> > But this was the pharse I had trouble with - not what you say above. > > >"they have the right to be wrong if they choose to be wrong." > > > > To me that statement means being deliberately wrong and I disagreed > > with their right to do that. That may not have been your intent but > > I don't know your intent. > > > > [email protected] > > Hugh- > > Well, originally I did mean that two people could interpret what is > fact differently--BUT...let's examine the other possibility..someone > who sets out to deliberately mislead people by posting known false > info in their family tree online. > > What can be done about it and who is to be the judge? I can't > imagine why any submitter would want to do this--but even if they > did I'd expect it is the responsibility of the viewer to sort out > what is accurate and isn't when it comes to the user submitted data. > Unless there is cause for legal action--libel, for instance, I can't > see where anyone other than the people viewing the database should > be judging it. And, once again, the best weapon against this would > be to post the correct information in the same place the bad > database is housed--let the people judge. > > Joan <[email protected]> Some people make honest errors and discussion usually solves the problem. Some people will post disclaimers if there is an element of doubt. Some people want to be noticed and by posting their wishful thinking as the final authority they get the attention they seek. If I can prove data wrong or absolutely devoid in evidence I'll be the judge - first making sure others researching the line agree. I'll make as much of an issue as required to prove the person a fraud. That didn't make the lady remove the info but she is a laughing stock to responsible researchers of the line. If she can stand the humiliation, so be it. I think you avoid confrontation. I think it's absolutely necessary at times. Out of curiosity, why do you start a new thread instead of replying to a post? I mean no offense - just curious. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > > > I have a 1920 census record which says a specific man was born in > > > > Russia/Poland and emigrated in 1905. His parents were both also > > > > born in Russia/Poland, and the native language of both is Hebrew. > > > > His wife was born in Pa, her father in Russia/Poland native language > > > > Hebrew and her mother born in Hungary native language Hungarian > > > > (struck-through and Magyar written above). > > > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > > > > As usual for me, I'm not sure what exactly you are asking, > > > > > > Lisa Lepore > > > > I was hoping for an itemized list of the things that could deduced > > from the information quoted. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > Cheryl, why don't you list what you think could be deduced and let > us critique. > > bob gillis I wanted to know where others came out independently without the influence of my thoughts. I see several have mentioned the conclusion I drew -- that the family is Jewish -- and so the next opinion wanted is: How credible is it that this family is *descended* from German Lutherans who arrived in Philadelphia in the early 1740s? It's immaterial to my research whether they are *related*, only whether they are DESCENDED. Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

> I don't think family secrets should be recorded unless they involve > genealogy. Having an abortion does not involve genealogy. Giving > birth to a child who lived does but even that should have > exceptions. I had a uncle whose wife had a child by another man > before they married. That young man does not know the secret and I > would never tell it. > > [email protected] That sounds very well and proper....but can cause others a great problem. When you refer to "that young man" I assume you mean the one who fathered your aunt's child. What if that child later wants to find his parentage....what is he to do? Or worse yet, what if that child had some sort of genetic problem in which the doctors would be better informed if they knew his parents medical records? I know how that goes! I am adopted and I had a medical problem for which I was treated from an early age. My son developed the same problem. Only when I finally managed to break through "family secrets" (to the extreme disapproval of "family" members did I find out that my birth mother had a similar problem. Eventually, with that knowledge, doctors realized that I (and my son) had been treated for a problem we didn't have, and got correct treatment for the problems we did have. So much for "family secrets"....I have "outed" every one I find--ultimately to the benefit of several others. Wayne Howell Gensearch Port Townsend, WA whowell <[email protected]>

> But this was the pharse I had trouble with - not what you say above. > >"they have the right to be wrong if they choose to be wrong." > > To me that statement means being deliberately wrong and I disagreed > with their right to do that. That may not have been your intent but > I don't know your intent. > > [email protected] Hugh- Well, originally I did mean that two people could interpret what is fact differently--BUT...let's examine the other possibility..someone who sets out to deliberately mislead people by posting known false info in their family tree online. What can be done about it and who is to be the judge? I can't imagine why any submitter would want to do this--but even if they did I'd expect it is the responsibility of the viewer to sort out what is accurate and isn't when it comes to the user submitted data. Unless there is cause for legal action--libel, for instance, I can't see where anyone other than the people viewing the database should be judging it. And, once again, the best weapon against this would be to post the correct information in the same place the bad database is housed--let the people judge. Joan [email protected]

> > I can appreciate that you would not feel good if this > > happened, but I fear that the reality is that the only > > thing that you can change is your reaction. > > > > Chris J Dixon > > I'm a descendant of Puritans with a strong law-and-order streak, > what can I say? > > I doubt "change your reaction" would be your response if someone > stole from you. I really don't see that I should get MY case jumped > when all I'm wanting is to make it a bit more difficult for a thief > to steal from me, and I see it as no different from locking my doors > and windows to make it difficult enough for a thief to get into my > house, or my truck, that he'll decide it's not worth the effort and > will move on. I really don't see why I should be criticized for not > wanting to become a victim while I DO want to assist others by > providing my information to those who will use it legitimately and > who will be kind and courteous enough to render proper credit to the > person who did the work. > > I really can't see any of y'all wanting any less for yourselves, > either. > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> I don't think Chris was jumping on your case. I think the message here is there is no way to control your data once you put it on line. If it were in a jpeg format, that might hinder the automated data collectors, but it would not necessarily stop the individuals who are name collectors from taking your info and adding it to their trees. Is it wrong not to give credit to the creator of the data? Well of course it is, but many people operate under the assumption that if it's on the internet, it is free, or free to use as the copier wants. [And yes, this is a copyright matter, but let's not go there] I don't think there is anything that can be done to stop someone from taking your work posted on line, so the only choices left are to not publish on line, or put your information out there, and don't worry about who takes it. That is what I took from Chris' message to you. If you were to post the facts, and only the facts without the sources - but with a note that sources are available, a serious researcher will contact you for more information. The people who take your data and incorporate it into their own - well who cares about them? Even if they go on to publish it in a book or on another web page, they can't pass their work off as well researched, or reliable if they have no sources to back up their data. They will not be taken seriously by people interested in factual genealogy research. Lisa "Lisa Lepore" <[email protected]>

> > > I have a 1920 census record which says a specific man was born in > > > Russia/Poland and emigrated in 1905. His parents were both also > > > born in Russia/Poland, and the native language of both is Hebrew. > > > His wife was born in Pa, her father in Russia/Poland native language > > > Hebrew and her mother born in Hungary native language Hungarian > > > (struck-through and Magyar written above). > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > > As usual for me, I'm not sure what exactly you are asking, > > > > Lisa Lepore > > I was hoping for an itemized list of the things that could deduced > from the information quoted. > > singhals <[email protected]> An itemized list? OK - Your guy was living at the address in the 1920 census on whatever date he was enumerated. Since your guy's parents spoke Hebrew, he most probably is Jewish, and probably came here to escape the horrible conditions of Jews in Russia/Poland going on at that time. If you are researching the genealogy of Jewish people, check out jewishgen.org and all their associated webpages and newsgroups. His wife may or may not be Jewish, but since she was born in Pa, it looks like her entire family arrived earlier than your guy. In my earlier message, I pointed out that the 1920 enumerator instructions were to use the term Magyar for the people of Hungary to differentiate them from all the others who were living in that area. Were Magyar Jewish? I don't know. Were Jews in Hungary Magyar? I don't know that either. I would go on the premise that the wife was Jewish until I could prove otherwise. Also, the couple would likely have married in the US. If you can find the wife's maiden name, you could look for the family in the 1910 census. It would be interesting to see what the mother's nationality was called then. I'm sure there are other things that can be deduced from information you did not list here - like his relative income level - did he live in a house, an apartment, or a rooming house? Was he a laborer, or did he have a more skilled profession? Where were his neighbors from? Maybe they travelled together to this place. Lisa "Lisa Lepore" <[email protected]>

> > > > I doubt "change your reaction" would be your response if someone > > > > stole from you. I really don't see that I should get MY case jumped > > > > when all I'm wanting is to make it a bit more difficult for a thief > > > > to steal from me, and I see it as no different from locking my doors > > > > and windows to make it difficult enough for a thief to get into my > > > > house, or my truck, that he'll decide it's not worth the effort and > > > > will move on. I really don't see why I should be criticized for not > > > > > > > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> > > > > > > Putting stuff on a web page is the equivalent of pinning it > > > up on a supermarket bulletin boards, with signs on the billboards > > > saying it is there.... > > > > > > Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]> > > > > That makes it sound like we request people to "Please Steal" when we > > create a web page. Actually we're saying here is a source, please > > observe sourcing protocol. > > > > I'm beginning to think my web page should read, I have organized > > more than 50 pages of facts, single-spaced, with sources, on > > Sullivans in VA and NC up to about 1835. If you want to know what > > they are please contact me and I will forward up to 10 of them. > > > > Of course no one would contact me but I would have made a good faith > > effort. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > There *is* another way- use aboville numbers with just names: > > Queen Victoria > 1. Princees Victoria, German Empress > 1.1. Wilhelm II, German Emperor > 2. Edward VII > 2.1 George V > 2.1.1 George VI > 2.1.1.1.Queen Elizabeth II > etc > > then include a note..... > * Note- Dates, Places, Sources available on request. > Anyone really interested will contact you- most namegatherers won't. > > The Verminator <[email protected]> But I have no plans to post or publish my genealogy - no way. I plan to post only facts and sources gathered on Sullivans in VA and NC up to about 1835. Example: Virginia 1735 Brunswick Micajah Sullivan purchases 265 acres from... 1740 Brunswick Will of Michael Sullivant is probated 1741 Brunswick Honor, Michael, John and Mary Swillevent are declared orphans of Michael Sullivan North Carolina 1785 Edgecombe John Sullivan dies, Owen Sullivant named administrator ....and so on for 50+ pages. My purpose is to help Sullivan researchers by having a massive set of sourced and organized facts in one location and to be informed of facts I don't have that will aid our research. No theories and no trees. If the site is harvested I hope it is only a link, not content. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > > What is really driving me mad is there's a man named Jerusha Simmons > > > who has about 5 or more e-mail addresses dating back about the same > > > amount of years. He is sooooo closely related to me. And I can't > > > reach him. I even tracked down his old address on whitepages.com > > > with number, he moved. > > > > > > I hope he's still alive. Maybe he'll pop up again some day. > > > > > > Tim Johnson <[email protected]> > > > > A man who matches my DNA won't respond. I wonder if I called him a > > nasty name in the subject line... > > > > Hugh > > Hey... my husband has a DNA match of 36/37 and his "match" won't > return any emails. Maybe because his last name isn't the same??? > Hmmmmmmm These are all male descendants.. so in 2 other cases where > he matches 36/37 the name matches. Sure would like to get his > story.... and no, his name isn't Hugh. > > "Carolyn Lowe" <[email protected]> Same song, different verse here. If I had his address in England I'd fly over and knock on his front door - maybe even huff and puff until... The likelihood of a Most Recent Ancestor Match is two generations before my provable ancestry. If my theory about 5 previous generations is accurate I should be able to find his ancestors where my probable ancestors probably were around 1700 - give or take 20 years. I find them exactly where they should be. That doesn't prove my theory, it merely enforces it. Now am I a Wollard or is he a Sullivan - which lady accidently got in the wrong bed one night? Or was it comparative lab work so to speak? I have concluded that almost anyone can trace back to my gg grenafather so that doesn't interest me very much - it's copy work. My interest is going where no one has gone before - where can I go based on indisputable logic. Or how long do I have to wait until someone proves me wrong? Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > I have a problem with the last phrase. We can't avoid mistakes but > > I don't agree that a person has a right to lie. The choice to > > deliberately mislead can be made but it is not a right. > > > > [email protected] > > There is a vast difference between lying and posting incorrect > data--or data about which you and someone else disagree. If I > choose in my tree to decide that evidence proves one thing and you > choose to decide the facts point in a different direction--that > doesn't mean either of us is lying. We are merely interpreting the > evidence as pointing to a different set of facts. > > Joan <[email protected]> But this was the pharse I had trouble with - not what you say above. >"they have the right to be wrong if they choose to be wrong." To me that statement means being deliberately wrong and I disagreed with their right to do that. That may not have been your intent but I don't know your intent. In your response above there is no deliberate attempt to mislead. It is merely a difference of opinion. I find no problem with that as long as some sort of disclaimer is added. Facts stand alone. Interpreting them is theory, not "a different set of facts" as you say. If you measure a child at 2 and he is 3'1" tall, that is a fact. One might say he will grow to 6" and another to 6'2" - that's not "a different set of facts". It's nothiong more than a difference of opinion, both lacking proof. I have 16 facts proving John Sullivan was in Granville Co. NC in the early 1700s. My probable ggggg Grabdfather was named John. If I conclude that the Granville John was my 5g grand that is theory, not a "different set of facts". As an aside, other facts make it a pretty good theory but I add a disclaimer anyhow even though no one has been able to find a flaw in my theory. I trust our only difference is in phraseology. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

I don't think family secrets should be recorded unless they involve genealogy. Having an abortion does not involve genealogy. Giving birth to a child who lived does but even that should have exceptions. I had a uncle whose wife had a child by another man before they married. That young man does not know the secret and I would never tell it. [email protected]

> Check the probate records in Duplin County. Samuel West may have > inherited the land and the trasfer is in the probate records. > > bob gillis <[email protected]> Mr. Gillis: Thanks for the reply. I will be writing to the Clerk of Probate in Duplin Co., NC. I want to ask for a check of probate for Samuel WEST? Thank you very much. Fred, Sr. "Fred Frederick" <[email protected]>

> > What is really driving me mad is there's a man named Jerusha Simmons > > who has about 5 or more e-mail addresses dating back about the same > > amount of years. He is sooooo closely related to me. And I can't > > reach him. I even tracked down his old address on whitepages.com > > with number, he moved. > > > > I hope he's still alive. Maybe he'll pop up again some day. > > > > Tim Johnson <[email protected]> > > A man who matches my DNA won't respond. I wonder if I called him a > nasty name in the subject line... > > Hugh Hey... my husband has a DNA match of 36/37 and his "match" won't return any emails. Maybe because his last name isn't the same??? Hmmmmmmm These are all male descendants.. so in 2 other cases where he matches 36/37 the name matches. Sure would like to get his story.... and no, his name isn't Hugh. Carolyn "Carolyn Lowe" <[email protected]>

> > > I doubt "change your reaction" would be your response if someone > > > stole from you. I really don't see that I should get MY case jumped > > > when all I'm wanting is to make it a bit more difficult for a thief > > > to steal from me, and I see it as no different from locking my doors > > > and windows to make it difficult enough for a thief to get into my > > > house, or my truck, that he'll decide it's not worth the effort and > > > will move on. I really don't see why I should be criticized for not > > > > > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> > > > > Putting stuff on a web page is the equivalent of pinning it > > up on a supermarket bulletin boards, with signs on the billboards > > saying it is there.... > > > > Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]> > > That makes it sound like we request people to "Please Steal" when we > create a web page. Actually we're saying here is a source, please > observe sourcing protocol. > > I'm beginning to think my web page should read, I have organized > more than 50 pages of facts, single-spaced, with sources, on > Sullivans in VA and NC up to about 1835. If you want to know what > they are please contact me and I will forward up to 10 of them. > > Of course no one would contact me but I would have made a good faith > effort. > > J. Hugh Sullivan There *is* another way- use aboville numbers with just names: Queen Victoria 1. Princees Victoria, German Empress 1.1. Wilhelm II, German Emperor 2. Edward VII 2.1 George V 2.1.1 George VI 2.1.1.1.Queen Elizabeth II etc then include a note..... * Note- Dates, Places, Sources available on request. Anyone really interested will contact you- most namegatherers won't. -- The Verminator "[email protected]" <the_vermin[email protected]>

There are a lot of researchers, including myself, who do not post genealogies to the web. I subscribe to all the surname sites & message-boards I can find, and share my research on a one-to-one basis. I either respond to a query, or someone contacts me about information I have posted. When I exchange information, I first send a limited amount of data -- the record I have about their specific branch of the family in a regular descendant report, and an ahnentafel report, which gives only their direct ancestors. These are sent as MS Word documents, complete with sources and notes. (For questionable or undocumented data, I state in the notes where, or from whom I got it.) In return I ask that they fill in my record with what they are willing to share about their branch of the family, plus corrections of any errors they find in my data. (I also tell them that I will neither pass on information about living people, nor post their data to an on-line genealogy site.- and I keep those promises.) Sometimes the "exchange" ends right there -- they want my info, but are not willing to give me theirs. OK -- I gave them only a limited amount, and won't send any more.. Most contacts, however, result in a mutually satisfying exchange of further information. Sources: I have found no source -- primary, secondary or any other -- immune to error. The census especially so. If both parents are not at home the information may be taken from a spouse or adult child, who may not know the answers to some of the questions. My maternal grandfather's oldest daughter gave her father's birthplace as Norway. in the only census record for him that could be found I searched in vain until an internet cousin mentioned that "grandpa" might have served in the Civil War. I sent NARA a request for records with all the information I was sure of -- name, date of birth, and last known place of residence (Wisconsin). Sure enough, he enlisted as a Union soldier, and was killed two months later in the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse, Virginia. But his enlistment papers said he was b. in NY.. He was killed quite a few years before my mother & her sisters were born, and the family just never talked about their long-dead grandfather.q In an official publication listing their marriage, both my paternal great-grandparents' surnames are misspelled - Wilmoth and Walraven are given as Wilmith and Walriven. And I actually found Wilmoth spelled three different ways in a single land document. You can't even believe it if it is inscribed in stone! I have photos of the headstones of three children in the same family who died between Oct. 26 and Nov. 2, 1862. They were Allen, b. May 4, 1856, Nancy Ann "Nannie", b. 27 May 1858, and McClellan, b. 28 Oct 1861, children of .William and Emily Warnock. Though I haven't been able to confirm this, I speculate that there must have been an epidemic in Eastern Kentucky in 1862. Only the fatigue of the engraver, having to inscribe too many headstones at the same time, plus parents too grief-stricken to make an issue of it, seems adequate to explain why these errors were left uncorrected. Allen's reads: "b. May 5, 1856, d. 1862, son of Emma and McClellan Warnock, twin of Nannie" (Birthdate wrong, he is not Nannie's twin, and McClellan was not his father) Nancy Ann's: "Nannie, b. May 5 1856, d. 1862, dau. of Emma and William Warnock, twin of Allen" (Only her nickname is on the stone, birth date is wrong, she is not Allen's twin.) McClellan's: b. Oct 28, 1861, d. 1862, son of Emma and William Warnock (the birth date is correct, but he isn't his brother Allen's father.) Virginia "Virginia Beck" <[email protected]>

> I have a problem with the last phrase. We can't avoid mistakes but > I don't agree that a person has a right to lie. The choice to > deliberately mislead can be made but it is not a right. > > [email protected] Hugh- There is a vast difference between lying and posting incorrect data--or data about which you and someone else disagree. If I choose in my tree to decide that evidence proves one thing and you choose to decide the facts point in a different direction--that doesn't mean either of us is lying. We are merely interpreting the evidence as pointing to a different set of facts. Joan [email protected]

> I want to take pictures at cemeteries and wondering what kind of > resolution I should look for in a digicam, as well as any other > features that would be good for genealogical purposes. I realize > that more pixels gives better pictures, but it makes for larger > pictures, more space taken up etc. > > Zev Griner <[email protected]> I'm not really sure what you meant by "digicam". If you just meant digital still camera, then feel free to ignore the rest of this. <g> My real point is that digital _movie_ cameras don't usually take particularly good still pictures. I have not photographed any tombstones yet, but I do plan to start (I'm a real newbie at this genealogy business). In the spirit of "using what you have", I plan to just use my Canon G3. It is a fairly old camera as digital cameras go now days with about 4 megapixels but a pretty fair lens and optical zoom. I've been very happy with it though for general photography, and I expect it to do fine on tombstones. I have printed some 8x10 inch photos with it and been quite pleased with the results. Regards, Charlie -- To email me, eradicate obfuscate, remove dot invalid and replace dot and at with the obvious. obfuscatecsquared3 at comcast dot net dot invalid If this seems paranoid I'm sorry but you should see the spam I've gotten! "CSquared" <[email protected]>

> > I doubt "change your reaction" would be your response if someone > > stole from you. I really don't see that I should get MY case jumped > > when all I'm wanting is to make it a bit more difficult for a thief > > to steal from me, and I see it as no different from locking my doors > > and windows to make it difficult enough for a thief to get into my > > house, or my truck, that he'll decide it's not worth the effort and > > will move on. I really don't see why I should be criticized for not > > > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> > > Putting stuff on a web page is the equivalent of pinning it > up on a supermarket bulletin boards, with signs on the billboards > saying it is there.... > > Dennis Lee Bieber <[email protected]> That makes it sound like we request people to "Please Steal" when we create a web page. Actually we're saying here is a source, please observe sourcing protocol. I'm beginning to think my web page should read, I have organized more than 50 pages of facts, single-spaced, with sources, on Sullivans in VA and NC up to about 1835. If you want to know what they are please contact me and I will forward up to 10 of them. Of course no one would contact me but I would have made a good faith effort. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > Has anyone noticed lately that when looking at family trees on > > Ancestry that a growing number of them do not have a contact name, > > only "unknown" at the top of the page. This really makes it > > difficult to identify sources, connect with the contributor or > > verify that the info is correct. I for one would like to complain > > about it, but not sure where to send the complaint. > > > > Lois Brinks-Heath <[email protected]> > > If I had a dollar for all them unknowns, I could buy a nice TV set. > > What is really driving me mad is there's a man named Jerusha Simmons > who has about 5 or more e-mail addresses dating back about the same > amount of years. He is sooooo closely related to me. And I can't > reach him. I even tracked down his old address on whitepages.com > with number, he moved. > > I hope he's still alive. Maybe he'll pop up again some day. > > Tim Johnson <[email protected]> A man who matches my DNA won't respond. I wonder if I called him a nasty name in the subject line... Hugh

> > I'm not satisfied to do that. In the interest of presenting correct > > information I think we have a duty to identify the incorrect. By > > not identifying the wrong information we help perpetuate it. I'll > > not be a party to that. > > > > Anyone who can determine what to believe probably doesn't need the > > information in the first place. > > > > Hugh <[email protected]> > > Hugh- > > I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't inform a submitter if we > find an error in their data. I simply am saying we cannot force > anyone else to accept our version of the facts or fix errors in > their files if they don't want to--they have the right to be wrong > if they choose to be wrong. > > [email protected] I have a problem with the last phrase. We can't avoid mistakes but I don't agree that a person has a right to lie. The choice to deliberately mislead can be made but it is not a right. Hugh

> > > no > > > maybe your mother copied from the 1863 book (mistakes and all too) > > > > > > what you have to do is look very critically at the 1863 book and try > > > and find the original source of the data in the nineteenth century > > > > > > a PRIMARY source is a document created at the same time by the > > > people involved in the event. > > > > > > a will > > > a probate > > > some church books > > > > > > but NOT many census records > > > which are mostly SECONDARY sources > > > because they are a fair copy from original census returns or an oral > > > statement on a door step pencilled into a note book > > > > > > Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> > > > > Census records are pretty good indicators of where a person lived at > > a particular time. And a copy of the original record is probably > > pretty accurate. But (1) don't trust the indexes - lots of errors > > there (2) there is no guarantee that every member of a household, > > even if the last name is the same, is the blood kin of the adults. > > > > It's tough enough to find an essential fact but in my mind real > > proof exists when we find a corroborating fact or perhaps a timely > > succession of facts. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > I look for three independent items of evidence before regarding any > entry in my tree as "goldplated". > > Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> There is an old educational song that goes, "Three is the magic number...." Magic numbers work about as well in evaluating a body of genealogical evidence as they do in other areas of life. I will grant that three records that agree on important details may lend increasing probability to any interpretation that may be applied to any one alone. But by the same logic, there is no reason to STOP at three. It couldn't be very costly to search for four, or six, or however many you need to posit a definite identification in place of a probable one. The critierion overshoots as regularly as it undershoots, if perhaps not as frequently. I don't need more than one piece of paper to establish the date and place of my birth and the names of my parents, although people applying for a delayed or corrected birth certificate may need more. Finally, I'm with the other Hugh in holding that whatever its faults and difficulties of access, a census record may be treated as an accurate representation of some historical facts. Minor inconsistencies ("off by a year") are generally dismissable; one of the points of consulting a census is that it may lead to other records with more precise, more definite, more accurate information. Even a set of three census records is superior to a set of three unsupported claims in different genealogy books. And we certainly ought not to call off the search if it portends to lead us to a goal in more than three steps. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]>