From a letter sent to me ... >You have a lot of logic to your argument, but your argument assumes that everyone else KNOWS the correct information and will let you know. There is nothing wrong in posting whatever you have, but UNPROVEN lines and THEORIES should be clearly marked as such. That way people are aware that you are only guessing. If they already know the correct family line they will probably get in touch to let you know their material, BUT, those who are just starting out and do not have any information - or just snippets - may waste a lot of time, energy and money, trying to build on your incorrect information. I am sure you do not intend to deliberately mislead people, so as I said before, identify iffy material with a question mark or some other symbol so others can use good judgement.< ==================== Just to clarify what I mean.... I don't assume anything about any info given to me or posted on the web. Certified genealogist don't even accept info from books printed after the fact as any thing other than second hand info. When I post, I post my sources ... that way people can .... 1. Verify it themselves 2. Judge it as first, second or third rate sources 3. And when I guess, (I prefer deduce) It is marked in the name... Edward Ammerman, POS father or under the sources I have SPECULATION with the reasons I believe this This is a possible child, as of yet NO PROOF exist to connect Edward Ammerman to the Parents Edward Ammerman & Anna Marie [--?--]. Just location, matching names and ages. Perhaps not kosher for the diehards ... but for posted trees pretty darn plain. And I am always hopeful someone will contact me and tell me where that daggummed Dream Bible is with the PROOF clearly marked and the original certificates folded neatly in the pages. If I list no source, ask me, I may have plenty and forgot to list them OR it one of those early things where I haven't a clue where I got that info, because.. well, you know, I just knew I would remember that, then evaluate that info as third rate. At that point, take it as an arrow on a road, just pointing out some place to look. That's what I do when I find stuff that isn't verified. I am not sure where you got the idea that just because someone post something, that I believe it to be gospel. I am ever so suspicious of those that post without sources. And when someone post anything (me included) and list another researcher as their source ... then that goes back to rule two... Heck, I have stood in front of a HUGE tombstone with the date of death clearly marked 1882 and in my hand held the obit for the person from a paper in 1881... so if I can't believe what's in stone... I sure am not going to put absolute faith in what floats around in the Internet in the form of fluid binary electrons. Anyway, that's the way I see things ... not that anyone really cares.... Iris

Very well put. I too, will always post proof, if I have it; I also clearly mark other sources--if word of mouth, family history, etc. Even if I have no proof, I find that this information will often point the way for further research. By the way, I have found that information taken from a census is only as good (and accurate) as the person who gave the information to the census taker and/or the accuracy of the census taker who recorded the information. As an example, I was searching the 1930 census for close relatives who I knew personally. I discovered that Aunt Nora was really Mary, and I knew that my Uncle had been married ust once. Upon speaking by telephone to her oldest daughter, I learned, for the first time, that her name was really Mary Eleanor! This was very common. It is quite true that if we only recorded what we could actually prove, our genealogical records would be very much smaller! Sincerely Dorothy Rasmussen IrisLillie@aol.com wrote: >>From a letter sent to me ... > > > >>You have a lot of logic to your argument, but your argument assumes that >> >> >everyone else KNOWS the correct information and will let you know. There is >nothing wrong in posting whatever you have, but UNPROVEN lines and THEORIES >should be clearly marked as such. That way people are aware that you are only >guessing. If they already know the correct family line they will probably get in >touch to let you know their material, BUT, those who are just starting out >and do not have any information - or just snippets - may waste a lot of time, >energy and money, trying to build on your incorrect information. > >I am sure you do not intend to deliberately mislead people, so as I said >before, identify iffy material with a question mark or some other symbol so >others can use good judgement.< > >==================== > >Just to clarify what I mean.... > >I don't assume anything about any info given to me or posted on the web. >Certified genealogist don't even accept info from books printed after the fact as >any thing other than second hand info. > >When I post, I post my sources ... that way people can .... > >1. Verify it themselves > >2. Judge it as first, second or third rate sources > >3. And when I guess, (I prefer deduce) It is marked in the name... > >Edward Ammerman, POS father > >or under the sources I have SPECULATION with the reasons I believe this > > This is a possible child, as of yet NO PROOF exist to connect > Edward Ammerman to the Parents Edward Ammerman & > Anna Marie [--?--]. Just location, matching names and ages. > >Perhaps not kosher for the diehards ... but for posted trees pretty darn >plain. And I am always hopeful someone will contact me and tell me where that >daggummed Dream Bible is with the PROOF clearly marked and the original >certificates folded neatly in the pages. > >If I list no source, ask me, I may have plenty and forgot to list them OR it >one of those early things where I haven't a clue where I got that info, >because.. well, you know, I just knew I would remember that, then evaluate that >info as third rate. At that point, take it as an arrow on a road, just pointing >out some place to look. That's what I do when I find stuff that isn't >verified. > >I am not sure where you got the idea that just because someone post >something, that I believe it to be gospel. I am ever so suspicious of those that post >without sources. And when someone post anything (me included) and list >another researcher as their source ... then that goes back to rule two... > >Heck, I have stood in front of a HUGE tombstone with the date of death >clearly marked 1882 and in my hand held the obit for the person from a paper in >1881... so if I can't believe what's in stone... I sure am not going to put >absolute faith in what floats around in the Internet in the form of fluid binary >electrons. > >Anyway, that's the way I see things ... not that anyone really cares.... > >Iris > > >==== GenWisconsin Mailing List ==== >Mailing list moderator: Brenda K. Wolfgram Moore >email: kingsley@aol.com > > >