Richard Smith wrote: > Ian Goddard wrote: >> Richard Smith wrote: >>> RIF allows us to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then he >>> or she was born within the previous year", but as genealogists we >>> don't want rules like that. Our rules are much more fuzzy. We want >>> to say "If a person was baptised on some date, then, in the absence of >>> evidence to the contrary, he or she was probably born within the >>> previous year". >> >> Hmm. I think I'd go for something along the lines of "If the statement >> that a person was baptised on some date is true then that person was >> born on or before that date". > [snip] > ... Having a fuzzy rule to tell you that it's > normal to be baptised as a baby, while accepting that baptisms at all > ages do occur, helps a computer assist you in finding that record. It's NORMAL to be baptised as a baby IF and ONLY IF: 1) the child and parents are Christians 2) the parents belong to a branch of Christianity that does infant baptisms. Otherwise -- not normal. Hindus, Moslems, Taoists, Buddhists, and Confucians do not baptise at all. Most Jewish branches do not baptise. Baptists, Methodists, Disciples, and a fistful of other denominations insist on "adult" baptisms (with varying definitions of adult). Other parts the posted suggestion can be misleading if you have (as I did) four brothers (A B C and D) who each had a son named A1-4 B1-4 C1-4 and D1-4; AND by some quirk, all the boys named A were born within a 16 month period around 1752 OS/NS, all those named B were born about 20-26 months later, etc. I needed the Will of the grandfather to sort them out. Cheryl