had four daughter. Not bad for one day of searching. Can you help from here? Roni On Feb 16, 3:51 am, "Joe Pessarra" <joepessa...@suddenlink.net> wrote: > Roni, > > You should be able to go to this site, and just look up all of the Schleifer > listings. There are 246 of them. You may have to register, but the lookups > are then free. Let me know if you cannot access them, and I will send them > to you.http://www.ellisislandrecords.org/ > > When you become certain of the right person, I can help you look up the > family in the US census maybe. > > Joe > > "rsegoly" <roni.seg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:aaf5c1e8-ebb0-42b6-998f-7c0a09f5d4cd@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > Hi and thanks > > > I have limited access to these records, or maybe because I am just > > starting and have less experience, I looked today for the first time. > > > I could find only one record, and also it did not mention Dorohoi only > > Dorotoi, which I assumed is spelling mistake. > > > Can you please direct me to the way you could find this Jacob? Can I > > see it with free access, or do I need to pay to any service in US? > > > Any way you advice I continue from there (within US) to find the > > relatives? > > > Roni > > > On 16 Feb, 01:01, "Joe Pessarra" <joepessa...@suddenlink.net> wrote: > >> "rsegoly" <roni.seg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:28856fc7-cc96-40f1-935f-2bbb60828c53@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> > Hello, > > >> > I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US > >> > sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him > >> > later. > > >> > I know his surname was Schleifer. > > >> > I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) > >> > immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. > > >> > I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother > >> > tongue, can someone have a look at the record? > > >> > Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? > > >> > In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? > > >> > Roni > > >> There is also a Jakob Schleifer from Doroho, arriving in 1902, age 29, > >> ethnicity Russian, Married. With wife, Hana, 28, and child Sura, 4. > >> Possibilities? > > >> Joe in Texas, USA

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > know census records are often wrong. I know where one of my families > was from 1778-1806 (NC) yet they never appeared in a census - just one One of my ancestors in each U.S. census was eight years older than the previous one. :-) -- Wes Groleau ----------- "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?" -- Charles Wallace (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >>So, even if you have the largest societies running with let's call it >>ethics, you may also have to use data from not very ethical people and >>you will never know that point. Someone you may think to be a good >>genealogist may appear to be a clown when you find out you are a >>better one. And the opposite is possible. Someone who published >>a reference book may have seen data that were lost later, so even if >>this source has a lot of errors, it can be the only source for some >>data. > >Of what possible use is errroneous data? Everything we do in life is based on subjective and therefore probably erroneous data. Erroneous does not necessarily mean entirely without foundation. The set of erroneous data still contains some truth. >>You have no choice but to accept what is available. And to >>fill the blanks. > >Of course it depends on the record. I have three theories about my >ancestors before my gg grand based on available records. No one can >prove any of them wrong. So, do I maintain three genealogies or do it >take the services of 3 men to creat my gg grand. Whatever pleases you. It's a hobby. >>With 30% of illegitimates, you reach quite fast the level where >>your genealogy isn't likely your genetics. But you can't check >>the DNA of all Americans to find something. > >So, I stop my line where the proof ends and keep looking. The oblect >is not speed, it's accuracy. For you, yes. For others, the object may be different. For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history, whether it is of my family or some other. History is aided by facts when they are available, but useful history can be built based on analysis of subjective information as well. lojbab

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:18:18 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:19:39 -0500, Bob LeChevalier >><lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >> >>>Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >> >>>>That is his line of descent or pedigree and is construed by most authorities (at least >>>>in the US) to be his genealogy. >>> >>>What kind of authorities? >> >>Those who make the rules for genealogy. > >There are no rules. Rules was a bad choice of words - suggested standards would have been better. >It is a hobby. Those who purport to make rules >are small-fry rulers of small ponds. Are you the resident expert on small ponds? >The fact that you have to limit >the claim to the US already shows this - you've said that the rules >used by 5% of the world's population takes precedence over that of 95% >of the world, in a domain where there is no particular reason to >consider any group to have inherent dominance over any other. An 800# gorilla sleeps where he wishes regardless of the domain he chooses. You seem to think I care whether you do accurate and honorable work. You need to quit thinking that. I only set exceptionally high standards for myself. Hugh

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:34:01 -0500, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >>>> Those who make the rules for genealogy. >>> >>>And that would be who? >> >>The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. > >Who elected them, or gave them any authority over anyone who is not a >member of their organization (which so far as I know is pretty small)? Who said they had any authority over anyone? They have recommended a set of standards. >The National Geographic Society doesn't get to make rules for >geography in this country either, despite the high sounding name. > >>>> Also, it destroys diagnosis of medical problems that show evidence of >>>> being transmitted down family bloodlines. >>> >>>But of course any knowledge of heritable diseases came centuries after >>>people were doing genealogy and calling it that. >> >>You're back to semantics. > >Of course it is semantics. The argument is about what the word >"genealogy" means. That cannot be anything OTHER than a semantics >argument. Catch up with the thread. I gave up on the literal term several posts back. I don' care what you call it. > >>>But that is exactly how it was until the late 20th century. That mommy and >>>daddy's marriage had any relationship strong than "possibly" to biological >>>paternity has always been a myth. >> >>70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are >>considerably more certain than that. > >Which is why we've seen statistics recently that a third of all >"white" Americans have an African-American ancestor, and if you >eliminate those of us whose presumed ancestors all came over on the >boats after the civil war, the percentage is probably a bit higher. >In the South, probably a lot higher - but I doubt if many white >Southern families will reflect this genetic reality in their >"certainty". > >>>> Because they are NOT my great grandparents unless I accept the lie. >>> >>>You'd have to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of social >>>institutions to call them lies. >> >>No, I expect people to be honest. > >They aren't (at least by your standards). Live with it. I do. Lots of people are neither honest nor competent. > > >>>Nobody needs a genetic history going back to Adam. Yeah, if your genetic >>>ancestors were immune to the Black Death, you are immune to AIDS --- but >>>that goes back much less than a millenium. The reason for insisting on >>>genectics covering thousands of years is racism, pure and simple. >> >>My genealogy goes back to 1790. Millenium is not a term I use. I >>suspect most Americans can't provably go back more than several >>hundred years. I can get all the way back to Adam and Eve if I am >>willing to lie as several here are suggesting. I've done the genealogy >>of the Bible and Irish mythology. >> >>With just a little bit of inventiveness as you suggest we could be the >>descendants of anyone we choose - never bother about who our ancestors >>really were. All we have to do is cheat a little. > >I spend quite a lot of time bothering about who other people's >ancestors are, not just my own. The history is at least as >interesting. It doesn't really matter to me whether they are my >ancestors or someone else's. Genealogy serves as a motivation and as >a focus on which to study anyone's story, regardless of what the >answers are, or even if there are any answers at all. That's a different tune from the one you hav been singing. John Doe and Mary Roe had a son, William. William was adopted by Jack and Jill Hill. The ideal, and openly honest, way to show this is to show ALL the facts. To show Jack and Jill as the parents of William, without indicating the real parents, if known, is a lie. That characterization does not change if we didn't know William was adopted. But, there is a difference between deliberate dishonesty and not knowing better. Ignorance is okay - a lie is not. Hugh

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:24 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> >> I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I >> suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority >> on the subject. > >It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly >wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or any >other area of study. It's simply not useful to do so as any such bounds >are likely to be outgrown. For instance a definition of genealogy from >not very long ago would have excluded DNA. >-- >Ian I am satisfied with a competent group setting standards for quality and accurate genealogy. I doubt that I follow (or even know) all the standards. A competent group will always be on top of change. I don't know that DNA would have been excluded. It's just another source, or tool, to be used. I doubt that any standard would even attempt to list all the tools that can be used. A male and a female procreate. The offspring and their descendants are the basis of what many people call genealogy. If the momma isn't sure who the daddy was it doesn't change the genealogy - ir might change the names of record. I think genealogy that does not include events is too skimpy to consider. Those events are the family history of the genealogy. I don't want to get bound up in semantics - I use the easiest and most refognizeable terms to mose people. They may lose something in translation if you are not an American from the USA. Hugh

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:55:55 +0100, "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote: > >"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:47b59ac2.5874016@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:01:49 +0100, "Lesley Robertson" >> <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote: >> >>> >>>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >>>news:47b4f909.49688648@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... >>>> >>>> The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. >>> >>>We've had people trying to impose the US NGS rules on us before... >>>It wasn't very popular. To say the least. >>>Lesley Robertson >> >> I don't disagree EXCEPT popularity does not seem to me to be the only >> criterion for standardization. Frankly I think it discourages it. > >If people don't like it, they won't use it. >> >> We may not all need to be on the same page but, if I use your data, >> seems like I should know what page you are on. > >True. There's a simple answer - whatever one does, and however they do it, >quote the sources in a form that lets other people find them to check them >if they want to. Assume that anything not quoting sources is not reliable. >You can impose a set of standards on a set of professionals, but most people >are doing this as a hobby - you can't force them to do anything they don't >want as you have no sanction if they don't comply. >Lesley Robertson I have no intention of forcing anyone to do anything. A number of trees on the Internet say Owen was the father of Russell (the line doesn't matter). I can easily disprove that - but it doesn't remove the inaccuracy. I wish he was Russell's father - it would have been so easy to accept and run with it if I wasn't capable of more. A number of people say Russell had a middle name. There is no authoritative source that confirms that - it's hearsay. It's like saying he had eyes in the back of his head or wings and could fly - you can't prove it wrong. Almost everybody says Russell was born in 1789. I can prove that wrong - he was provably born in 1790. It takes a bulldog math enthusiast to prove it. All that can be sourced to the Family History Library, Ancestry.com and other sources. So much for sources without adequate confirmation. A lot of people are just lousy genealogists - and a bunch of them don't seem to care. Hugh

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:56:22 -0500, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: >On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:59:18 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh >Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: > >>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:57:39 -0500, Denis Beauregard >><denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:46:55 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh >>>Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >>> >>>>The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. >>> >>>I would have personally some problem with associating a society >>>and knowledge. While the society (whatever it is and whatever the >>>purpose is, i.e. genealogy or other topics) may have the purpose of >>>publishing data (review, database, books, etc.), it is usually not >>>a monopoly. A federation of societies is usually a better group to >>>define standards and in many domains, there are specific committees >>>to set standards and while they are usually associated to societies >>>or federations equivalent, they work better when they are >>>independent and include representants from the industry (genealogy >>>software authors in our case). So, even if the NGS can set some >>>standard, FGS can have other and different standards and LDS may >>>have other as well so that in genealogy, there is no universal >>>"authority", even at a national level. >> >>I have no problem with that. Mine was the briefest way I could think >>of to say that there should be some set of standards for research. I >>think we need to know if data we use is based on the best and most >>accurate available or whether based on the whim of the preparer. I >>don't care WHAT they do but I want to know the basis if I use their >>data. > >NGS and FGS are large enough. Suppose you live in a smaller country. I don't. >Societies and federations usually have less competent managers and >it can be a lot easier for some jerk to take the control and to >corrupt some major source. Replace "smaller country" by "area" or >"topic", etc., and you will find that you may have databases that >are corrupted, filled of data that shouldn't be there, but kept as >the source to use because someone well known took the control. > >So, even if you have the largest societies running with let's call it >ethics, you may also have to use data from not very ethical people and >you will never know that point. Someone you may think to be a good >genealogist may appear to be a clown when you find out you are a >better one. And the opposite is possible. Someone who published >a reference book may have seen data that were lost later, so even if >this source has a lot of errors, it can be the only source for some >data. Of what possible use is errroneous data? >>>This is why genealogy is not genetics. You have to believe in the >>>documents. If the DNA doesn't match, then you can't know who broke >>>the line. >> >>That requires a lot of discussion. Suffice it to say I have found many >>incorrect documents. Of course it depends on the source and type. I >>know census records are often wrong. I know where one of my families >>was from 1778-1806 (NC) yet they never appeared in a census - just one >>incident. > >You have no choice but to accept what is available. And to >fill the blanks. Of course it depends on the record. I have three theories about my ancestors before my gg grand based on available records. No one can prove any of them wrong. So, do I maintain three genealogies or do it take the services of 3 men to creat my gg grand. > >>>>70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are >>>>considerably more certain than that. >>> >>>Actually, it could be around 99%. But even with 99%, you must >>>accept that you go by the papers and not by the genes. >> >>A person looking at adoption birth certs would be certain - until he >>saw the genealogy that recorded the true facts. In my mind that's one >>fork in the road where we make the decision to become genealogists or >>family historians. > >I don't think so. I would say the genealogist is someone building >genealogies, i.e. working on the record to build the tree, while the >family historian will add leaves to the tree, or flesh to the >skeleton. Obviously, the family historian should spend more times >with each family, and because he would check more records, odds are >better for him to find some indice proving an error for example. I'd say the genealogist can be both a tree builder and a family historian - I am. A family historian can choose anyone he wishes to be his direct line - and I'm sure some do. I have seen their sloppy work. > >Then, a genealogist would work faster. Someone publishing for example >a dictionnary with all people of his name in the world would do be >a genealogist. Someone could take the same time to work only on his >family line (i.e. 10 generations compared to 10,000 families). >And then, you find that it is very unlikely that you use the work >of the family historian except for the 1st generation, while the >genealogist work is more usefull since it covers more persons. > >>My grandfather's death certificate listed him as Joe. He signed checks >>"J O". He was also called Joseph. In his first census he was Josiah T. >>- seems like his parents should know. >> >>So far my DNA matches no Sullivan yet tested. My MRCA is two >>generations before my earliest provable ancestor. I am a close match >>with a Vaughan, a Willard and a Woolard - no help with their >>genealogy. > >With 30% of illegitimates, you reach quite fast the level where >your genealogy isn't likely your genetics. But you can't check >the DNA of all Americans to find something. So, I stop my line where the proof ends and keep looking. The oblect is not speed, it's accuracy. >>I doubt that I have the DNA of all three males so I'm guessing that a >>Sullivan male impregnated three women whose baseborn children later >>changed their names. > >But the DNA variation has something like one change for maybe 5 or 10 >generations. So, it would make more sense that the 3 people you >found are descendant of a common ancestor, but 10 or even 100 >generations back, at a time when there were no family name. > >>That is reasonable since my gg grand had 5 baseborn children by three >>ladies before he settled down with one of them. >> >>At this point I can continue my frustrated search or I can take the >>easy way out and link to the line I want to link to because it goes >>further back. I consider one honest and the other dishonest. I choose >>to be honest and I do not choose for others. > >This would be a work of family historian which can be necessary when >there is not enough reliable data to continue or when there is some >obvious problem (DNA in your case). Well, I could publish my family back to Adam and Eve - I'm just missing two generations. But lots of people don't believe the Bible, and Irish mythology is just, well, mythology. It's not my idea to produce something that no one can disprove - that's child's play for me. My idea is to produce an accurate genetic line with as many family stories as I can find to include. If I have to stop at 1790 c'est la vie. >Among the Quebec British immigrants, there is a Sullivan that is >renamed to Sylvain later (a true French name). Just to say you >may find DNA where you didn't expect it ! So far I have found Sullivan spelled more than 100 ways. My problem is that if some people here named a son William their genealogy would trace back to William the Conqueror because the names are the same. I think we all descend from Anonymous - he is everywhere. Hugh

Roni, You should be able to go to this site, and just look up all of the Schleifer listings. There are 246 of them. You may have to register, but the lookups are then free. Let me know if you cannot access them, and I will send them to you. http://www.ellisislandrecords.org/ When you become certain of the right person, I can help you look up the family in the US census maybe. Joe "rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com> wrote in message news:aaf5c1e8-ebb0-42b6-998f-7c0a09f5d4cd@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Hi and thanks > > I have limited access to these records, or maybe because I am just > starting and have less experience, I looked today for the first time. > > I could find only one record, and also it did not mention Dorohoi only > Dorotoi, which I assumed is spelling mistake. > > Can you please direct me to the way you could find this Jacob? Can I > see it with free access, or do I need to pay to any service in US? > > Any way you advice I continue from there (within US) to find the > relatives? > > Roni > > On 16 Feb, 01:01, "Joe Pessarra" <joepessa...@suddenlink.net> wrote: >> "rsegoly" <roni.seg...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:28856fc7-cc96-40f1-935f-2bbb60828c53@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > Hello, >> >> > I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US >> > sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him >> > later. >> >> > I know his surname was Schleifer. >> >> > I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) >> > immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. >> >> > I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother >> > tongue, can someone have a look at the record? >> >> > Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? >> >> > In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? >> >> > Roni >> >> There is also a Jakob Schleifer from Doroho, arriving in 1902, age 29, >> ethnicity Russian, Married. With wife, Hana, 28, and child Sura, 4. >> Possibilities? >> >> Joe in Texas, USA > > >

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > > I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I > suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority > on the subject. It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or any other area of study. It's simply not useful to do so as any such bounds are likely to be outgrown. For instance a definition of genealogy from not very long ago would have excluded DNA. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

"Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A4566387C809mgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... > "Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback. I will make the link more intuitive. The >> William Bartle polygon looks OK when I view it. However, when sharing >> these files with other people, we have come across some problems in >> getting the polygons to display properly. If the 'altitude' property >> of the polygon is set to zero, it appears to be 'sunk' below the >> surface. Giving it a few metres elevation (depending on local >> topography) brings it into view, but sometimes it is only partially >> visible. Regards: Roger Donne >> > > Here's the way that the Bartle polygon looks on my computer: > > http://www.JustPhotos.ca/post/bartlepolygon.jpg > > As you suggested, I gave the polygon some altitude and the problem > disappeared. The odd part is that even when I put the altitude back to 0 > the polygon displayed OK. This seems very odd. Well, that's really confusing. I've no idea what's going on. I had previously noted the problem while sharing this type of file with a correspondent in the US (I'm in the UK). I wonder if there are different versions of Google Earth distributed geographically? It's only the polygons which cause the problem; lines, placemarks are all OK as far as I know. Roger Donne

"rsegoly" <roni.segoly@gmail.com> wrote in message news:28856fc7-cc96-40f1-935f-2bbb60828c53@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > Hello, > > I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US > sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him > later. > > I know his surname was Schleifer. > > I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) > immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. > > I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother > tongue, can someone have a look at the record? > > Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? > > In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? > > Roni There is also a Jakob Schleifer from Doroho, arriving in 1902, age 29, ethnicity Russian, Married. With wife, Hana, 28, and child Sura, 4. Possibilities? Joe in Texas, USA

"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:47b59ac2.5874016@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:01:49 +0100, "Lesley Robertson" > <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote: > >> >>"J. Hugh Sullivan" <Eagle@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >>news:47b4f909.49688648@newsgroups.bellsouth.net... >>> >>> The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. >> >>We've had people trying to impose the US NGS rules on us before... >>It wasn't very popular. To say the least. >>Lesley Robertson > > I don't disagree EXCEPT popularity does not seem to me to be the only > criterion for standardization. Frankly I think it discourages it. If people don't like it, they won't use it. > > We may not all need to be on the same page but, if I use your data, > seems like I should know what page you are on. True. There's a simple answer - whatever one does, and however they do it, quote the sources in a form that lets other people find them to check them if they want to. Assume that anything not quoting sources is not reliable. You can impose a set of standards on a set of professionals, but most people are doing this as a hobby - you can't force them to do anything they don't want as you have no sanction if they don't comply. Lesley Robertson

Hi and thanks I have limited access to these records, or maybe because I am just starting and have less experience, I looked today for the first time. I could find only one record, and also it did not mention Dorohoi only Dorotoi, which I assumed is spelling mistake. Can you please direct me to the way you could find this Jacob? Can I see it with free access, or do I need to pay to any service in US? Any way you advice I continue from there (within US) to find the relatives? Roni On 16 Feb, 01:01, "Joe Pessarra" <joepessa...@suddenlink.net> wrote: > "rsegoly" <roni.seg...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:28856fc7-cc96-40f1-935f-2bbb60828c53@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Hello, > > > I am looking for relative who immigrated from Dorohoi Romania to US > > sometime between 1900-1915. He was married and his family followed him > > later. > > > I know his surname was Schleifer. > > > I found on Ellis island only one possible candidate (Mortiz) > > immigrated 1904 and his age was 24, but it say he was still single. > > > I am not sure I can read the hand writing as English is not my mother > > tongue, can someone have a look at the record? > > > Did all immigrants come via Ellis island? > > > In case he's the guy, any advice how do I find his relatives in US? > > > Roni > > There is also a Jakob Schleifer from Doroho, arriving in 1902, age 29, > ethnicity Russian, Married. With wife, Hana, 28, and child Sura, 4. > Possibilities? > > Joe in Texas, USA

"Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. I will make the link more intuitive. The > William Bartle polygon looks OK when I view it. However, when sharing > these files with other people, we have come across some problems in > getting the polygons to display properly. If the 'altitude' property > of the polygon is set to zero, it appears to be 'sunk' below the > surface. Giving it a few metres elevation (depending on local > topography) brings it into view, but sometimes it is only partially > visible. Regards: Roger Donne > Here's the way that the Bartle polygon looks on my computer: http://www.JustPhotos.ca/post/bartlepolygon.jpg As you suggested, I gave the polygon some altitude and the problem disappeared. The odd part is that even when I put the altitude back to 0 the polygon displayed OK. This seems very odd.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:54:02 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >Robert Melson wrote: >> the map is not the territory." We could as easily call >> whatever it is we're doing "fribbling"; so long as we are > >No, "fribble" is related to "frivolous," and to fail to >distinguish that from the serious business I engage in >is totally unacceptable. > >-- >Wes Groleau I think you miss his point. Wes I was hoping he would be more successful in avoiding semantics than me - which was his point. >A pessimist says the glass is half empty. > >An optimist says the glass is half full. > >An engineer says somebody made the glass > twice as big as it needed to be. I say I'm already half way to the next glass. Set 'em up. Hugh

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:45:06 GMT, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is >> totally unacceptable. > >I'll study what interests me and you can call it anything you want. > >And that will be totally acceptable to me. > >-- >Wes Groleau It's also totally acceptable to me. But if I find a Groleau in my line I'll ask about your recording standards. Hugh

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:57:04 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:16:41 -0600, Lars Eighner >> <usenet@larseighner.com> wrote: >> >>> In our last episode, <47b4aabd.29643845@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, the >>> lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: >>> >>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:19:39 -0500, Bob LeChevalier >>>> <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >>>>> Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >>>>>> That is his line of descent or pedigree and is construed by most authorities (at least >>>>>> in the US) to be his genealogy. >>>>> What kind of authorities? >>>> Those who make the rules for genealogy. >>> And that would be who? >> >> The National Genealogical Society is one in the US. > >Well I for one am not a member nor am I even in the US. I'm not a member either. > >And my previous question is still unanswered. Who appointed them to >make the rules? Themselves? Self-appointed rule makers don't generally >gain much popular acceptance. > >-- >Ian I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority on the subject. Hugh