Ron: I can not disagree with you a bit in your desire to expand ones informational data bases. I too have listed a string of names in order to achieve some sense of direction within a particular line, and I have shared these speculations with others. In all cases though, I have clearly described the statements for what they are, and how they were derived. The point in having citation of proof is not to be exclusive but to determine what is to be inclusive and at what value. Low be it for me to ever stifle thought, speculation, theorizing, hypothesizing or whatever, it is a necessity to the advancement of learning. The issue is to classify information. If it is fact, then support it with citations of proof that all can use. If it speculative, state so, cite your sources behind your thinking so that we can make that declaration if we so choose to use the information.. What I do not like is unsupported information, which can, or sometimes does, or has the possibility of becoming gospel. We are in a world of instant gratification, where the quick fix or answer will suffice for some, but to me that does not cut the mustard. No one is going to object to a theory being declared as theory which is based on some supportive information. The challenge to a writer is to tell us where or how one derived what. As I pointed out in my earlier mailing, it is fine to attach a disclaimer that what one is presenting belongs in the category of speculation, theory, or hypothesis based on the following reasons, sources, or hearsay. Is it to hard for anyone to lets know the origin(s) to what they are stating? I , for one, do not think so. Your point is well taken, which I thought it had been addressed in my original communiqué, but apparently I missed the target. On the larger scale, it appears that you too support the need for all of us to take our reporting efforts to a higher level of excellence. Whenever we provide a piece of information for public perusal, I feel it is our obligation as genealogists,armature or otherwise, to classify it, and provide our source(s) of proof. I am not in the practice of collecting fantasy or falsehoods. Tongue in cheek; no, I will not lecture the site on proper footnote format today, that is of coarse just for today. Rick Kilham ----- Original Message ----- From: <RBul1865@aol.com> To: <KELLAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:23 PM Subject: [KELLAM] Re: Cite Your Sources! > > In a message dated 4/14/01 10:11:15 AM, donstout@ovnet.com writes: > > << Dear Listers, > > I totally agree with Rick Kilham. Unless you can cite your sources, > what's the > sense of it all? >> > ================= > Gee, I hate to be the odd man out here, as almost everyone agrees with Rick > and the near-unanimous supporting opinion above. I also agree to a point, > and that point is: if there is a source to cite, please do so. However, it is > much more possible today to learn new information that has not previously > been known through the ability of a computer to quickly search through large > files looking for common names. For example a deed might be found from > 1715 Accomack Co, VA, in which a land sale was made by Thomas Kellum > and witnessed by John Graham and Henry Pitt. Now, maybe the same two > people witnessed a deed for William Kellum in 1745 Oslow Co, NC. I think > that it would be fine to write to the list and say that I have a theory that > William Kellum of NC was related to Thomas of Accomack, can anyone > prove or disprove that theory? If the theory gains support from other > sources, then at some point in time all of the circumstantial evidence > supporting such a theory should be cited, but I would not think that this > would always be required during the initial posing of a question. > > My concern is that if we limit ourselves on the list to information that > is strictly provable from cited sources, then at the time we might become > hampered in learning more than we now know. Just a minor difference of > opinion that will not prevent all of us Kellam/Kellum cousins from wishing > one another a happy Easter season, I would hope. > My best regards to all, Ron Bullock > > > ==== KELLAM Mailing List ==== > Accidentally unsubscribed from the Kellam list? Simply resubscribe. A > full mailbox, computer error, or spam may cause you to be unsubscribed. > mailto: Kellam-l-request@rootsweb.com > >