Richard Rands wrote: > Firstly, it has happened to me countless times that some vital detail > has appeared on line after many efforts to find it. Saying that > something has been hunted for twice and not found reminds me of many > items I have found after searching many more times than twice. With the > exponential increase in data becoming available digitally, I cannot > imagine a single case where we should stop looking at twice. I am > constantly reminded that we are working in a veritable > hurricane-strength blast of new info that should be constantly mined. I rather resent your implications there. I do my research in original documents or the microfilms thereof. Whether it's on-line is a secondary issue that has little to nothing to do with whether the record exists. > Secondly, many of the comments on this list strike me as being very > possessive of one's database. We hear the comment that this is the way > I want to do it, or I find this method the best for me. It is very true > that there is no official way to handle many situations, and we are > often forced to be creative about recording awkward relationships. But > I worry that we sometimes take a highly myopic view of our work and > forget that our family history doesn't belong to the person recording Again, I disagree. It *is* mine; I'm doing it for my personal amusement and education, not for the (dubious) benefit of mankind. > it. It is my hope that we will approach our work as if we could see it > through the eyes of someone 100 years from now, or as if we are telling > the story of someone long since dead who would really like their life to > come alive to those of us still living. In other words, I believe we > should step back from the details of our family history and take the > "me" out of it, and try to make it universal. > > It is this philosophy that causes me to be reluctant to enter "never > married" anywhere but the notes. There you go: that's the way you want to do it; go for it. I prefer MY way. Cheryl

Cheryl wrote (In response to Richard Rands comment): > > Richard Rands wrote: > > ... > > > > Secondly, many of the comments on this list strike me as being very > > possessive of one's database. We hear the comment that this is the way > > I want to do it, or I find this method the best for me. It is very true > > that there is no official way to handle many situations, and we are > > often forced to be creative about recording awkward relationships. But > > I worry that we sometimes take a highly myopic view of our work and > > forget that our family history doesn't belong to the person recording > > Again, I disagree. It *is* mine; I'm doing it for my personal amusement > and education, not for the (dubious) benefit of mankind. Cheryl, I certainly agree that it is your database. However some people will take the attitude that they should not share this information with others. It is, of course, anyones right to keep their data to themselves. But most people are anxious to share their data with others. I am grateful for all those who share their data with the world. I have been helped greatly by those who share. It makes my work easier. I check the validity of the data I use from others. Checking the validity is much easier than "re-inventing the wheel". If you do share your data, I thank you. If you choose to keep your data private, I respect your right to do that. Aloha, John

John writes from the unmarried citation thread: "Cheryl, I certainly agree that it is your database. However some people will take the attitude that they should not share this information with others. It is, of course, anyones right to keep their data to themselves. But most people are anxious to share their data with others. I am grateful for all those who share their data with the world. I have been helped greatly by those who share. It makes my work easier. I check the validity of the data I use from others. Checking the validity is much easier than "re-inventing the wheel". I am playing middle-role here, by no means hog whats personally found out by you. BUT be cautious about where your info goes, make sure its someone who reinvestigates it before passing on. I came up, after much difficulty, with some christening dates from pre 1800, dates for two brothers being identical. Census details for 1851 (this in UK) gave a gap of 3 years for birth dates, confirmed as 2/3 years difference for the brothers on a later census. However the very genuine person to whom I passed christening dates on, gave quite legitimately to someone else, and report was written and distributed to family about the "twins". Then the publisher's site went down, so do not know if it was seen and copied by any others, who may now be the proud descendant from a so-called twin. Then of course there are bods who quote an age for a lady as being under whatever the age of her husband, and until shown a copy of the marriage certificate will not accept that at times, and quite frequently, it is the bride to be who is the senior rather than the perspective spouse. Jo. Shropshire UK.