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. 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. Hugh

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. >>You're back to semantics. I'm looking at 3 or 4 generations. Adopted >>kids may have no medical info on ancestors and it will get worse for >>their grandchildren if they look to falsified ancestors for data. > >From genetics studies I have seen and my own feeling from what the >records show, a typical rate for babies born out of weblock in Quebec >before the 1960s would be 1 to 2%, i.e. 1 out of 10 people making >a male line 10 generations back will get the wrong male ancestor. > >The rate in New England and Virginia should be similar when records >exist, i.e. in small societies where the marriage is compulsory, there >is a small rate of biologically illegitimate babies. And in larger >societies, when people can't be checked and where there are much more >foreigners, the rate is higher. I just accepted the 30% rather than argue. >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. >>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. 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. 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. 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. Good post, Denis. Hugh

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

"Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: > "Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9A44AD9C7C4DCmgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... >> "Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> My attempts at representing information from an 18th century estate >>> map on modern satellite images from Google Earth is shown at >>> http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/godolphinmanor.htm. The area >>> represented is in the parish of Crowan in Cornwall, UK. >>> >>> Regards: Roger Donne >> >> Thanks for your example, Roger. Static jpeg images, customized with >> overlays, is pretty much the way that I've been going up to now also. >> It works well but I've become interested in moving beyond that and >> using KML to integrate my data with a geographic browser like Google >> Earth. I think that doing so will help provide people with a better >> sense of location and scale. Being able to zoom in and out and 'fly >> around' the area of interest >> seems to give a better feel for the geography. > > Did you find the embedded KMZ link in the webpage? > http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/Kerthen.kmz. > The static images are just there for those who can't or don't want to > install Google Earth. > Regards: Roger Donne Shame on me! I did NOT see your KMZ link the first time. That's really cool. I like the idea of the polygons to denote land ownership. I think I'll adopt that idea for a few cases when I know the boundaries of farms that were owned by my ancestors. I also agree that it's a good idea to offer the static image alternative. Not everyone is going to want to install Google Earth and maybe that service won't even exist in the future. I think that missing your KMZ link may have taught me a lesson too. I'm always embedding important links in the middle of text and assuming that people will notice them. After all, these links are obvious to me. When I loaded your page, I scanned down and immediately clicked on the big image. I'd made the intuitive assumption that the KML/KMZ file would be linked to this image. When I discovered that there was no link to that image, I scrolled further and found the links to your static images. I never went back to see that I'd missed the KMZ link embedded in the text. Maybe it would be helpful to link the KMZ URL to that image? Just a thought. I also noticed that the green polygon for William Bartle does not fill completely. It is very jagged. All the others are fine. Thanks again for the information.

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. It is a hobby. Those who purport to make rules are small-fry rulers of 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. >>To the legal authorities, my adopted kids >>are mine. They even have a birth certificate issue by our government, >>and another one issued by the Soviet government saying they were born >>to my wife in Russia, even though they were born before our marriage, >>and my wife has never been in Russia. The fiction is legal reality, >>and 300 years from now, no one will know it is baloney unless they >>find my genealogical noted. > >And that is the crux of the matter. No one will know it is baloney (to >use a kind word). There is nothing I can do about it; I didn't create the documents or the laws that caused others to create the documents in that way. Just as there is nothing anyone in the past could do about similar situations. (or sometimes, when they could affect things, they chose the fictional history). What we usually trace in the "purist" version of genealogy is documentary history, and I know from personal experience that documentary history is "baloney (to use a kind word)". So why should I support that version? (That being said, I personally focus on the documentary history, but with the realization of the historian as to the limits of that practice. But I wouldn't call someone else's practices necessarily wrong or inferior when they choose to do otherwise, as long as they make it clear what they ARE doing). >Also, it destroys diagnosis of medical problems that show evidence of >being transmitted down family bloodlines. So? Legal authorities haven't necessarily cared about such things. Thus one must recognize that sometimes we can't have what we prefer. >As Romulus said to Remus, our momma was a wolf. How does that fit your >Bob's Fables? It is part of history that a chunk of people believed that story, and to some extent it motivated their actions that affected history. It is arguable that the effect of the myth - even if false - was far greater than the effect of any sort of genetic information about Romulus and Remus's mother might provide. >I was a math major - I'm not used to sloppy work where mommy and daddy >are not really momma and daddy except by an act of Congress. Human beings are not mathematical objects, and stubbornly refuse to follow rigorous laws. >>You presume that there is a reason to distinguish between the two that >>is important enough to have distinct terminology. >> >>Just like there is no unique term to distinguish each of your 32 >>great-great grandparents, why does there need to be one for this >>peculiar distinction? > >Because they are NOT my great grandparents unless I accept the lie. They aren't to you, but they might be to everyone else. I don't have enough ego to think that my opinion is privileged over that of other except with respect to my own personal choices. >>>Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is >>>totally unacceptable. >> >>That is an assumption, not a conclusion. > >And your's is an opinion worth exactly what I paid for it. Of course. As is yours. lojbab

"Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A4551A692CA4mgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... > "Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: > >> "Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns9A44AD9C7C4DCmgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... >>> "Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> My attempts at representing information from an 18th century estate >>>> map on modern satellite images from Google Earth is shown at >>>> http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/godolphinmanor.htm. The area >>>> represented is in the parish of Crowan in Cornwall, UK. >>>> >>>> Regards: Roger Donne >>> >>> Thanks for your example, Roger. Static jpeg images, customized with >>> overlays, is pretty much the way that I've been going up to now also. >>> It works well but I've become interested in moving beyond that and >>> using KML to integrate my data with a geographic browser like Google >>> Earth. I think that doing so will help provide people with a better >>> sense of location and scale. Being able to zoom in and out and 'fly >>> around' the area of interest >>> seems to give a better feel for the geography. >> >> Did you find the embedded KMZ link in the webpage? >> http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/Kerthen.kmz. >> The static images are just there for those who can't or don't want to >> install Google Earth. >> Regards: Roger Donne > > Shame on me! I did NOT see your KMZ link the first time. > > That's really cool. I like the idea of the polygons to denote land > ownership. I think I'll adopt that idea for a few cases when I know the > boundaries of farms that were owned by my ancestors. I also agree that > it's a good idea to offer the static image alternative. Not everyone is > going to want to install Google Earth and maybe that service won't even > exist in the future. > > I think that missing your KMZ link may have taught me a lesson too. I'm > always embedding important links in the middle of text and assuming that > people will notice them. After all, these links are obvious to me. When > I loaded your page, I scanned down and immediately clicked on the big > image. I'd made the intuitive assumption that the KML/KMZ file would be > linked to this image. When I discovered that there was no link to that > image, I scrolled further and found the links to your static images. I > never went back to see that I'd missed the KMZ link embedded in the text. > Maybe it would be helpful to link the KMZ URL to that image? Just a > thought. > > I also noticed that the green polygon for William Bartle does not fill > completely. It is very jagged. All the others are fine. > > Thanks again for the information. 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

Ian Goddard 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. > > 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. > There's always the SOG for you Brits. I don't belong to either of them, myself. Both of them claim to represent a wide sample of genealogists who have agreed to some standards (see http://www.whereever.we.put.it/ ) Still, the American Physics Society and the Royal Academy don't impose their professional standards on Cub Scout Leaders printing off instructions for a science experiment so I don't quite approve of the notion of either NGS or SOG trying to impose "professional" standards on dilettantes. (And, since I don't get paid to do it, I'm not a "professional" genealogist.) Cheryl

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. 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 Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

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. 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. >>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. >>>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. 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. >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). 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 ! >Good post, Denis. Thanks Denis -- 0 Denis Beauregard - /\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ |\ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ / | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008) oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)

Scripsit salonowiec: > I'm rather new to Genbox, my trouble is: > > 1 - can I make my tree diagram a HTML page? The only solution I see > is saving my tree as .jpg or .png 2 - why my reports are > "formatting resistant"? When creating a html page no colours are > available, there's merely a black-and-white text or table (some > small changes to font are possible). > > Thank you for any hint on Genbox-->html transition... I'm afraid, you've correctly identified the limitations of Genbox as a producer of static web pages in HTML. I have been using Genbox for years, but its strengths are not in its presentations of static web pages, and the very good charts it produces are not optimised for web presentation but for printing. Where Genbox excels is in source citations, place organisation, and multiple marriages presentations. What I do instead is using Genbox for producing a Gedcom-file and to present that it using PhpGedView. It works rather well, as you can see at my web site: http://www.bryld.info/pgv/pedigree.php?rootid=I3 -- Regards Lars Erik Bryld

Scripsit Lars Eighner: > We know that reckoning paternity by marriage to the mother is > biologically incorrect about 30% of the time[...] We do ? Sources, please... -- Regards Lars Erik Bryld

"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

"Mardon" <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A44AD9C7C4DCmgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78... > "Roger Donne" <roger@donne.free-online.co.uk> wrote: > >> My attempts at representing information from an 18th century estate >> map on modern satellite images from Google Earth is shown at >> http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/godolphinmanor.htm. The area represented >> is in the parish of Crowan in Cornwall, UK. >> >> Regards: Roger Donne > > Thanks for your example, Roger. Static jpeg images, customized with > overlays, is pretty much the way that I've been going up to now also. It > works well but I've become interested in moving beyond that and using KML > to integrate my data with a geographic browser like Google Earth. I think > that doing so will help provide people with a better sense of location and > scale. Being able to zoom in and out and 'fly around' the area of > interest > seems to give a better feel for the geography. Did you find the embedded KMZ link in the webpage? http://www.donne.me.uk/crowan/Kerthen.kmz. The static images are just there for those who can't or don't want to install Google Earth. Regards: Roger Donne

The other trap for young players is in embedding images in KML/KMZs. You must provide the full URL for the image not just a local reference (as you can when embedding an image on a HTML page). That is, <img src="http://www.wherever.com/folder/folder/folder/photo.JPG"> As most photos from a digital camera are pretty large, you will probably want to scale the photo down a bit, e.g. <img height = 200 width=300 src="http://www.wherever.com/folder/folder/folder/photo.JPG"> Obviously fiddle with the height/width until you get the size (and ratio) you like the look of. Although I have made KMLs by hand-editing them, creating KMZs inside Google Earth is a lot easier and most of the functionality that I need is available through the Google Earth interface, so I rarely do it any other way. What a lot of people do not realise is that you can edit Google Mark placemarks by right-clicking the item in your Places menu and then selecting Properties. It used to be very obvious but in the later versions of Google Earth, they changed the interface and it seems people find the current way less obvious. Kerry

> This is a really neat way of doing it too. I had't thought about creating > a unique KMZ file for each location. Another neat trick is if you happen to have an old map of an area. If you scan it, you can use it as an overlay in Google Earth (you have to fiddle about a bit in Google Earth to locate, rotate and stretch the map to the right scale and orientation). It can be helpful when you are trying to show how different it was "back then" (e.g. a farm in what is now a housing estate). When you are displaying an overlay, then a slider bar appears at the bottom of the Places menu to control whether you see the normal Google Earth image, the overlay or (the best part) a blending of both which is useful for comparing the differences. Here's an overlay I experimented with, showing part of Brisbane in 1943: http://www.chapelhill.homeip.net/FamilyHistory/Photos/test/Brisbane-1943.kmz Kerry

In article <u18tj.4212$ph.467@trnddc06>, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes: > 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. > Ah, but you quote out of context: "We could as easily call whatever it is we're doing "fribbling"; so long as we are agreed as to the broad, basic elements of what "fribbling" consists of, we're able to discuss it and exchange ideas and information about it, even though the details of MY definition differ from yours." Again, the name is not the thing, the map is not the territory. 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

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 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.

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 There are more Baroque musicians than any other kind.

Steve Hayes wrote: > Then don't cross-post, but don't multipost either, because multi-posting is > far, far worse than coss-posting, and is bad Usenet practice, and something > that characterises spammers. And people who use Thunderbird. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes

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. > >>>To the legal authorities, my adopted kids >>>are mine. They even have a birth certificate issue by our government, >>>and another one issued by the Soviet government saying they were born >>>to my wife in Russia, even though they were born before our marriage, >>>and my wife has never been in Russia. The fiction is legal reality, >>>and 300 years from now, no one will know it is baloney unless they >>>find my genealogical noted. > >> And that is the crux of the matter. No one will know it is baloney (to >> use a kind word). > >> 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. I'm looking at 3 or 4 generations. Adopted kids may have no medical info on ancestors and it will get worse for their grandchildren if they look to falsified ancestors for data. > >> As Romulus said to Remus, our momma was a wolf. How does that fit your >> Bob's Fables? > >> I was a math major - I'm not used to sloppy work where mommy and daddy >> are not really momma and daddy except by an act of Congress. > >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. >>>Just like there is no unique term to distinguish each of your 32 >>>great-great grandparents, why does there need to be one for this >>>peculiar distinction? > >> 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. I understand there are a number of liars around. That does not change the definition of a lie. >Social and economic relationships are just >as "real" as genetic ones, and argueably, more important for the >survivability of mankind. Then track them and lie all you wish. >>> >>>It is a specialty field within "family history" aka "genealogy" to >>>research provable bloodlines. That specialty field is called >>>"genealogy" by a minority of "genealogists" who want to look down >>>their noses at everyone else who misusing a word that they >>>appropriated from those who originally used it for the broader sense >>>(any 14th century use of the word genealogy, would almost certainly >>>have been referencing the legal ancestry of inheritance rather than >>>solely the bloodlines). >>> >>>>Calling both Family History without distinguishing nomenclature. is >>>>totally unacceptable. >>> >>>That is an assumption, not a conclusion. > >> And your's is an opinion worth exactly what I paid for it. > >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. Hugh