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