On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:46:25 -0000, melsonr@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert Melson) wrote: >In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@4ax.com>, > Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes: ><snip> >> 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 > >I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the >question of what standards one applies to the analysis of >information, not the nature of the information, per se. So >let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in >the analysis of your subjective information? I'd ask Hugh >the same question: what standards do YOU, Hugh, apply in >examining and before accepting data? The longer I research the more suspicious I become of almost all records. Generally speaking I will usually accept any fact that can be confirmed by at least two unconnected "official" sources. Older census records are suspicious, land records are usually not. Wills are usually correct in "family" composition but may not be accurate by bloodlines. Any "tree" i see on the LDS or Ancestry site is pure crap until I can prove it but I will use it to explore further. I am deep into logical/theoretical reconstruction of early ancestral lines. I want to do what no one else has done. Then, prove me right or prove me wrong. I'll agree that some element of reason must be used. Sometimes not even the woman knows the father of her child. In most cases the only possibility is to presume morality until we know better. If I am exchanging info with someone I want to know the standards he used. Did he stick with bloodlines based on info available, or did he do some creative genealogy/family history. I don't care what he did I just want to know. We have a circular drive around our house and we had to replace the two approaches to the street. I did not print my genealogy in the concrete. Hugh