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

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

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