Genealogy is like a triangle, a lot of us are sitting in the lower part of this triangle trying to figure out how to find the link to the person at the top of the triangle. However, there's many parts to this triangle, the one guy at the top has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great great grand parents, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512,1024 and keeps on going. I'm sitting here in the eighth generation around 128. It's a long hard trail for some of us looking towards the top. I need a link to the top, after years and years of searching a lot of us are no closer to the top, the triangle just keeps getting wider and wider at the bottom. I have found close to 15,000 Maxwell's descendants who are related to my Thomas Maxwell and there's hundreds of thousand's out there. I have talked to, emailed, searched LDS, Rootsweb, Ancestry, library after library looking for one more step to the top. I've been on this site two years and still found nothing extra towards the top. Lets do what ever it takes to find our answers, by asking for help from others or new technology, the end result is to find answer's. The word genealogy and genealogist is from the word GENE and that means (Webster)" one of the complex protein molecules associated with the chromosomes of reproductive cells and acting as a unit or various biochemically determined combinations, in the transmission of specific hereditary character from parents to offspring" . If any one of us could find a way to help, why not use it. If DNA doesn't work or help it will fade in to the sunset. So just give it a chance. If Columbus believed there wasn't a chance, he'd never set sail to America. If all of us didn't believed this site would or could help we wouldn't be listed. I sorry if I affined anyone. But in 1776 my Rev. Thomas Maxwell was a Revolutionary soldier, he had along with many of your ancestors the 3 G's, GOD, guns and guts and he used all three. That's my belief still almost 300 years later. We've taken God out of schools now judge it for yourself. Now to help others do some family searching, Back in the earlier years our ancestors used name patterning. The first male was named after the father's side, example : My Rev. Thomas Maxwell's parents were Thomas Maxwell and his mother was Keziah Blake . Their first child was female name Johannah, named after Keziah's mother Johannah Ball, the second child a male named John, maybe after Thomas father, the next child was Rev. Thomas Maxwell named after his father and grandfather. When Rev. Thomas married Mary Pemberton they had eleven children. The first a male named John, still within the male line and second was a female again named Keziah within the female side, third another male, again named Thomas. So when searching, use your common names within your line. I have found this type pattern throughout the thousand's of names in my records and while viewing other lines. Just remember the further back we go, the smaller the section of the triangle and the closer we get to each other, lets get close and find all our answers together. It all started with one MR. MAXWELL making us alol brother's and sister's. United we stand divided we fall. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Ceelys@cs.com> To: <MAXWELL-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:23 PM Subject: [MAXWELL-L] Maxwell List Complaints > Well said!! I have never found any connection on this list to my > Maxwells, but I haven't complained because someone did not help me. I just > keep looking and do know how to hit the delete key. Can we stop picking at > the DNA posters. You may find out that one of them is a "cousin" somewhere > down the road. > > SLC (Looking for the parents of Sarah Maxwell born about 1816 in Logan Co., > KY, married Samuel N. Crewdson 13 January 1834 in Logan Co., KY, lived in > Atchison Co., MO in 1856 where Samuel died. She died in Calaveras Co., CA > after 1880.) > > > > I have as much right to use this list as you > > and your group do, As long as I go by the rules. > > > <snip> this forcing of your idea > > onto the rest of us. Could it be the all-mighty > > $$$$$. > > Ya know - you talk about going by the rules and then > go right on and insult him/her by insinuating that > he/she will profit by the DNA (which is total BS) and > that he/she is "forcing" this idea on you. Personally, > I think you've bordered on breaking "rules" yourself. > > And others have talked about "the DNAers" being rude. > I think they are just being defensive/responsive to an > attack on their posts (they didn't initiate the > rudeness). The people who don't want to read about it > were being very rude (IMO) (by not respecting their > right to post information). They (IMO) are not just > posting irrelevant DNA information - they are posting > information relating to the genetic tests to try to > prove/disprove a MAXWELL genealogical line. > > I have a right (as do others) to post relevant > geneology information. I find the subject of DNA is > appropriate to genealogy (there is a science to it - > not perfect yet but still a validity). There is a lot > of genealogy that flows through this list that is not > of interest to me but it is to others .. the same goes > for DNA. I find it sad that some of the list members > are so antagonistic about something that IS geneology > related just because it doesn't "interest" them. > > jmo. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- Introducing NetZero Long Distance Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month! Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com