> Hugh Sullivan in a later post explains basically why I encouraged > the development of WorldConnect at RootsWeb. > > It's true that there's a lot of complete rubbish in WC, and even > the best work tends to be poorly sourced (in part due to inherent > limitations in the GEDCOM format). > > But about the fastest way to make progress on a new line or for a > new client is to consult WC. If you find nothing at all, that's > interesting in its own right. > > If you find something, approach every asserted fact (even sourced > facts) with skepticism and independently prove or disprove it. > > If you can't prove or disprove a fact, ask the author of the > GEDCOM why they believe the fact to be true. Occasionally you'll > find a family bible or other non-public source this way that would > have been difficult or impossible to unearth by other means. > > "Dr. Brian Leverich" <[email protected]> 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 don't want it harvested by commercial groups for one. For another, I'm selfish. 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. 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! I want to know if proof (I haven't seen) exists that proves me right or wrong - wrong info is worse than no info. People have a tendency to accept what they see on Internet without question. 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. 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. A few will transform from genealogists to historians overnight. C'est la vie. I don't mean to discourage anyone. I think what I'm trying to say is that genealogy is a precise science but we genealogists are not as precise as we sometimes think we are. Even the most competent genealogist can be misled by what appears to be undeniable truth once the next piece of evidence is uncovered. I'm not even sure how Sullivan is spelled - I've seen it in print spelled a lot more than 100 ways. I have a list. Who was that Selvin or Swillivant? 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. Hugh [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> 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]>