J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > > The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an > excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in > genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. > Without a historical context genealogy is little more than a meaningless list of names and dates. Who were these people being named? To keep the names and lose the history is rather like getting a package from Amazon and, being a philatelist, keeping the stamp and throwing away the book. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

"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 Hi! Legacy can do it with next version 7. Available end of February 2008, I think. Available: http://www.legacyfamilytreestore.com/?Click=1192

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:26:50 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > The business partnership is part of the family history even though it is not > part of the genealogy, because genealogy is converned exclusively with > bloodlines (or, more accurately, DNA lines), whereas family history is not. Not often we agree but we do here. There is a big distinction between the family history and genealogy. Family history is about the history of a family which inevitably touches on the entire picture, social conditions, the lot. Genealogy is the outline of the picture only: names, dates and places but nothing about what made the members of the family who and what they were. Most researchers start off as genealogists and some remain as such while others broaden their research and become family historians which can, for some broaden further and they become social historians.

Well, I haven't been doing it for my own family history, but we publish KMZ files (the compressed form of KML) to show the locations of cemeteries we've photographed. This is a small cemetery at Fassifern near Boonah, Queensland. http://www.chapelhill.homeip.net/FamilyHistory/Photos/Fassifern-Boonah/GoogleEarth.kmz In our case we don't embed photos into the KML itself (because we have many photos for each cemetery) but simply provide a bit of text commentary and a URL to the photos themselves. Kerry

Wasn't it Mardon who wrote: >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. I use XML rather than KML so that I can filter the information as required, for example to just display the locations where one individual lived. Like this: http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/family/imap.htm?indi=121 The location information for all individuals is in a single XML file. imap.htm reads the corresponding entries in that file, displays the information, and centres and zooms the map so that all the locations for that individual are in view. My main family tree website calls that map in an <iframe>, like this: http://www.econym.demon.co.uk/family/ind121.html -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:09:56 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. I'm not sure what you are getting at there -- it seems contradictory. You seem to imply that family history should NOT depart from bloodlines -- but wouldn't that be blurring the distinction rather than keeping it. If two unrelated families from the same village in one country emigrate to another, settle in the same town and go into a business partnership that lasts for several generations, that is surely part of the family history, even if it departs from bloodlines and has nothing to do with genealogy. The business partnership is part of the family history even though it is not part of the genealogy, because genealogy is converned exclusively with bloodlines (or, more accurately, DNA lines), whereas family history is not. > >Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. > >Hugh -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

In our last episode, <47b37953.37809997@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, the lovely and talented J. Hugh Sullivan broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: > I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is > limited to "genes", hence the name. Of course not. Genealogy *historically* antedated any knowledge of genes by about six centuries. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 341 days to go.

In our last episode, <1eb6r313l78pk1r4n8l2b7bhq6r1m3l99p@4ax.com>, the lovely and talented Charlie Hoffpauir broadcast on soc.genealogy.computing: > Interesting comments, but in my view, Genealogy has to do with Genes, > ie genetics, hence the attachment to "bloodlines". This is completely false. "Genealogy" has been an English word since the 14th century. "Genes" and "genetics" are words that first occurred in the 20th century. All three words have related roots, meaning things such as "family," "tribe," and "nation," but but reckoning kinship by biology was clearly impossible in the 14th century, so "genealogy" could not have meant that. We know that reckoning paternity by marriage to the mother is biologically incorrect about 30% of the time, so if "genealogy" meant tracing bloodlines, clearly no one was doing genealogy until late in the 20th century. There are no DNA samples in old obituaries or on headstones or in birth or marriage records retrieved from dusty tomes in old courthouses. It is high time to reject the racist notions that genealogy is somehow genetic history. It is not. It never was. > If you want a term to describe the study of your family unit(s), use > something other than "genealogy".... that term is already taken. -- Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> usenet@larseighner.com Countdown: 341 days to go.

Here Here ..... regards Bill ======================================================================== * This Mail was sent WITHOUT attachments* Bill Harrison's Genealogy Pages can be found online at http://www.harrisongenealogy.co.uk Also BMSGH Webmaster - URL = http://www.bmsgh.org The Staffordshire BMD can be found at http://www.staffordshirebmd.org.uk and the West Midlands BMD at http://www.westmidlandsbmd.org.uk ======================================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Powys-Lybbe" <tim@powys.org> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.computing To: <gencmp@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 12:46 AM Subject: Re: Unrecognised Gedcom tag: FREE In message of 14 Feb, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: > Peter J Seymour wrote: > > I'm trying to use a gedcom file that has a lot of occurrences of an > > unrecognised tag "FREE" at the 1 level under INDI (one per INDI). It > > typically occurs in association with BIRT and DEAT. Problem is I can't > > figure out what it means and the rest of the data doesn't help either. > > The main data seems to be a date. Can anyone shed light on this tag. > > At the beginning of the GEDCOM there should be an identification > of the program that created it. That program's documentation > is the place to look. If it was hand-edited, the person who > created it is the one to ask. > > If both of those are unavailable, post a few representative samples. I am getting more and more uncomfortable about this use of GEDCOM files. If you are taking in information, in a GEDCOM file for instance, from another person, you may consider that their research methods are well known and their word on something is almost as good as a lookup from some primary documents. But for the bulk of GEDCOMs you do not know this. Does the originator even say where he (or she) found the information? Are sources includes in the GEDCOM? Are they good sources? In any case you should endeavour to check their sources by some means to satisfy yourself that the information was valid. So either you have well researched information from someone you know to be a good researcher and you can ask them what they mean. Or you have checked it out yourself. In either case you must be able to find very easily what 'FREE' referred to. If you can't find any source for FREE or anything else like that, just leave it out. But adding someone's GEDCOM without some verification of the data is genealogical suicide. (Perhaps all this copying of GEDCOMs around the internet will be a means to the over-population problem? :-) ) -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENCMP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In message of 14 Feb, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote: > Peter J Seymour wrote: > > I'm trying to use a gedcom file that has a lot of occurrences of an > > unrecognised tag "FREE" at the 1 level under INDI (one per INDI). It > > typically occurs in association with BIRT and DEAT. Problem is I can't > > figure out what it means and the rest of the data doesn't help either. > > The main data seems to be a date. Can anyone shed light on this tag. > > At the beginning of the GEDCOM there should be an identification > of the program that created it. That program's documentation > is the place to look. If it was hand-edited, the person who > created it is the one to ask. > > If both of those are unavailable, post a few representative samples. I am getting more and more uncomfortable about this use of GEDCOM files. If you are taking in information, in a GEDCOM file for instance, from another person, you may consider that their research methods are well known and their word on something is almost as good as a lookup from some primary documents. But for the bulk of GEDCOMs you do not know this. Does the originator even say where he (or she) found the information? Are sources includes in the GEDCOM? Are they good sources? In any case you should endeavour to check their sources by some means to satisfy yourself that the information was valid. So either you have well researched information from someone you know to be a good researcher and you can ask them what they mean. Or you have checked it out yourself. In either case you must be able to find very easily what 'FREE' referred to. If you can't find any source for FREE or anything else like that, just leave it out. But adding someone's GEDCOM without some verification of the data is genealogical suicide. (Perhaps all this copying of GEDCOMs around the internet will be a means to the over-population problem? :-) ) -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

Robert Grumbine wrote: > The drawback (imho) with a Google Earth presentation is that it uses > the worst possible projection -- satellite view. In order to see my Have you compared to Google Maps? See http://www.northwestAllenTrails.org/GetCoords.shtml for one of many examples. -- Wes Groleau "Lewis's case for the existence of God is fallacious." "You mean like circular reasoning?" "He believes in God. Therefore, he's fallacious."

Peter J Seymour wrote: > I'm trying to use a gedcom file that has a lot of occurrences of an > unrecognised tag "FREE" at the 1 level under INDI (one per INDI). It > typically occurs in association with BIRT and DEAT. Problem is I can't > figure out what it means and the rest of the data doesn't help either. > The main data seems to be a date. Can anyone shed light on this tag. At the beginning of the GEDCOM there should be an identification of the program that created it. That program's documentation is the place to look. If it was hand-edited, the person who created it is the one to ask. If both of those are unavailable, post a few representative samples. -- Wes Groleau Pat's Polemics = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:03 GMT, Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: >Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > >> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" >> <dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. >> The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >> excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >> genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. >> >> Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >> are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. > >Hugh, it is even more than just a hobby for it is an important tool used >in historiography. From the historian's viewpoint, it is what is >referred to as an "auxiliary science". KB1GRM de WA4QZU... I'll accept that. > >Your comment about the importance of limiting genealogy to bloodlines >struck me as interesting. You seem to imply that some people >(improperly) use the term "family" more broadly than for just blood >relations. Is that what you meant, and why is bloodline the litmus test? >Allow me to some examples that may muddy the waters. I am not the judge of proper and improper. Historically, Genealogy is limited to "genes", hence the name. Family History, as I see it, has become the collective term for people who depart from genetic links to include any person they wish to include for any reason. I think the terms should remain separate and distinct without me praising one and dissing the other. Let genealogy keep the restrictions and others do as they wish - but note departure from genealogy so as not to confuse people. Of course events are also family history to anyone - but, hopefully I have given a clear explanation of the difference Hugh

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 article <6QEsj.2586$YL3.1943@trndny05>, OughtFour <luster@rnospam.com> wrote: > >"Gerry" <everyday@sunrise.net> wrote in message >news:everyday-DA7F39.14082410022008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... >> >> The FAQ is well out of date. As an example Reunion is now version 9.06 >> and was last updated in November 2007. > >And Gene is a Classic application, no longer supported on newer macs. (But >it's a wonderful program! I suppose there are OS 9 emulators out there some >place.) Any version of OS X through 10.4 can launch classic applications. Starting with 10.5 (current release), you lose that capability. (I'm setting up a 10.4-bootable partition on my system to preserve my 1980s legacy stuff while I continue to move it to more recent formats and softwares. I still miss WingZ, which was lost in the 68000 -> powermac transition in ?8.) -- 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 <Xns9A43B2D0161AEmgb72mgbhotmailcom@194.177.96.78>, Mardon <mgb72mgb@hotmail.com> wrote: >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. I haven't shared them yet, but have set up some placemarks and a couple of images. Still debating some software issues (as in how much will I write myself) because I'd as soon have this sort of KML generation sorted out by the geneaology software. The drawback (imho) with a Google Earth presentation is that it uses the worst possible projection -- satellite view. In order to see my North American relatives (only, and we're mostly, it seems, a bunch of central and eastern I-80 folks) I have to pull the image viewpoint back to at least 1200 km. I do earth remote sensing with a satellite, and it's only 700 km up. When you're back far enough to see the group, you're much too far back to see any details (at least state names, perhaps national names are gone too). I haven't experimented much with it. Perhaps someone knows how to make Google Earth use a more reasonable projection, like Lambert Conformal. -- 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

On Feb 13, 9:26 pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:09:56 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) > wrote: > > >The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an > >excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in > >genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. > > I'm not sure what you are getting at there -- it seems contradictory. > > You seem to imply that family history should NOT depart from bloodlines -- but > wouldn't that be blurring the distinction rather than keeping it. > > If two unrelated families from the same village in one country emigrate to > another, settle in the same town and go into a business partnership that lasts > for several generations, that is surely part of the family history, even if it > departs from bloodlines and has nothing to do with genealogy. > > The business partnership is part of the family history even though it is not > part of the genealogy, because genealogy is converned exclusively with > bloodlines (or, more accurately, DNA lines), whereas family history is not. Since my research predates the ability to compare DNA amongst descendants of somebody, I always thought of my work as family history. My rationale was that documents and other source materials have some credibility while anybody's claims to some ancestors genes was considerably less credible. My goals are to document all I can about my ancestry and since that will include both source documents and DNA comparison, what should it be called? I suspect most of us have our research goals and don't really care whether it is genes or history that gets us there. Jim

Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" > <dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. > > The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an > excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in > genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. > > Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs > are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. Hugh, it is even more than just a hobby for it is an important tool used in historiography. From the historian's viewpoint, it is what is referred to as an "auxiliary science". Your comment about the importance of limiting genealogy to bloodlines struck me as interesting. You seem to imply that some people (improperly) use the term "family" more broadly than for just blood relations. Is that what you meant, and why is bloodline the litmus test? Allow me to some examples that may muddy the waters. In the culture in which I happen to live, the term "family" is sometimes not restricted to blood lines, but can also include god-children, ex-wives, step-children, spiritual brothers, etc. That is, the word "family" can refer to any close social affinity and is not limited to blood relationships. For example, a mature neighboring woman was expected to be in loco parentis for your children (to monitor, assist, advise, punish, etc.). Such a relation was apparently common when my acquaintances were children living in an urban environment. It suggests that a narrow definition of family might deprive the family of some of its social significance. Another example. In early Medieval Europe, poor children would be transferred to the household of a better-off family, where they would be raised and cared for until they reached maturity, and a close relationship even after that would persist. The term "uncle" could be used to refer to a non-blood-related older male. To some extent this has carried over into modern times. I know of a person (19th century U.S.) whose mother died, and because his father lacked work and had to travel to find it, the child was dumped upon a farming household for a period of indenture until his maturity. The lad was part of the farmer's household/family. When he did reach maturity and acquired his own household, the census listed two non-related members in it. Another example. Early African "slavery" is distinguished from the proper anthropological definition of slavery in that the war captive was incorporated into the victor's household and became a real, albeit lower-status, member of that household. Properly a slave is in principle not a member of any social community such as a household. As in the early Medieval Europe example, the more powerful are able to increase their economic power by artificially enlarging their households (not to mention doing it through the multiplication of wives). In other words, the bloodline restriction for the notion of family seems more prescriptive than descriptive. What is there about bloodline that privileges it as a kind of social relation? I can think of some reasons why, which have to do with social class. The early Medieval elite family had charisma that passed along though the bloodline and was attached to their name, so lineage was important. The Germanic naming system combined the charismatic names of the two families in marriage, so that it consisted of two elements. On the other hand, non-elite had a much looser sense of family, only acquiring a family name, say, in the 16th century. Even up to quite modern times there were individuals without family identity (no last name). In societies in which ruling class power (title or property) had to be kept concentrated rather than diffused, rules of inheritance were imposed, such as primogeniture or blood-line succession. So I wonder if a bloodline prescription may not have a certain social class implication to it. -- Haines Brown, KB1GRM

In article <13r6p0645i47o1b@corp.supernews.com>, bobg@radix.net (Robert Grumbine) wrote: > In article <6QEsj.2586$YL3.1943@trndny05>, > OughtFour <luster@rnospam.com> wrote: > > > >"Gerry" <everyday@sunrise.net> wrote in message > >news:everyday-DA7F39.14082410022008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > >> > >> The FAQ is well out of date. As an example Reunion is now version 9.06 > >> and was last updated in November 2007. > > > >And Gene is a Classic application, no longer supported on newer macs. (But > >it's a wonderful program! I suppose there are OS 9 emulators out there some > >place.) > > Any version of OS X through 10.4 can launch classic applications. > Starting with 10.5 (current release), you lose that capability. (I'm > setting up a 10.4-bootable partition on my system to preserve my 1980s legacy > stuff while I continue to move it to more recent formats and softwares. > I still miss WingZ, which was lost in the 68000 -> powermac transition > in ?8.) A minor caveat to the above: this is true only on PPC systems, since Intel systems have never been able to use Classic, and it's true only if the user actually installed Classic -- it's not a default option. -- Steve W. Jackson Montgomery, Alabama

"Gerry" <everyday@sunrise.net> wrote in message news:everyday-DA7F39.14082410022008@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > > The FAQ is well out of date. As an example Reunion is now version 9.06 > and was last updated in November 2007. And Gene is a Classic application, no longer supported on newer macs. (But it's a wonderful program! I suppose there are OS 9 emulators out there some place.)