> > > This is a COMMENT. It is ONLY a comment. No action, response, or > > > acknowledgment is required. > > > > > > If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one is > > > clutching an official death certificate with the name of the > > > deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and a photo of > > > the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might also find him on > > > one of the 5 census preceding his death. > > > > > > But noooooo ... > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals > > > > silly post > > feed the group some facts > > > > Hugh Watkins > > Yes is is a silly post as it is so incomplete. But Cheryl never > does give any useful facts. > > If we knew when he died we might have a reasonable explanation. > > bob gillis <[email protected]> Come on guys. Lighten up. Cheryl was just voicing the frustration we all sometimes feel as we try to track down some of our more elusive ancestors. My sympathies are with her. Janey E. Joyce in San Antonio, Texas Janey Joyce <[email protected]>

> Yes is is a silly post as it is so incomplete. But Cheryl never > does give any useful facts. > > [email protected] I don't consider Cheryl's post "silly". Obviously she searched all the records herself, is not asking for additional help, and wanted to share her experience.

> > This is a COMMENT. It is ONLY a comment. No action, response, or > > acknowledgment is required. > > > > If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one is > > clutching an official death certificate with the name of the > > deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and a photo of > > the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might also find him on > > one of the 5 census preceding his death. > > > > But noooooo ... > > > > Cheryl Singhals > > silly post > feed the group some facts > > Hugh Watkins Yes is is a silly post as it is so incomplete. But Cheryl never does give any useful facts. If we knew when he died we might have a reasonable explanation. bob gillis bob gillis <[email protected]>

If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one is clutching an official death certificate with the name of the deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and a photo of the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might also find him on one of the 5 census preceding his death. > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> Sorry, I just had to comment. I had a g-grandfather who last appeared in the 1880 census but I found his death certificate showing he died in 1937. Turns out he had left his family and apparently went into hiding. [email protected]

> This is a COMMENT. It is ONLY a comment. No action, response, or > acknowledgement is required. > > If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one is > clutching an official death certificate with the name of the > deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and a photo of > the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might also find him on > one of the 5 census preceding his death. > > But noooooo ... > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> I hear you, no comment required, but I'm with you! Where did I finally find "census elusive" relative? In JAIL by way of a newspaper article! Go figure. Send me an email if I can be of any help, I'll be happy to, I love a good challenge. Laurie Laurie S <[email protected]>

> This is a COMMENT. It is ONLY a comment. No action, > response, or acknowledgement is required. > > If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one > is clutching an official death certificate with the name of > the deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and > a photo of the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might > also find him on one of the 5 census preceding his death. > > But noooooo ... > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> wrote in This usually means the last name has been mis-spelled on the census, or on the index. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html One who has both feet on the ground is not moving forward. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> This is a COMMENT. It is ONLY a comment. No action, response, or > acknowledgement is required. > > If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one is > clutching an official death certificate with the name of the > deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and a photo of > the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might also find him on > one of the 5 census preceding his death. > > But noooooo ... > > Cheryl Singhals silly post feed the group some facts he could be in another country Hugh W -- Beta blogger http://nanowrimo3.blogspot.com/ visiting my past http://hughw36-2.blogspot.com/ re-entry http://snaps4.blogspot.com/" photographs and walks old blogger http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG Hugh Watkins <[email protected]>

> This is a COMMENT. It is ONLY a comment. No action, response, or > acknowledgement is required. > > If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one is > clutching an official death certificate with the name of the > deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and a photo of > the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might also find him on > one of the 5 census preceding his death. > > But noooooo ... > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> I'm trying to remember back to when I was naive... Nope, never was! 8-) A parallel situation since you didn't ask... Some of my probable ancestors were in Warren Co. NC from 1781 to 1804 -- a father, mother, 5 sons and 2 daughters. Only the 2 oldest sons ever appeared on a NC census. Numerous official records - will, marriages, appearance at estate sales, etc. - exist attesting to their presence but not the 1790 or 1800 census. The above is an "aside" thus not violating your dicta. You knew I would! Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

This is a COMMENT. It is ONLY a comment. No action, response, or acknowledgement is required. If one were sufficiently naive, one might think that when one is clutching an official death certificate with the name of the deceased, his age, his parents, and his wife's name, (and a photo of the tombstone that agrees with the dates) one might also find him on one of the 5 census preceding his death. But noooooo ... Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

Cheryl THANK YOU Julia [email protected]

> > > > Forty years ago it might have had some social implications, but now > > > > it's all historical reference... > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > As I've said, distance of time and kinship and f2f interaction > > > affects one's attitude there. > > > > > > If it's your great-grandmother who got "caught" back in the > > > naughty-aughties, it's historical reference. If it's your pious > > > aunt, at whose home you now celebrate some important holiday, it's a > > > little less historical. If it's your 16-yr-old daughter, it isn't > > > in the least bit historical. > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > > Hysterical? 8-) > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > Not yet. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> I have an uncle, whose wife was married twice before him and brought 2 teen sons into the marriage. Obviously, everyone knows that the children from her previous marriages are not blood relatives. The children were not adopted. However, my uncle wife has requested I leave her previous marriages off the genealogy. I would have no problem with that, except in the interest of truth for history, I cannot leave the boys off totally because my aunt and uncle have a child and the older boys are his half brothers. Plus, if someone looks at the research in 60 years, I believe that it should be clear that although these young men are "family" they are not biological or adoptive relatives. For clarification, my aunt is not in the least private about her marriages and the dirty laundry that goes with it. Therefore, I have chosen to keep my research accurate. I would never post the information online as I would never post any information online about any living relative. "S Bockoven" <[email protected]>

> > > Forty years ago it might have had some social implications, but now > > > it's all historical reference... > > > > > > John > > > > As I've said, distance of time and kinship and f2f interaction > > affects one's attitude there. > > > > If it's your great-grandmother who got "caught" back in the > > naughty-aughties, it's historical reference. If it's your pious > > aunt, at whose home you now celebrate some important holiday, it's a > > little less historical. If it's your 16-yr-old daughter, it isn't > > in the least bit historical. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > Hysterical? 8-) > > J. Hugh Sullivan Not yet. Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> > > Perhaps your newsreader can get confused if a thread contains a > > > mixture of posts with and without reference headers. > > > > > > Mike Williams <[email protected]> > > > > Since it's threading the posts by using the reference headers, then > > of course it won't thread them if they don't match with what it's > > expecting. > > > > I suspect you've got Turnpike set to "thread by subject," which > > would account for your seeing it correctly threaded even though > > the references are broken. > > > > Christopher Jahn > > Turnpike threads by reference when the references are present, which > they are in the particular post that you complained about. It's > only the [email protected] postings in this thread that have no > references. > > Mike Williams I agree that this is a positively _fascinating_ discussion of newsreaders and their failings and/or problems caused by AOL. Still'n'all ... Mr. Chairman, I move cloture. [ The Moderator agrees, though I'll prolly let through any last messages in the queue. Ultimately, this discussion prolly belongs over in soc.genealogy.computing/GENCMP-L, because it does seem to involve computing and is only tangentially related to genealogical research methods ... - Mod ] Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> > > I use Free Agent - I thought it was a newsreader. > > > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > > > A crappy one. But yes, it is a newsreader. > > > > And again, header data has been stripped. Perhaps your > > server is truncating them. > > > > Christopher Jahn <[email protected]> > > Mine seems to work just like yours - threaded properly. > > But I am compelled to ask your recommendation for an uncrappy > newsreader. In my naive way I thought they were just supposed > to download posts, allow responses and thread properly. > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) If it works for you, why fix it? I just found it to be kludgy, and the fact that I access several different news servers meant Agent wasn't suitable. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html What do you want me to do, learn to stutter? Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> > > Perhaps your newsreader can get confused if a thread > > > contains a mixture of posts with and without reference > > > headers. > > > > > > Mike Williams <[email protected]> > > > > Since it's threading the posts by using the reference > > headers, then of course it won't thread them if they don't > > match with what it's expecting. > > > > I suspect you've got Turnpike set to "thread by subject," > > which would account for your seeing it correctly threaded > > even though the references are broken. > > > > Christopher Jahn > > Turnpike threads by reference when the references are present, > which they are in the particular post that you complained > about. It's only the [email protected] postings in this > thread that have no references. > > Mike Williams <[email protected]> And yet, THIS ONE is 'broken', too. A header reference has been stripped. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html What do you want me to do, learn to stutter? Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> > People on this newsgroup have indicated that posting the data in PDF > > or as a .jpg might provide that type security. I think needing a > > password to view the site would defeat my purpose of being available > > to all but not copyable. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > And therein lies the rub... > anything viewable is copyable depending on the effort one is willing > to expend to copy it. > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> I think I prefer availability to password unless it is my tree. After all many of my facts were given to me by others. An inability for readers to edit might be desirable. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > Forty years ago it might have had some social implications, but now > > it's all historical reference... > > > > John > > As I've said, distance of time and kinship and f2f interaction > affects one's attitude there. > > If it's your great-grandmother who got "caught" back in the > naughty-aughties, it's historical reference. If it's your pious > aunt, at whose home you now celebrate some important holiday, it's a > little less historical. If it's your 16-yr-old daughter, it isn't > in the least bit historical. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> Hysterical? 8-) Hugh

whowell <[email protected]> wrote: > > In my mind genealogy is not practiced as a form of moral judgment. > > Genealogy is not the problem. The problem is people who set > > themselves up as God in judgment after a voyeuristic research of > > dates. > > > > P. S. My mother would have been scandalized, too, if that was her > > situation. > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > I'm not sure I quite understand what you're implying.....are you > suggesting that genealogy/genealogists are a version of voyeurism? > Or, are suggesting that those who attempt to interpret and pass > judgment upon the facts gathered via genealogical research are the > voyeurs? The latter as in looking for juicy tidbits. > As far as the question asked in an earlier post: "One of my sons > was married at 17 and it lasted less than a year. Was it a "roll in > the hay" or is it genealogy? My advice to my clients would be > dependent upon whether or not their were offspring. If not, I'd be > comfortable in overlooking it. If there were offspring, then it > would definitely be a genealogical fact and must be included in a > family line. There were no offspring. My thought is that it is a legal fact and there is no harm (in my mind) in including. Is a marriage license different from just living together? I think so. Some people think failure to tell the whole truth, unless asked the right questions, is lying. I simply presume people ask only what they want to know. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > so it ends up threading them as replies to the > > oldest unexpired post in the thread, making it seem like > > [email protected] is talking to himself. > > > > [email protected] > > Or herself in this case...and in some instances, the best > conversations I've had are with myself. <g> > > Joan <[email protected]> Gee, I would not have thought you to be so limited - and I had noticed the sex change. 8-) Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > I use Free Agent - I thought it was a newsreader. > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > A crappy one. But yes, it is a newsreader. > > And again, header data has been stripped. Perhaps your server is > truncating them. > > Christopher Jahn <[email protected]> Mine seems to work just like yours - threaded properly. But I am compelled to ask your recommendation for an uncrappy newsreader. In my naive way I thought they were just supposed to download posts, allow responses and thread properly. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)