> I do not think that lack of response to an inquiry made at large to > an entire list necessarily indicates rudeness. If the reply is > short, and does not require much research, the lack of "thanks" can > be less annoying than the flurry of "thank yous" and "You're > welcomes". > > [email protected] I am never annoyed with thank you and you're welcome.

I have a couple in my family tree that married in Tazewell, Illinois, USA in 1824. In 1823 this would have been Sangamon County, in 1824 it became a non county area and in 1827 it became Tazewell County. What is the proper way to indicate a non county area? I'd like to be able to save other researchers the extra work if possible. Skippy <[email protected]>

> That is exactly what I am saying. Proof is proof. Everything else > is guesswork. It may be really GOOD guesswork, but absent proof, it > must be treated as guesswork. > > [email protected] Well, actually it is all EVIDENCE--some pieces of evidence carry more weight than others, but it is all evidence and needs to be weighed in making a determination of the facts. Joan

> > > Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only > > > proves a lack of evidence. > > > > My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or > > selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His > > estate inventory did not mention land. > > > > I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with lack > > of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical > > conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own > > land. > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove he did _not_ own > land. All you can accurately state is that you have no evidence > that he ever did own land. It's a subtle distinction, but a very > real one. > > "Christopher Jahn" <[email protected]> Although if you can show that you know who the assorted landowners were in the area at the time he was alive, and he's not among them, you can be pretty certain. Stop looking at him and look at the folk around him. Lesley Robertson "Lesley Robertson" <[email protected]>

I like to help people even if they do not thank me because it is not about them, it is about me and who I am. I do not do things for acceptance but for self-gratification and sometimes I learn which is why we are here on earth. If we could get over our hurt feelings and look beyond them maybe we can better understand one another and work together for a better life. "Don" <[email protected]>

> > When I recently cleaned out my folder of "Sent" emails, I > > discovered 12 informational emails I'd sent within the previous > > two weeks to folks posting queries to mailing lists, none of > > whom bothered to send a response thanking me for the help, or > > even acknowledging receipt of my attempt to help. > > When I don't hear back from someone that I email, my first thought > is that they may not have received my message. Unfortunately, many > email SPAM filters are so aggressive that 'good' email frequently > gets flagged as junk even though it isn't. > > "Mardon" <[email protected]> Excellent observation. My spam filter sometimes quarantines information I have sent to myself. I have to go through the deleted file every day to be sure something I really want hasn't been trashed. I do not think that lack of response to an inquiry made at large to an entire list necessarily indicates rudeness. If the reply is short, and does not require much research, the lack of "thanks" can be less annoying than the flurry of "thank yous" and "You're welcomes" to each responder that may clutter up the list for days if there are a number of replies -- (maybe if they were just added to the subject line, those who did not respond wouldn't have to waste time opening them). If, however, I have sent a substantial amount of information, to an individual, I too will send a follow-up to be sure it was received rather than just assume discourtesy. Virginia "Virginia Beck" <[email protected]>

I recommend to all in this debate the book "Evidence!" by Elizabeth Shown Mills. [email protected]

> I would agree if all you are saying is that without conclusive > evidence a conclusion based on logic should be properly noted. > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) That is exactly what I am saying. Proof is proof. Everything else is guesswork. It may be really GOOD guesswork, but absent proof, it must be treated as guesswork. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html The early worm gets the bird. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> When I recently cleaned out my folder of "Sent" emails, I > discovered 12 informational emails I'd sent within the previous > two weeks to folks posting queries to mailing lists, none of > whom bothered to send a response thanking me for the help, or > even acknowledging receipt of my attempt to help. > > kql <[email protected]> When I don't hear back from someone that I email, my first thought is that they may not have received my message. Unfortunately, many email SPAM filters are so aggressive that 'good' email frequently gets flagged as junk even though it isn't. If I don't hear back from someone, I always try to send a second email using a different email account. I mention that I'm doing this because I never heard back from them after sending my previous email. Sometimes the original message really didn't get through and the people appreciate a second try. Sometimes they thought I was the one being rude. Other times my first message did get through and they just hadn't replied but upon receipt of the second message they often do. Sometimes I still hear nothing and then I have no way of knowing if they are just not replying or if neither of my messages made it to them. My suggestion is that you be very hesitant to assume that someone is being discourteous or too lazy to reply after sending them only a single email. Spam filters and other network quirks mean that email is just not that reliable (yet). Mardon <[email protected]>

> Christopher Jahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > > > > Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only > > > proves a lack of evidence. > > > > My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or > > selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His > > estate inventory did not mention land. > > > > I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with lack > > of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical > > conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own > > land. > > You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove he did _not_ own > land. All you can accurately state is that you have no evidence > that he ever did own land. It's a subtle distinction, but a very > real one. > > > Also if your ancestor was born before the War Between the > > States but you find no evidence that mentions his death, I > > think most people would be willing to assume his demise. > > We can assume his demise, but we can't assume that he died in the > War between the States. The best we can do is say "died after > 1850", the last time I find a record of him - until I find more > information. We cannot assume when he really died, or how he died, > or even WHERE. If you can assume his demise, you can assume he didn't own any land. Either way the fact is unproven. Logic says he is dead - logic says that if he bought and sold or left land there would be some sort of record. And you can prove a negative - try operating a battery without a negative. And as Sherlock might have said, "Eliminate every positive and whatever remains must be negative." I would agree if all you are saying is that without conclusive evidence a conclusion based on logic should be properly noted. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

[email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: > > Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only > > proves a lack of evidence. > > My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or > selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His > estate inventory did not mention land. > > I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with lack > of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical > conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own > land. You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove he did _not_ own land. All you can accurately state is that you have no evidence that he ever did own land. It's a subtle distinction, but a very real one. > Also if your ancestor was born before the War Between the > States but you find no evidence that mentions his death, I > think most people would be willing to assume his demise. We can assume his demise, but we can't assume that he died in the War between the States. The best we can do is say "died after 1850", the last time I find a record of him - until I find more information. We cannot assume when he really died, or how he died, or even WHERE. For all I know next year I'll find him across the country with a new wife in the 1860 census. > Your rule of thumb may be a bit too constrictive. No, it's not. It's simply The Way It Should Be Done if you're responsible about separating facts from fiction. Here's an example: my ggg-grandfather was born and raised on farm in Camden, NJ. His wife was born and raised across the river in Philadelphia. In 1860, they were married - in Portsmouth, VA. A month prior to their wedding, the 1860 census has her living in a boardinghouse in Portsmouth, working as a seamstress. Their families are all back in their respective hometowns. He doesn't show up anywhere. 1870 has them both on a farm back in Camden. What were they doing in Portsmouth? Now, the family bible had a folded up deck plan of The Great Eastern stuck in its pages - the largest steamship of its time. Was my GGG-Granpa working at the Naval Yard? Right place, right time - NO EVIDENCE. No record of him in the Navy, he's not on the census, he's not in any military roll, he collected no military pension. Using your very loose form of logic, I would simply assume that he was in the Navy, or a civilian engineer. BUT since I have NO evidence, I simply make note of the facts - where they married, where she was, and the fact that I can't think of any reason he'd be in Portsmouth unless he was somehow involved in the Navy Yard there. But I don't conclude that he was - I note the possiblity, but draw no conclusions. And that's "my rule of thumb" about the lack of evidence: a lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything but a lack of evidence. It doesn't prove that he WASN'T in the navy, it doesn't prove he was. It's merely inconclusive. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html Let him who takes the Plunge remember to return it by Tuesday. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> Family history claims he came over with Lord > Baltimore, but I can't prove that either. Doesn't mean that he > didn't. But that doesn't mean that he did, either. > > Christopher Jahn <[email protected]> That should be "they", not "he", came over with Lord Baltimore, "they" being earlier Tibbitts. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html Cannibalism is a small price to pay for popularity. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only proves a > lack of evidence. > > Christopher Jahn <[email protected]> My probable ggg grandfather left no record of purchasing or selling land. He did not mention land in his will. His estate inventory did not mention land. I'd say that clues pointing in a specific direction, with lack of evidence to the contrary, allow one to make logical conclusions. In this case he almost certainly did not own land. Also if your ancestor was born before the War Between the States but you find no evidence that mentions his death, I think most people would be willing to assume his demise. Your rule of thumb may be a bit too constrictive. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> Fred Frederick wrote: > >>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>singhals <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>META discussion of theory -- names not needed, no lookups >>>>needed. > > I'm not sure whether I mis-stated or you gentlemen mis-read, > but the issue isn't whether I've got evidence of the right > person. > > The issue is, there IS no evidence with the right name on it. > > singhals <[email protected]> Then no conclusions can be drawn. Lack of evidence only proves a lack of evidence. My grandmother is a Tibbitt, her father is from Maryland. I can trace back to his grandfather. Now, there are Tibbitts all over the area, but I can't PROVE their relationship. Family history claims he came over with Lord Baltimore, but I can't prove that either. Doesn't mean that he didn't. But that doesn't mean that he did, either. When the family asks, I say I can't prove anything one way or the other. They always respond with an indignant "But great grand-pa said!" In THIS case, there is no evidence he knew anything; he wasn't the progenitor who came over. For all I know, we're descended from a Georgia convict. -- }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html Der Gedanke an den Selbstmord ist ein starkes Trostmittel. Christopher Jahn <[email protected]>

> > Is it possible to create a list of surnames that would all have the > > same soundex. I'm trying to cover various spelling of Searle or > > Searles and thought that this may help! > > > > Mark Searle > > Arncliffe, Sydney > > http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~onenamestudy/ons-p/index.htm > > "Mark" <[email protected]> > > The only way I can think of is to look at a soundex index microfilm > of some sort for your Searle name and then you could see the other > spellings of surname that has that same index code. > > Ben Achee If you use a genealogy program, some of them (PAF 2.x in particular) will return a list of other surnames in the data base with the same Soundex. Cheryl singhals <[email protected]>

[email protected] wrote: <*snip*> > Ugo Perego > Director of Operations > SMGF > [email protected] I had a test done with FTDNA (see results at http://www.erbland.org/results.htm ) and subsequently requested the free Sorenson kit and sent in a swab from that kit. That was over a year ago and my results still do not show up in the Sorenson Y-DNA database; either by a surname search or via a match with my known DNA results from FTDNA. Can you tell me if Sorenson is behind in updating the Y-DNA database or could there be some other reason that I can't find my results? It was the male surname line that I submitted with my swab and my great grandfather was born in the 1830's, so I should be able to find something. BTW, I know it requires considerable care when comparing markers from different labs. For example, FTDNA reports DYS389-I whereas Sorenson reports DYS389B. I tried to be very careful about this when searching for my results in the Sorenson database. Any idea why my results aren't there? Mardon <[email protected]>

> Is it possible to create a list of surnames that would all have the > same soundex. I'm trying to cover various spelling of Searle or > Searles and thought that this may help! > > Mark Searle > Arncliffe, Sydney > http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~onenamestudy/ons-p/index.htm > "Mark" <[email protected]> Mark: The only way I can think of is to look at a soundex index microfilm of some sort for your Searle name and then you could see the other spellings of surname that has that same index code. Ben "Ben Achee" <[email protected]>

> I have found the death of my great-great grandfather recorded in the > 1880 U.S. Mortality Census in East Feliciana Parish, LA. > > I would like to look at the death records upon which the census is > based, because the census is the only record I have of his death. > I've checked Ancestry.com and cyndislist.com but neither are very > clear as to how the census is conducted. Can I get access to these > records myself? > > Kberry <[email protected]> Kberry: The census taker asked when they went to your ancestor's home had asked if anyone in the house died during the census year. That is how your ancestor got on the mortality schedule. You could check for a probate to settle your ancestor's estate in the East Feliciana Parish courthouse. I live in Louisiana. Give me your ancestor's name and I will see if the Shreveport library has some probate records book that I could check. Ben [email protected]

> If there are time conflicts for sessions you want to attend (I > found a couple of instances of 3 at the same time at the NGA > conference in Nashville last year), check whether tapes are (or will > be) available for any of those sessions. If the presenters have > sessions at earlier times, sit in on them and see whose presentation > style works best for you. Don't count on getting tapes. The company formerly holding the contract for taping NGS and other conferences will no longer be doing it, and so far no new contract has been set up, to my knowledge. And most presenters will not allow you to tape their presentations. Every session leader will have a handout in the huge and heavy notebook given to everyone registered. Some of them just read the handout without more comment. By this time I know who works that way, and I usually skip them; I can read for myself. Their material is good and their knowledge great but they add nothing more than is written, so I head for the sessions I know will be livelier and afford more opportunity for questions and answers. These are easy to spot - there's always a line outside those doors. A computer case on wheels comes in handy to transport all the material you'll be collecting - better for me than a bookbag and easier to handle in the crowds. One of my favorite parts of any conference is the vendors' area. Bring money, a checkbook and a credit card. If you can't buy it right away, get the vendor's card, make notes and a wish list. In addition to focusing on presentations specifically aimed at your area of research, try to listen in on sessions on general methodology, citing sources, and evidence, which will always be useful. JHall [email protected]

> Well, sooner or later you may conclude that what evidence you have > is "good enough". You just have to remember that it is not > absolutely proven and you might in future in the light of new > evidence have to change your mind. > > [email protected] How true this is. I can think of a case in my own family history where I had assumed my great-great-great-grandmother's maiden name was Rebekah CLARK. I had had Rebekah KIGER's (her married name) tombstone and I had a will of a Thomas CLARK which included his daughter Rebecca KIGER in the same county where my KIGERs were living. I found a baptismal record for Rebecca CLARK and while it didn't exactly agree with the birthdate as listed on Rebekah KIGER's tombstone--the difference was merely a year or two and I couldn't account for anyone else who might be this Rebekah KIGER. I also wasn't overly concerned in the difference of the spelling between Rebecca and Rebekah--they just seemed like variants to me. Then I found a cousin from a different branch of the family (he descended from Henry KIGER, brother of my great-great-great- grandfather Matthias KIGER) who possessed an old KIGER family Bible and in the Bible were a bunch of births and deaths and marriages for people he couldn't identify. He showed me the Bible and I figured it out right away. Rebecca had been a previously unknown (or rather lost) first wife of his ancestor Henry KIGER and SHE was the Rebecca KIGER referred to in the will of her father Thomas CLARK. Rebecca had died in 1804 the same year her father died, and the Bible also recorded the births and deaths of two young sons of Rebecca and Henry KIGER. I later learned that MY Rebekah KIGER was really Rebekah LINDMEYER, daughter of Christopher LINDMEYER and wife Rebekah MINK. Two completely different women with slightly different birth years and different spellings of the name Rebecca/Rebekah. Rebecca CLARK and her two young babies would have disappeared completely from the family history had it not been for this family Bible turning up. So, yes, an open mind is always the best asset when doing family research. Joan [email protected]