> > Then there are family historians - good-hearted people who > > sometimes (sometimes is a key word here) waive commonly accepted > > rules of genealogy to please family and friends. This includes the > > righteous among us who properly insist on bloodlines but who will be > > in for a few disappointments when DNA testing is universal. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan <[email protected]> > > Your above comment (extracted from the full post), made me laugh out > loud as I recalled my kin folks' reaction to the discovery I had > made that proved the maternal GrGrandfather was illegitimate. While > the kin folks knew this to be true, they did not want such records > available for public use (the record was found at NARA) and they > certainly did not want "the kid" knowing of and discussing this part > of the family history. Many offers were made to me---payments if > you will----to withhold that information. > > Your lines above gave me a good walk down memory lane. > > Thank you. > > "Fred Frederick" <[email protected]> You're welcome. I've always had a bit of a problem with self-righteous purists who ridiculed irrefutable logic but insisted their line all the way back to 1066 was based on absolute proof. It is as if they gave all the mommas lie detector tests. And how do they know when some lady raised her sister's children after she passed. Some of the old records may be inspired writing but I think the source of inspiration might be suspect in some cases. My gg grandfather had at least 4 children with three ladies before the circuit rider came by or poppa loaded his shotgun, whichever came first. That wasn't me so I have no embarrassment about the facts - in fact, I call him Stud. 8-) For people who think male/ female uh, ahem, friendships are a current phenomenon they need to read some of the old Bastardy Bonds. Some ladies said "Oops" several times. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

Karen Rhodes wrote: > On 26 Nov 2006 at 9:20, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > > > In the hope that some continued discussion will benefit newbies... > > > > None of my "proven" data is on any web site for several > > reasons. > snip if first class work share it with familysearch.org I use wc.rootsweb.com which is a freebie 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]>

> > In the hope that some continued discussion will benefit newbies... > > > > None of my "proven" data is on any web site for several > > reasons. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > I looked myself up on the web and found that I had died in Scituate, > Rhode Island a number of years ago. Reports of my death have been > greatly exaggerated. > > Barbara Combs obie '70 All of my data proven and unproven are on the Internet, without any names of the living and without sources, I have benefited so much from online postings that I feel the drive to share mine. When I am contacted I can send whatever sources I choose and we can converse on any points that come up. It makes me feel so good when someone writes me that they really appreciated the information and I have had some great breakthroughs from the ones that I write to and what a fantastic tool is the post it notes on many of the places that I research. Any questions are welcome newby or not http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=purplevw1&id=I65255 "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see." Sandra Tyler Duncan [email protected]

> > Then there are family historians - good-hearted people who > > sometimes (sometimes is a key word here) waive commonly accepted > > rules of genealogy to please family and friends. This includes the > > righteous among us who properly insist on bloodlines but who will be > > in for a few disappointments when DNA testing is universal. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > Mr. Sullivan: > > Your above comment (extracted from the full post), made me laugh out > loud as I recalled my kin folks' reaction to the discovery I had > made that proved the maternal GrGrandfather was illegitimate. While > the kin folks knew this to be true, they did not want such records > available for public use (the record was found at NARA) and they > certainly did not want "the kid" knowing of and discussing this part > of the family history. Many offers were made to me---payments if > you will----to withhold that information. > > Your lines above gave me a good walk down memory lane. > > Fred Frederick <[email protected]> your post brings up a good point. as i work very diligently trying to research my family history while I still have my mother and my grandmother to use as sources i come across a situation where my mother and an aunt had been married for a short period of time to different men. neither of them wants to share any of their history during those times. I know of these marriages because they were in my lifetime so I have written them in my notes for use at a later date but how does a person make others in the family understand that this is a family history to share with our descendants so they can know where they came from and who we are, They enjoy researching with me and love to find new stories about our ancestors but still are adamant about not sharing a small piece of their past. How can we make people understand so they will share? Robin Percy <[email protected]>

> [email protected] wrote: > > > I would like to figure out the relationship between me and a > > "cousin." Her paternal great-grandfather married my paternal > > great-grandmother's maternal aunt. The two of them raised her after > > her mother died. > > > > How are the two of us (me and the "cousin") related? > > Your common ancestors are four generations back of her and five > generations behind you. That makes you second cousins once removed. > > > How am I > > related to the uncle who raised my great-grandmother? > > This man is an uncle by marriage; he has no common bloodline with > you that you have yet referred to. (If you happened to find one, it > would also produce another kinship term for your relationship with > your cousin.) But his wife would be your great-great-great-aunt. > > > Thanks, > > Kberry <[email protected]> > > You're welcome. > > Austin W. Spencer I was going to thank everyone for their responses but now I'm confused: If the uncle isn't related to me except by marriage, how could I be second cousins once removed with his great-great granddaughter? I think I didn't make my question clear, so I'll restate it. My "cousin's" great-great grandfather married my great-great aunt. They raised my great-grandmother, the great-great aunt's niece, whose mother died. How am I related to the great-great granddaughter? How am I related to her great-great grandfather? Kberry [email protected]

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 Heath Lois Brinks-Heath <[email protected]>

> > In the hope that some continued discussion will benefit newbies... > > > > None of my "proven" data is on any web site for several > > reasons. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > I think a general discussion of this topic could be useful to > anyone. I agree with your reticence to do this, and have been > "agonizing" over it for a long, long time. > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> Your comments were very interesting and should be read as a foreword. I have snipped for brevity of reply. There is an old story about the farmer who tired of people stealing his watermelons so he posted a sign saying, "One of these melons is poisoned." One morning he went to his field and the "one" had been changed to "two". In like manner I have heard of people who deliberately put false data on their websites so they can trap commercial harvesters. I have thought of doing that with a disclaimer but I doubt the harvesters would pick that up so it would be an injustice to researchers. Sources is another problem and not everyone understands. If I include my sources, they are not anyone else's sources until they personally have either viewed the source or corroborated it by another source. In the interim I am their source. I recently thought of what I may do. For a number of years I have been a fact collector of Sullivan data. I have posted every Sullivan fact I found in VA and NC up to about 1835 when my gg grandfather headed to AL. The facts are chronologically posted by state, year and county and include my sources. They are saved on the computer and printed on pages in 3 ring binders. I also have Sullivan census records for my states of interest saved in the same manner. I may post the fact listing to a web site. I see this having several benefits... 1. The data might not be harvested and, if it was, it would be out of date as soon as the next fact was posted. 2. The site might become the focal point for exchange of data and encourage contacts between researchers. The site could include the e-maill adds of interested people with their permission. 3. The site could continue long after the one who maintained it returned to dust. Not only have I not heard the idea mentioned, I don't know of anyone who keeps their data in the aforementioned manner. Comments anyone? Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> Has anyone come up with a way to design a genealogical website so > that it is impossible for commercial outfits to harvest the > information? Or at least difficult enough to make it not worth the > trouble? I've toyed with mounting everything as graphics. Just > putting up a GEDCOM seems to me the perfect bait for the commercial > outfits' "bots." Finding a way to foil this particularly nasty > habit of the commercial concerns would be a good use of time, to my > mind! > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> I wouldn't say its impossible for commercial outfits to harvest the info from the site I created, but I think it's difficult. I basically created two versions of my family history site: a "lite" public version and a family-only private version using server security features with a unique username/password for each person to keep the "meat" out of public view. I do still want to help those individuals that may find use in what I've researched, so I create public versions of family tree branches in graphic format, which while tedious, makes it a little harder for robots to harvest. And I never post GEDCOM files. Of course I'm happy to talk with anyone who thinks there may be a family connection and share appropriate levels of information that way. As a last measure, I also make use of a robots.txt file to keep the search indexing robots that "play nice" out of directories or files I don't want indexed. My public pages are at http://www.mannfamily.cc/public/ in case anyone is curious! Regards, Joe -- Joseph Mann [email protected] The Mann Origins Genealogy Project at http://www.mannfamily.cc

> Then there are family historians - good-hearted people who > sometimes (sometimes is a key word here) waive commonly accepted > rules of genealogy to please family and friends. This includes the > righteous among us who properly insist on bloodlines but who will be > in for a few disappointments when DNA testing is universal. > > J. Hugh Sullivan <[email protected]> Mr. Sullivan: Your above comment (extracted from the full post), made me laugh out loud as I recalled my kin folks' reaction to the discovery I had made that proved the maternal GrGrandfather was illegitimate. While the kin folks knew this to be true, they did not want such records available for public use (the record was found at NARA) and they certainly did not want "the kid" knowing of and discussing this part of the family history. Many offers were made to me---payments if you will----to withhold that information. Your lines above gave me a good walk down memory lane. Thank you. Fred, Sr. "Fred Frederick" <[email protected]>

> Has anyone come up with a way to design a genealogical website so > that it is impossible for commercial outfits to harvest the > information? > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> I'm posting family trees on my site as jpegs - it wouldn't stop someone retyping the info, but it does stop auto-harvesting. I also have one census as a pdf - same effect. Lesley Robertson

[ All, the poster's original contribution is way down below everything else. I prolly should have trimmed this message, but it is an interesting thread ... (Please do trim your quotes as much as you can while keeping the sense of the posts and the sources clear. Thanks!) - Mod ] Karen Rhodes wrote: > On 26 Nov 2006 at 9:20, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > > > In the hope that some continued discussion will benefit newbies... > > > > None of my "proven" data is on any web site for several > > reasons. > > I think a general discussion of this topic could be useful to > anyone. I agree with your reticence to do this, and have been > "agonizing" over it for a long, long time. > > > I don't want it harvested by commercial groups for > > one. > > This fear also motivates me. Its bad enough that I have already > felt stung by Family Tree Maker's World Connect thing. Let me say > here that the event I'm about to relate occurred YEARS ago -- I'm > older, more experienced, more professional, and much, much wiser > now. I don't know if it's any different with later versions, but > early on, a popup would come up when you'd entered, what, your 100th > person -- complete with errors, wrong suppositions, and all the > other failings that newbie flesh is heir to. The popup congratulats > you, making your newbie soul beam with pride. Then the popup would > ask you if you'd like to "contribute" your knowledge to the World > Family Tree, and it would extol the virtues thereof -- with, of > course, no mention of the vices (errors, wrong assumptions, faulty > sourcing). And it would NOT tell you that they were going to turn > around and MAKE MONEY by SELLING your freely and altruistically > given information for something like ten bucks a pop. Gee, at least > we suckers should be getting royalties for this. The worst part is > that the newbie booboos we made a couple decades ago never die! > > That's one reason I switched to The Master Genealogist in later > years. That, and the fact that TMG is much more robust in its > handling of sources. But I digress . . . > > Has anyone come up with a way to design a genealogical website so > that it is impossible for commercial outfits to harvest the > information? Or at least difficult enough to make it not worth the > trouble? I've toyed with mounting everything as graphics. Just > putting up a GEDCOM seems to me the perfect bait for the commercial > outfits' "bots." Finding a way to foil this particularly nasty > habit of the commercial concerns would be a good use of time, to my > mind! > > > For another, I'm selfish. > > <grin> Me, too, really. > > > I want to have a discussion with anyone who is > > interested in any of the lines I follow and making > > the data universally available does not always fill > > that need. > > Yeah, but there may be someone out there banging his or her head on > a brick wall -- as we all have done. And your information may be the > key to unlock the hidden vault they are seeking. Just a thought. I > am somewhat selfish, too, as I admitted. But I also would like to > have my properly-sourced and investigated information out there for > others who may need it. I found my grandmother (long story) -- > well, found her grave -- because of leads provided by information on > the WorldWide Web. Hadn't been for that, I'd still be banging my > head against that brick wall. I wouldn't know where she was buried; > I wouldn't have confirmation from the cemetery sexton; I wouldn't > have her death certificate, and wouldn't know that she died of heart > disease (which also runs on my father's side, and now my doctor and > I have more information to take better care of my own cardiovascular > system)! > > I would also like to mention that at the Florida State Genealogical > Society/Federation of Genealogical Societies conference in Orlando, > FL, in 2003, Helen F. M. Leary gave a wonderful talk about the > "garbage" on the WorldWide Web, and the need for people with correct > information properly sourced and documented to post such on the Web > as an example of how to do it right, and to counteract the garbage. > > Seemed like a good idea to me. I have to say that I don't fret that > much about the garbage on the Web because I remember Sturgeon's Law, > named for science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, > "95% of science fiction is crud. But then, 95% of EVERYTHING is > crud." Sturgeon's Law applies to the Web as well -- 95% of what is > out there is crud, but I'd sure like to be able to contribute to the > golden 5%. However, I'd like to be able to do that without getting > totally ripped off. > > > Also, I have built 5 generations before the dead > > end based solely on incontrovertible (so far) logic. > > I'm not interested in someone saying WOW! > > Ya know, I don't mind "WOW!" if it means, "I've been looking for ten > years for a clue to this, and here it is! Thank you so much!" That > kind of "WOW!" is very nice, and I've been able to experience that > myself a couple of times because someone else provided information > that led me to the source I needed. > > > I want to know if proof (I haven't seen) exists that > > proves me right or wrong - wrong info is worse than > > no info. > > Ideally, this kind of interchange would be prompted by a display of > information on the Web. Unfortunately, it is not always so; some > people will enter into a dialogue which will prove eminently > fruitful for both you and them. But not everyone is built that way. > <shrug> > > Sometimes, too, wrong information can be better than no information. > It may provide a lead which will guide us to the right information. > We have to evaluate the information, question it, and see where it > takes us. It is up to us to properly investigate the information > and determine its value -- or lack thereof. > > > People have a tendency to accept what they see on > > Internet without question. > > Just as people had for generations accepted what they saw in the > newspapers without question. And, later, on the boob tube. So > that's really nothing new, just a new form of an old vice. > > > And, in my case, several of my early theories still > > appear even though I have dismissed them as > > incorrect. Fortunately the people published them > > as their own data instead of giving me > > credit. > > Lucky you. MY name is on that dratted World Family Tree stuff, > which I figured out years ago was wrong, and have since corrected. > Argh! > > > This includes the righteous among us who properly > > insist on bloodlines but who will be in for a > > few disappointments when DNA testing is universal. > > <grin> As may we all! There may be more than a few unrecorded and > unacknowledged adoptions in the woodpiles of many of us. > > Another concern with putting information up on the WorldWide Web is > private individuals who steal information. They're out there, > unfortunately. They'll take your info, sources and all -- sometimes > verbatim -- and put it up on their websites as theirs. I really > don't want to fall victim to one of them. > > Nor do I want the self-righteous hypercritics who will take one > little error you may not have corrected yet and shred you a new one > over it. > > I'd like to see some solutions for these problems -- though there > probably is no cure for the last one! > > > This is getting pretty windy and I have said nothing > > that most people here could not have said better. If > > nothing else I hope it gives some newcomers food > > for thought - I know it won't help any > > oldcomers. > > On the contrary: I think discussions of such topics as these helps > everyone. > > "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]> The best way to handle this is doing a straight text report (with sources embedded with the text including date of entryand your initials/name*) and then make it avaliable as a PDF file- if they then want re-type it into a genealogy program or edit out the entry dates let them <G>. *Using variations of your name and initials will prevent mass search and replace thereof. ;) "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

> > > I'm new to the list so I might be repeating something that has > > > already been done, or this is the wrong list for, but I would love > > > to share good sites for researching genealogy. > > > > > > My favorite research site to get gedcom files is at: > > > > > > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi > > > > > > Newest discovery for Civil war information: > > > > > > http://dlxs.richmond.edu/d/ddr/ > > > > > > It is the Richmond newspaper that published throughout the Civil War > > > and has a searchable data base and reproductions of the actual > > > pages. > > > > > > Is anyone interested?? > > > > > > "Paulette Smith" <[email protected]> > > > > Most GEDCOM files from RootsWeb are next to worthless as they have > > either no sources or the only sources are other gedcoms (which > > usually have no sources). > > > > RootsWeb would do the world a favor if it deleted every Gedcom with > > no sources or other gedcoms for sources. What would be left would > > at least serve as a somewhat usable cluefinder to actual sourced > > information. > > > > It would also serve to discourage name collectors and focus on > > actual genealogical research. > > > > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Ahem? (g) > > Some of us believe that an event place of Washington D.C., USA > should be a sufficient clue to the probability that the fact (birth, > marriage or death) can be documented by using the relevant vital > records from Washington DC. > > And then too some of us prefer to say "Sources on request". > > It would be a mistake to _assume_ that an unstated source is > also non-existent. > > Cheryl I make the assumption that since it appears on the web that there is a source; however weak that source may be. The problem is that it is unstated. Even a "Sources on Request" would be an improvement over nothing at all. If not sources at least a biblography would give a person a clue of the type of sources. "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

I was so glad to see a response from Dr. Brian Leverich regarding the genealogies posted to WC and other similar sites. Long ago when I started my research, tracing ancestry was very difficult. I was lucky to get a good start for my husband's family because both his grandmothers and his mother were savers of family documents & letters. After their deaths, no one else in the family wanted that "old junk" (or the two Bibles with entries for several generations of births, deaths & marriages) so I took it. I wasn't so fortunate with my own family. All four of my grandparents died long before I was born, and the only information they left were names and dates & some places of birth as far back as my great-grandparents. For you kids: in pre-internet times, most census records, county history books, land, birth, death & marriage records, etc. were available only in each separate locality. Extensive genealogy libraries were few and far between. Research required a lot of correspondence, phone calls, and time, or travel and money. Census records were not indexed. Old county records were often in some dusty storage place. If you sent for information, the response might take weeks. Just finding a library with a book you wanted was almost impossible. I look upon the Gedcoms, & all other posted genealogy information, not as places to find a ready-made family tree, complete with sources, but as a tool. Finding a new name, place or branch for one of my surnames very often leads me to new sources and a lot of new information, now verified. After we retired in 1982 (I'm 87) my late husband and I traveled the U.S. for four years to do research in the towns where all of his and my known ancestors had lived. I am a librarian, and like to think I'm a pretty capable researcher. I was satisfied that I had found just about everything possible in the sources available during those years. As soon as it became possible I expanded my search to the internet. Rootsweb was the site that outshined them all in those early days -- a free service where we could look for other people researching the same families. I like to think the missiion continues with WC. I had at least four "brick walls" that I could never have penetrated without the genealogies I found posted there, and the on-line cousins I contacted. Most people who post on-line have no intent to deceive, and welcome corrections [documented, I hope]. For those of you who resent having their hard-won data re-posted by someone else: Why are you posting things you don't want passed on? My on-line cousins have been very generous with me, and I am only too happy to "pay it forward". When I send my data to a cousin I include all the sources and notes. As a librarian I have no problem giving others information I have located or confirmed. In return I often receive new information not available from any other source. Virginia "Virginia Beck" <[email protected]>

> In the hope that some continued discussion will benefit newbies... > > None of my "proven" data is on any web site for several > reasons. > > J. Hugh Sullivan I looked myself up on the web and found that I had died in Scituate, Rhode Island a number of years ago. Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. Barbara Combs obie '70 Eugene, Oregon "Barbara J. Combs" <[email protected]>

I got it now, Thanks! "Chau" <[email protected]>

On 26 Nov 2006 at 9:20, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > In the hope that some continued discussion will benefit newbies... > > None of my "proven" data is on any web site for several > reasons. I think a general discussion of this topic could be useful to anyone. I agree with your reticence to do this, and have been "agonizing" over it for a long, long time. > I don't want it harvested by commercial groups for > one. This fear also motivates me. Its bad enough that I have already felt stung by Family Tree Maker's World Connect thing. Let me say here that the event I'm about to relate occurred YEARS ago -- I'm older, more experienced, more professional, and much, much wiser now. I don't know if it's any different with later versions, but early on, a popup would come up when you'd entered, what, your 100th person -- complete with errors, wrong suppositions, and all the other failings that newbie flesh is heir to. The popup congratulats you, making your newbie soul beam with pride. Then the popup would ask you if you'd like to "contribute" your knowledge to the World Family Tree, and it would extol the virtues thereof -- with, of course, no mention of the vices (errors, wrong assumptions, faulty sourcing). And it would NOT tell you that they were going to turn around and MAKE MONEY by SELLING your freely and altruistically given information for something like ten bucks a pop. Gee, at least we suckers should be getting royalties for this. The worst part is that the newbie booboos we made a couple decades ago never die! That's one reason I switched to The Master Genealogist in later years. That, and the fact that TMG is much more robust in its handling of sources. But I digress . . . Has anyone come up with a way to design a genealogical website so that it is impossible for commercial outfits to harvest the information? Or at least difficult enough to make it not worth the trouble? I've toyed with mounting everything as graphics. Just putting up a GEDCOM seems to me the perfect bait for the commercial outfits' "bots." Finding a way to foil this particularly nasty habit of the commercial concerns would be a good use of time, to my mind! > For another, I'm selfish. <grin> Me, too, really. > I want to have a discussion with anyone who is > interested in any of the lines I follow and making > the data universally available does not always fill > that need. Yeah, but there may be someone out there banging his or her head on a brick wall -- as we all have done. And your information may be the key to unlock the hidden vault they are seeking. Just a thought. I am somewhat selfish, too, as I admitted. But I also would like to have my properly-sourced and investigated information out there for others who may need it. I found my grandmother (long story) -- well, found her grave -- because of leads provided by information on the WorldWide Web. Hadn't been for that, I'd still be banging my head against that brick wall. I wouldn't know where she was buried; I wouldn't have confirmation from the cemetery sexton; I wouldn't have her death certificate, and wouldn't know that she died of heart disease (which also runs on my father's side, and now my doctor and I have more information to take better care of my own cardiovascular system)! I would also like to mention that at the Florida State Genealogical Society/Federation of Genealogical Societies conference in Orlando, FL, in 2003, Helen F. M. Leary gave a wonderful talk about the "garbage" on the WorldWide Web, and the need for people with correct information properly sourced and documented to post such on the Web as an example of how to do it right, and to counteract the garbage. Seemed like a good idea to me. I have to say that I don't fret that much about the garbage on the Web because I remember Sturgeon's Law, named for science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, "95% of science fiction is crud. But then, 95% of EVERYTHING is crud." Sturgeon's Law applies to the Web as well -- 95% of what is out there is crud, but I'd sure like to be able to contribute to the golden 5%. However, I'd like to be able to do that without getting totally ripped off. > Also, I have built 5 generations before the dead > end based solely on incontrovertible (so far) logic. > I'm not interested in someone saying WOW! Ya know, I don't mind "WOW!" if it means, "I've been looking for ten years for a clue to this, and here it is! Thank you so much!" That kind of "WOW!" is very nice, and I've been able to experience that myself a couple of times because someone else provided information that led me to the source I needed. > I want to know if proof (I haven't seen) exists that > proves me right or wrong - wrong info is worse than > no info. Ideally, this kind of interchange would be prompted by a display of information on the Web. Unfortunately, it is not always so; some people will enter into a dialogue which will prove eminently fruitful for both you and them. But not everyone is built that way. <shrug> Sometimes, too, wrong information can be better than no information. It may provide a lead which will guide us to the right information. We have to evaluate the information, question it, and see where it takes us. It is up to us to properly investigate the information and determine its value -- or lack thereof. > People have a tendency to accept what they see on > Internet without question. Just as people had for generations accepted what they saw in the newspapers without question. And, later, on the boob tube. So that's really nothing new, just a new form of an old vice. > And, in my case, several of my early theories still > appear even though I have dismissed them as > incorrect. Fortunately the people published them > as their own data instead of giving me > credit. Lucky you. MY name is on that dratted World Family Tree stuff, which I figured out years ago was wrong, and have since corrected. Argh! > This includes the righteous among us who properly > insist on bloodlines but who will be in for a > few disappointments when DNA testing is universal. <grin> As may we all! There may be more than a few unrecorded and unacknowledged adoptions in the woodpiles of many of us. Another concern with putting information up on the WorldWide Web is private individuals who steal information. They're out there, unfortunately. They'll take your info, sources and all -- sometimes verbatim -- and put it up on their websites as theirs. I really don't want to fall victim to one of them. Nor do I want the self-righteous hypercritics who will take one little error you may not have corrected yet and shred you a new one over it. I'd like to see some solutions for these problems -- though there probably is no cure for the last one! > This is getting pretty windy and I have said nothing > that most people here could not have said better. If > nothing else I hope it gives some newcomers food > for thought - I know it won't help any > oldcomers. On the contrary: I think discussions of such topics as these helps everyone. Karen Rhodes Middleburg, FL "Karen Rhodes" <[email protected]>

> Hey, Good day to all. I was just wondering how it is determined > whether someone is your first second third fourth etc. cousin. > > "Chau" <[email protected]> Try this: http://www.hooperconnections.com/relationships.html HTH Simon Simon Flood <[email protected]>

> Hey, Good day to all. I was just wondering how it is determined > whether someone is your first second third fourth etc. cousin. > > "Chau" <[email protected]> The enclosed chart should clarify the situation! Regards, Arnold [ Unfortunately, binary attachments won't gracefully propagate through USENET in a non-binary group and won't propagate past the GENMTD-L intake. ): Probably direct correspondence with the poster is the best solution. Sorry ... - Mod ] -- <><><><><<><><><><><><> Arrowhead Images <[email protected] <><><><><<><><><><><><> RESEARCHING: Carleton County, New Brunswick, Canada

> Hey, Good day to all. I was just wondering how it is determined > whether someone is your first second third fourth etc. cousin. > > Thanks for any answers! > > "Chau" <[email protected]> The chart that Kevin linked in the last thread is a handy guide for looking up the label, and it is one such guide among many. But the underlying principle is that two people must both descend from a common ancestor in no fewer than three generations on each line. The process may be summarized as follows. 1. Count the generations of descent for both cousins. Include both the common ancestors and the target descendants in the counts. 2. Both numbers must be greater than or equal to 3. If either number is less than 3, it will be inaccurate to describe the individuals as cousins. 3. Subtract 2 from the smaller number. Convert that number to an ordinal (e.g., 3 - 2 =1 --> 1st). 4. Express the difference between the generation counts as "times removed." The numbers are based on how far back the common ancestors are, and on whether there is enough of an age difference between ancestors in the intermediate generations to produce a chronological displacement. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <[email protected]>

[email protected] wrote: > I would like to figure out the relationship between me and a > "cousin." Her paternal great-grandfather married my paternal > great-grandmother's maternal aunt. The two of them raised her after > her mother died. > > How are the two of us (me and the "cousin") related? Your common ancestors are four generations back of her and five generations behind you. That makes you second cousins once removed. > How am I > related to the uncle who raised my great-grandmother? This man is an uncle by marriage; he has no common bloodline with you that you have yet referred to. (If you happened to find one, it would also produce another kinship term for your relationship with your cousin.) But his wife would be your great-great-great-aunt. > Thanks, > Kberry <[email protected]> You're welcome. Austin W. Spencer