If your line was vetted in the past year or so then you were vetted via a post to the list. The post will be in the archives. It is only those who worked with Leslie who do not have their lineage in the archives. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: <Utahn1@aol.com> To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting Archives > Your line might have been vetted on the List. It was Bob Arnott below who > had the initial question. > > Ruth > > > In a message dated 2/10/2009 10:11:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > kincaidfamily@qwest.net writes: > > Actually, I though my relative's information was vetted on the "list" but > it > is no problem to do it again when the time is available! > > -----Original Message----- > From: kincaid-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:kincaid-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On > Behalf Of Utahn1@aol.com > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:25 AM > To: kincaid@rootsweb.com > Subject: [KINCAID] Vetting Archives > > Mary Lou, > > There is an archive now that we vet on the list. Originally, the > information was emailed or snail mailed to an individual who proclaimed > the > person was vetted or not. If you remember someone posting the vetting > information to the Mail List then yes, it would be in the archives. I am > very sorry that some have to go through the painful process or re-doing > some work, but I am afraid it cannot be helped. Vetting on the List > started > a few years ago and this was an excellent move. Now more people are > involved and the more eyes that look at something the more chance that we > see errors or receive more suggestions as to how to further our > documentation. Or, as sometimes happens, the chances increase in our > finding connections with cousins. > > Ruth Cherecwich > > In a message dated 2/9/2009 1:35:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > mlclegg@verizon.net writes: > Isn't there an archive of documents that are submitted for vetting? > > Mary Lou > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Arnott" <kincaidfamily@qwest.net> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:51 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] DNA results for 135736 > > >> Sue, sent me the "stuff" I assume I can do it again as I did it before. >> I'm >> not sure what you mean when you say vetting was by Leslie. I provided > her >> the information and if you mean she was the "custodian of the >> information > >> I >> understand. It will take me a while as I just returned from West >> Virginia >> and the celebration of my Aunt Joan's (Kincaid Niday's 80 birthday!!! >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: kincaid-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:kincaid-bounces@rootsweb.com] >> On >> Behalf Of Sue Liedtke >> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 9:50 AM >> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [KINCAID] DNA results for 135736 >> >> Results for 135736's upgrade to 37 markers are now in. He matches the >> group >> A-1a AAV exactly at all markers. >> >> This is very, very interesting to the Fayette/Greenbrier WVA Kincaids >> and >> has implications for all Group A Kincaids as 135736 claims to >> George/Mary >> Campbell. 49289 in A-2b is vetted to the same ancestor. The vetting for >> 49289 was done by Leslie so we do not have the lineage available in the >> archives. I urge JoAnne (contact for 135736) to contact me for the > vetting >> format. Bob (49289), I also urge you to contact me so that we can >> create > a >> vetting post to submit to the list for review. Bob has the 9 at marker >> 15 >> (459b) which is the signature for set A-2. This makes reviewing his >> line >> of >> paramont interest as it calls into question the vetting. If both can be >> verified to George/Mary Campbell we will have an incidence of parallel >> mutation at this marker. This has implications for all A-2b Kincaids >> as > it >> is possible that this marker has mutated several times. >> >> The paper trails in the Fayette area seem to indicate that almost all >> Kincaids in this region are descendents of Thomas/Hannah Tincher. The > most >> logical lineage from the paperwork indicates that George/Mary Campbell, >> Thomas/Isabella/Eliza (130207 A-1a), William (33001 A-1c), and Harvey >> (101753 A-1a) are all sons of Thomas/Polly Davis (whom 33001 is vetted >> to). >> The paper trail also indicates that Thomas/Polly Davis is the son of >> Samuel >> of the 3 wives, who in turn is the son of Thomas/Hannah Tincher. 36856, >> 30078 and probably several more A-1a Kincaids from this region appear >> to >> be >> the descendents of John/Elizabeth Gillespie who is also appears to be >> the >> son of Thomas/Hannah Tincher. I urge all lines to work on vetting back >> to >> Thomas/Hannah so that the family relationships can be confirmed. >> >> SPECULATION FOLLOWS >> We know that Thomas's father is a John Kincaid and that Thomas appears > 1st >> in Albemarle Co. I believe this John is John the Weaver and that many >> other >> A-1a Kincaids who trace from this area may either be his descendents or >> descendents of a brother or cousin. >> >> Sue Liedtke >> > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kinca > id%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid > %20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the > body of the message > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message