Everyone agrees that something that will avoid wasted time is useful. It was pointed out that there is no right way to do things. But I have two additional comments that I'd like to share regarding this issue. 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. 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 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. Respectfully, Richard Rands

Well said, Richard. Thanks! Grace in Georgia, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Rands" <rrands@cfmc.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > Everyone agrees that something that will avoid wasted time is useful. It > was pointed out that there is no right way to do things. But I have two > additional comments that I'd like to share regarding this issue. > > 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. > > 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 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. > > Respectfully, > > Richard Rands > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > >