Duane, You're right, but if the people in question started moving west, each move would have meant new opportunities to lose any documentation they once had. Uncle Willie, being the family historian because he could read and write, was in charge of the family bible. Uncle Willie got attacked by Indians and his home burned to the ground. The family bible with all the information is lost forever. Some families had babies that were never recorded at the county or state level, just in the family bible because all they had was a circuit riding clerk, judge or doctor. Maybe the resident clergy never got around to recording their marriage and so no record. I totally agree that you should have documentation where it is available. But Duane, where do YOU draw the line and say "I've done all I could, exhausted every source, and still cannot find Great Aunt Hester even though I know she existed because here's her picture"? Of course we never stop looking and hoping, but there is a line. Ali United we stand, divided we fall. God Bless America!! From: duane mills <duane@online.no> Reply-To: MCBEE-L@rootsweb.com To: MCBEE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [McBEE] Documentation versus Word of Mouth Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:46:28 +0100 A word of caution is in order. The ground rules for genealogy, research and pedigrees is the same whether you are a certified genealogist or a hobby genealogist. These rules have been refined over time and are very good. Unfortunately, not many hobby genealogist care to read one of the excellent tutorials online that explain the rules in detail. Also, unfortunately, the rules were formulated long ago when todays means of communication was not dreamed of. Saying you have other rules is fine as long as you keep it private, because it is your own business. What one does with oneŽs own pedigree or posts on their own web site is also their business, and theirs alone. The problem is that so many hobby genealogist take the easy way and grab at links that are circumstantial. They then spread this info far and wide on the web, or post it to one of the commercial sites with no qualifiers and it then becomes forever fact for unsuspecting beginners who are also taking the easy way and repeating and posting theirselves. I also take exception to the statement that before 1850, research is difficult. Colonial America had rules, regulations and covering almost everything from birth to death. Unfortunately, a lot is lost forever, but most hobby genealogist will not take the time and effort to do serious research. You have to show documentation to do anything today, why should it be different with genealogy? Why should we believe any pedigree when we all have gaps in our own and know how hard we worked to find proof and when we did, what we thought to be absolutely true (family history) turned out to be patently false. If you can not verify what you post for the world, you can at least qualify the info with something like: "maybe", "supposedly", "surely", "might be", "hopfully is" or something to alert the world that the info is not proven. Posting something that can not be documented is unfair. Duane Mills Stavanger, Norway >McBee49@aol.com wrote: >> >> Ali, you and I agree on circumstantial evidence. I am a genealogist >>that >> believes in "Leap of Faith". Prior to 1850, genealogy is a crap shoot >>at >> best. We only knew who the head of household was. Linking a child to a >> family couldn't really be done prior to 1850. I get so amazed at people >>who >> HAVE to have documentation. I believe in documentation as much as you >>can >> document it. Any information written down had to come from someone >> somewhere. What makes that information any more correct than >>information >> written down now by someone in this century. I have so many people who >>ask >> about "Documentation". If you are a Mellard and your family lived in >> Charleston, you can assume (usually quite correctly) that you are >>related to >> most of the Mellards from Charleston. Not all Smiths are related to all >> Smiths but I am sure you see what I am saying. My suggestion is to use >>that >> "Leap of Faith" if you must. Qualify it as a leap of faith. Bridge the >>gap >> and then work to strengthen your bridge. Have a great day. Danny. > >I don't see it as a "leap of faith" so much as building a case. >Circumstantial evidence can be used in a courtroom, but it must be used >to PROVE the case. So once one examines all the known record sources, >and eliminates the various candidates for "father" mother", "spouse", >and "child", then one can be "reasonably certain" that the relationship >is proved. As new record sources are found, the case can be re-examined. > >I agree that old speculation is no better than newly-written >speculation. Only a well-made case makes any sense. > >Valorie ==== MCBEE Mailing List ==== Need help writing *excellent* queries? Check out http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/news/articles/503.asp ============================== Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 Source for Family History Online. Go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=702&sourceid=1237 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Ali, You draw the line when you post. Just as a serious researcher would not write and publish a reference book on a subject without copius footnotes so that other researchers could verify his expertise, it is your responsibility - even as an amateur - to be able to back up what you post, as those receiving assume you know what you are talking about. As I said earlier, goodness - you can include whatever you like in your private pedigree. Mine is full of speculation. But when you post, it is only responsible if you want any credibility, to be truthful. If you are speculating as we all do, then just say so with a "qualifier". To avoid posting wrong, I have marked all people that I have verified and when I make a gedcom I just check the "include only marked people". You may have given up hope, but you probably have not exhausted every source - we all have roadblocks to get around. Most times, the info is out there. It may be on site, or tucked away in some obscure place, but there is a court record, a will, or another relative with surviving info that just got interested in genealogy or something else somewhere. Good luck. Duane Mills >I totally agree that you should have documentation where it is >available. But Duane, where do YOU draw the line and say "I've done >all I could, exhausted every source, and still cannot find Great >Aunt Hester even though I know she existed because here's her >picture"? > >Of course we never stop looking and hoping, but there is a line. > >Ali > >United we stand, divided we fall. >God Bless America!!