Hello everyone, I sincerely hope that you are not becoming bored with my exchanges with Paul Gorry - but here I go with another response! I must admit to being a little lost when it comes to Paul's first point. I wasn't aware that I was equating actual records with copies or abstracts "just because the actual records may contain errors." When referring to "bad" books and "bad" records, the word "bad" could easily be replaced with "inaccurate" or "ill informed", etc. The point I was trying to convey was that the internet is not alone in giving out inaccurate, questionable or misleading information. Virtually all media are at times guilty of the same. The thing to do, when it comes to the internet, is to submit corrections or amendments to the sites in question in order to help purge any "contamination" from this media. One of the joys of the internet is that this can often be achieved almost instantaneously - unlike a book which, having been published containing errors, is there for all posterity or until such time as a revised edition can be issued. Although I'm aware of it, I've never used Ancestral File, so I will heed Paul's warning and avoid it. If I may - just one last time - go back to my original posting. I had been reading, no doubt along with many others, the thread on Griffith's Valuation. At no time do I recall any of the contributors to that thread proffering the view that their research could be done by proxy by using this list or other sites on the internet. In fact, one or two were actually recommending books to read for further reference. There was certainly nothing to suggest that any were being lazy. Then along came Paul's contribution, containing references to what the whole world was allegedly thinking and a little dig at people who inhabit cyberspace, followed up with what was a pretty scathing attack on all the misinformation circulating on the internet. Now, although Paul included a rider to the effect that he wasn't having a go at anyone who's asked a question on this list, I have to say that I found his contribution to be somewhat incongruous and unwarranted within the context of the discussion that was taking place. Perhaps, an entirely separate thread on the use of the internet, and all its pitfalls, in researching family history would have been a more productive approach to have taken? I certainly would not have been moved to respond to his posting in the way I did if this had been the case. I really do not disagree with Paul on any crucial matter and it does appear to me to be more of a communications/context issue, as much as anything else. It just shows how careful we need to be when trying to get our points across. I'll stop now and go to sleep. Kind regards to one and all, Marie. ----- Original Message ----- > Marie wrote:<snip>