I think it is up to each researcher to verify anything and everything they get off the internet. I have found family members on the internet but I always verify the information. At least it gives me a clue as to where to look. I never take anything as factual. I check it out. It is the same with the IGI or the Ancestral Files at LDS Family History Centers. I always search for proof before I put anything in my database. Janelle Tammy Lamb wrote: > > Hi Dave > > As a county co-ordinator and list server owner I don't see any > suicide here. I have many people that have donated records to the > Genweb page and I am always happy to add them. I have had countless > people write and thank me and others for adding them and allowing > these records to be accessable to those out of the areas. Many people > have found ancestors and links to other family members through > records. > As far as duplication information, its just part of life and don't > think there is any way you are going to get a control on it. What > ever one person has access or found another can do the same. > > Tammy Lamb > > Pa Luzerne County Co-ordinator > > ==== PAINDIAN Mailing List ==== > JOIN "THE HISTORICAL AND GENEALOGICAL > SOCIETY OF INDIANA COUNTY" > 200 South Sixth Street > Indiana, PA 15701-2999 > Individual $15 Family $20 -- Janelle McEwen Osborn Visit McEwen Genealogy http://www.members.home.net/tarie2/index.htm

David and Wayne: I do agree with you that sources from the internet should only be 'clues' where to find the information or where to look next. I guess that comes from my nature of wanting to see the actual documents (analytical at heart). I always feel the actual document may give me 'more clues' that the other person who collected the information may not have seen .. maybe I have found information they did not have at the time .. or something they just did not think was important. (I also think a copy of the actual document somehow is more personal .. you know, my ancestor was standing next to the person who wrote the document .. and they actually put the "X" on the document.) We all know that clues are all over the place .. and we all miss things that when we review our past copies of research, we find things that did not mean a thing to us at the time .. but, when you review it again you have no idea why you missed a valueable clue. When I hit a brick wall .. I review every piece of documentation I have collected and ALWAYS find a new place to look that I had not thought of. To non-genealogy stricken people I compare genealogy to a giant puzzle (I loved them all my life -- still do) .. the problem is that there is never the 'last piece'. I just have never figured out how someone chose the time to stop and write a book .. my work is always a work in progress. Bonita **************************************************************************** *********************************************** Bonita Genealogy is My Passion [email protected] **************************************************************************** *********************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Wayne L II [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, April 11, 1998 8:40 AM Subject: [PASCHUYL-L] Re: GENEALOGICAL SUICIDE David, I agree about most of what you say and I am guilty as charge, but I have not sent in any information as of yet. I like your idea about sending in only your own work and keeping a separate file for yourself with the who family. I have written two books prior to the internet and was the work of myself and the people who I had contacted by mail or phone. And at the time of each book I thought they contained a large amount of names, but after the internet they are not so large. I am using the internet to cut and past, but after I get the new information I attempt to go back and check out the material. I have always done this. I suppose that it is not much different as when we use to order film from the LDS or go to the large libraries to gather information. I know I have order over 1500 films from Salt Lake City and I have been there and gathered the info. So in one way what makes this any different than going through files on the internet. The same goes to the fact that I used to write to family members and get their information. Is not that the same as getting it over the internet? I think the biggest mistake most of us are making is that we do not check and recheck the information we are getting off of the internet. I know I have typed up about 1000 obits and placed in my books and it takes time to do this. It is easy to cut and paste, but is it right. Well now, are we not doing the same thing with our newspaper obits from the past, I mean cutting and pasting. The only thing that is different is that we are not sending away for the material, but getting it right off the computer. So let us keep on digging for those roots and let us check out the material to see if it is correct and you might be able to add to the whole story by finding out something new when you check the information. No David I think we are very lucky to beable to have access to such a large data base. Before the computer it was the people who lived in large cities that had access to the data that is on the computer. But now every one has a chance to research his tree. Thank You Wayne L McKean, Seattle, WA ==== PASCHUYL Mailing List ==== you can contact list owner at [email protected] Visit the PaGenWeb Schuylkill County Page at http://www.rootsweb.com/~paschuyl/schuylki.htm or Schuylkill County Genealogy Ties at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/4280

a search is a search is a search. It's the dedication and love for the past and the finding of just one name that gives us the fever. My family has come alive to me over the past 3 years that I have been trying to locate them. I searched for 2 years just to find one surname, and it was by talking to a relative I have only seen once in my 51 years that a name slipped out of her mouth that opened the door to finding my g-g-g- grandparents and their families in France. Thank heavens for equipment, savers and genealogists like us!!! Pamela Hagins Tassey [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Wayne L II <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 7:40 AM Subject: [PAALLEGH-L] Re: GENEALOGICAL SUICIDE >David, I agree about most of what you say and I am guilty as charge, but I >have not sent in any information as of yet. I like your idea about sending in >only your own work and keeping a separate file for yourself with the who >family. > I have written two books prior to the internet and was the work of myself >and the people who I had contacted by mail or phone. And at the time of each >book I thought they contained a large amount of names, but after the internet >they are not so large. > I am using the internet to cut and past, but after I get the new >information I attempt to go back and check out the material. I have always >done this. I suppose that it is not much different as when we use to order >film from the LDS or go to the large libraries to gather information. I know I >have order over 1500 films from Salt Lake City and I have been there and >gathered the info. So in one way what makes this any different than going >through files on the internet. The same goes to the fact that I used to write >to family members and get their information. Is not that the same as getting >it over the internet? > I think the biggest mistake most of us are making is that we do not check >and recheck the information we are getting off of the internet. > I know I have typed up about 1000 obits and placed in my books and it >takes time to do this. It is easy to cut and paste, but is it right. Well now, >are we not doing the same thing with our newspaper obits from the past, I mean >cutting and pasting. The only thing that is different is that we are not >sending away for the material, but getting it right off the computer. > So let us keep on digging for those roots and let us check out the material >to see if it is correct and you might be able to add to the whole story by >finding out something new when you check the information. > No David I think we are very lucky to beable to have access to such a large >data base. Before the computer it was the people who lived in large cities >that had access to the data that is on the computer. But now every one has a >chance to research his tree. >Thank You Wayne L McKean, Seattle, WA > >

Dave, Thanks for your message but...please refrain from cross posting to multiple lists like this. Your mail has the potential to generate 1,000's of emails all in response and reresponse to your original mail. Most mail list subscribers are not savvy about deleting trailing mails or cc'd lists. For example, your mail generated 5 responses that were posted to our SOMGEN list -- none of these were from Somerset County researchers. While I realize that your mail was sent to generate conversation on a general topic -- it should not have been sent to so many lists - [email protected] would have targeted all the county coordinators in PA and we could have in turn sent your mail onto our own county lists if we chose to do so. Sorry to be such a pill ...but as a RootsWeb SysAdmin volunteer - your mail could have severe repercussions on the stability of the mail list server. [A word to recipients of this mail - PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MAIL -- OR TO THE ORIGINAL ONE. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT RE: DAVE'S ORIGINAL MAIL THEN SEND IT TO [email protected] DIRECTLY AND DELETE THE CC: LIST!!!!! ed. Carol Hepburn] Thank you! Carol E. Hepburn [email protected] [email protected] List Owner PAGenWeb Somerset County http://www.rootsweb.com/~pasomers/

I will say one thing, this is the first time I've ever felt I've been spammed. Almost every mailing list I'm on was hit, I had 87 messages in my mail, was only about 12 real messages, all the rest were repeats...anyway, my two cents ---------- > I think that it is up to each person to verify the information in books, > WFT, LDS ancestral files and by all means the net. Eronious information > started way before the net, in books and before that by word of mouth. It > up to each individual to verify, correct, and continue their research. We > have enough rules already. It is not time to burn the books, take down the > web sites, get rid of Ancestral file, etc. That would be Genealogical > Suicide. Sharing information and correcting the eronious information is > the answer for me. Just my opinion. This is correct. What the internet offers is communication. Information, correct or not, can travel fast and far. The nature of our research hasn't changed, just the ability to access other people and resources. I have been inother hobbies, shortwave radio listening for one. You think you know a lot when you're working in a vacuum. Once you get out into the world, and participate in a community doing the same work, you find out about what you don't know, that there's a whole world of people out there who can share their knowledge and experience. Instead of a weekly newsletter in the mailbox, I get email. I have learned much about research and caution from those I've emailed over the last year. I'm a Guthrie descendant. In 1933, "American Guthries and Allied Families" wasa written, and has my grandfather in it. If I were to simply find it in the library, and had not talked to others, I would have thought this was the greatest thing and copied it all done. Now as time passes, I get a chance to collaborate research with people all over the country and the world, each with their own resources (some have wills, some have census, etc) we've been able to piece together the Guthrie families in western PA, and find the the book has made several key errors. Never could have corrected the record so quick without the internet. I only have relatives in my main file, all related, all linked, it's still large. If I have a common ancestor with another researcher, why can't we share our data? The internet has only made it more convenient And lastly, if you are sending you're files out, and there's data you're not sure of, or has conflicting versions, lay it all out in your notes. I've been going back lately thru all my ancestors, putting lots of research notes. When someone gets that portion of my file, they will be able to read all the questions and what ifs. Brian Cartwright

Dear Dave, It is beyond my understanding why you publish your information on the internet if you are so concerned about the possibility of someone else using that information. I thought the purpose of the Internet was to share information. I also have looked through a lot of family trees on the internet. What information I do find is always checked and rechecked before I add it to my own. I'm not interested in having the largest database, or the biggest list of names. I just want to feel comfortable that the information I add is as accurate as possible. I always assumed that anyone who published on the web, wanted to see their information put into other family files. My sources always show where the information came from. I have a hard time with your theory that in time everyone will end up with the same file. I know I don't use everything I find. Far from it. I have used very little of it. The surnames on my list are but a small fraction of the total. If you don't your information used , then don't put it on the internet. Kat Steward

Hi Dave, I read what you wrote with great interest. Is this really an on line problem? I don't think so. I have seen histories of counties done thirty years apart where information was taken from the first and included in the second 1880 to 1913. I have seen census records which showed the place of birth being wrong. Wouldn't taking this information and including it in a file be the same as you are talking about? I have never submitted my information to WFT, yet my information is in at least two. While I feel frustration from this personally I don't feel that it is Genealogical Suicide. I also have a web site, I know more people come to my website than I hear from. This is frustrating in the fact that there might just be a close cousin that is not contacting me. In the beginning it bothered me, it doesn't any longer. I run a mail list on the Conover family, there is eronious information on the European ancestors of my family, it is printed in books and carried to the net. There has been discussion of this twice since December on the mail list about it being disproved. I bet it is still in a database on one of the members. Haven't there been times when you have received new information disproving what you have on the net? There has for me. I up date what I have and try to keep it as accurate as I can. That is the best anyone can do. As for me, I have a disclaimer that my information is for informational purposes only, who reads disclaimers? I think that it is up to each person to verify the information in books, WFT, LDS ancestral files and by all means the net. Eronious information started way before the net, in books and before that by word of mouth. It up to each individual to verify, correct, and continue their research. We have enough rules already. It is not time to burn the books, take down the web sites, get rid of Ancestral file, etc. That would be Genealogical Suicide. Sharing information and correcting the eronious information is the answer for me. Just my opinion.

DAve, I like what you suggested and would like to see guidlines for on line research published. I try not to plagerize others work and don't like it when mine is used,however, many people are novices with genealogy computer programs and have a very difficult time removing information they don't want in the family tree projects. I use Family Tree Maker 4.4 and Ultimate Family Tree, neither program allows you to cull the family index with any ease. This is one of the primary complaints, I have about these programs. Frances

To all genealogists, I have been very concerned lately about the destruction of our hobby. The fate of genealogy is being written as we speak and it is in your hands to stop it. WHY THIS SUDDEN ALARM? Our data is being destroyed by two cancers known as "CUT AND PASTE" and "MERGE". ONLINE GENEALOGY I began my online genealogy in 1981, the reason for purchase of my first computer. Soon after I reasoned that if I could just afford that 3MB hard drive at Radio Shack for only $5000.00 my problems would be over, now at 6GB I am running out of space. I used to prowl around courthouse attics and weed covered graveyards to uncover a choice treasure now and then with great anticipation and joy. Now I can get a hundred times more info in an hour or two. So much so I haven't even had the time to read most of it, let alone put it into my own database. Which leads me to my point. CUT AND PASTE Being involved in keeping a Family Website, I get many requests for information, and some criticism as well. There are two camps. One thinks every fact needs to be on the Two Tablets Moses brought down from the mountains. The other thinks that if it is in ASCII it's proof enough. I have submitted my own tree to the WFT Project, most of which was my own work. Hoping to find corroborating works I check other trees often, only to discover my own work pasted into someone else's tree. THIS PRACTICE IS DESTROYING ONLINE GENEALOGY. FIRST, it gives undue validity. When one piece of erroneous information becomes 1000 pieces of the same erroneous information, it takes on a life of it's own and an enearned "truth". SECOND, it clutters up the internet search engines with hundreds of links to the same bogus info. When someone does try to verify a fact, they can't wade through the countless references. THIRD, file sizes are increased to the point of unmanageablility with the same, tired, redundant information, even when true. This makes sharing impractical. FOURTH, it discourages people with genuinely obtained first generation info from releasing it. FIFTH, if carried to it's logical conclusion, everyone will have the same file. All of them wrong. SIXTH, it makes compiling huge trees all too easy. SEVENTH, it makes it impossible to tell whether you are seeing a corroborating opinion of your data or a repeat of it. EXAMPLES Great database services, like GENSERV and the World Family Tree project, although well conceived and of great potential, are being ruined by well meaning genealogists who seed them with redundant information gathered from those very same databases. Private websites, including my own, have been swamped by large file sizes which are largely repeat information. (This was a result of my own policy, which I have rethought, so no criticism intended) Believe it or not I have been offered "Family Trees" in excess of 75 MB and over 125,000 names. I foolishly submitted some trees to add to this pile of spaghetti. WHAT CAN WE DO? I propose creating a guide for online genealogists. A compilation of voluntary "rules of the road". Netiquette for the Genealogist. To this end I am offering a few sample suggestions of my own to get the ball rolling. Please send your comments, criticisms, suggestions, pros and cons to me personally. (I do not subscribe to ALL the lists above) After compilation of the ideas, I will submit them for a vote. Success will be determined by the level of participation. Please submit ideas by April 24th. SUGGESTIONS If you have undocumented info to share, state that it is speculation. If you receive that information, paste it into your own file if you choose, but DO NOT redistribute it with your file. Instead, keep it as a separate entity. As a general rule, do not combine other people's data with your own files that you redistribute. Keep a file for your eyes only and another for distribution. Distribute only work which you have done yourself from primary sources, or have independently verified from primary sources. Do not simply pass along someone else's data because they have it documented either. Do everyone a favor and pass along transcripts of primary documents. If you find documents or trees on a website, download and keep it because it may evaporate unexpectedly, but do not redistribute it. Instead, if someone asks for it, check on it's availability and send them a link. SAMPLE SUBJECTS AND CATEGORIES Etiquette; File contamination avoidance; Source Documentation; Passing on other's data under what conditions; Submission to databases; Merging trees; Merging scraps of data; Requesting info; Providing info; Submissions to redundant websites or databases; Should we pass secondary info at all or just the source?; How about an unlinked but searchable family group sheet database, each submitted sheet required to be nearly complete and well sourced, and containing parents and children of the husband and wife? Any interest in an online index of primary documents with the cost of membership being to submit one? SEND ME YOUR IDEAS Thank you for your time, Dave THE KEYSTONE PROJECT - A PENNSYLVANIA CARD CATALOG of GENEALOGY FILES In it's infancy, please help! http://www.stonecabin.com/keystone __________________________________________________________________________ David H. Smith, Sr. Bensinger Family Genealogy [email protected] http://www.stonecabin.com/bensinger

One well-concealled illigitimate birth makes everything that follows garbage anyway. Let's not take ourselves too seriously, please. Short of DNA testing...it is all taken on faith anyway. I am done venting......I enjoy a good debate, tho'. Clair John 'Bill' Thompson, Sr. Lincoln Park, MI http://www.fuggit.com

In a message dated 98-04-11 11:14:06 EDT, you write: << I think that it is up to each person to verify the information in books, WFT, LDS ancestral files and by all means the net. Eronious information started way before the net, in books and before that by word of mouth. It up to each individual to verify, correct, and continue their research. We have enough rules already. It is not time to burn the books, take down the web sites, get rid of Ancestral file, etc. That would be Genealogical Suicide. Sharing information and correcting the eronious information is the answer for me. Just my opinion. >> My sentiments exactly......HOORAY FOR YOU!!!! I am not a purist and do not intend to become one. I am the first one in my family to do the research and my goal is to do it as best as I can. But, I do not want to try and reinvent the wheel....if someone has done research and it fits into my lines, I will probably use it. They will be given FULL attribution in my source field. I will leave it to future generations to prove or disprove each minutia of information. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR RESOUCES TO DO SO. Anybody who wants to "steal" (not my word) any info from me is welcome to do so except for commercial use......genealogy is not owned....it is only in the temporary custody of those working on it and should be shared fully. Greedy hoarders of genealogical information could go to their graves with the info and what a loss to us all that would be. As Dr. Raymond Bell (genealogist) once wrote: PUBLISH, PUBLISH, PUBLISH !!!!! Clair John "Bill" Thompson, Sr. Lincoln Park, MI http://www.fuggit.com

David, I agree about most of what you say and I am guilty as charge, but I have not sent in any information as of yet. I like your idea about sending in only your own work and keeping a separate file for yourself with the who family. I have written two books prior to the internet and was the work of myself and the people who I had contacted by mail or phone. And at the time of each book I thought they contained a large amount of names, but after the internet they are not so large. I am using the internet to cut and past, but after I get the new information I attempt to go back and check out the material. I have always done this. I suppose that it is not much different as when we use to order film from the LDS or go to the large libraries to gather information. I know I have order over 1500 films from Salt Lake City and I have been there and gathered the info. So in one way what makes this any different than going through files on the internet. The same goes to the fact that I used to write to family members and get their information. Is not that the same as getting it over the internet? I think the biggest mistake most of us are making is that we do not check and recheck the information we are getting off of the internet. I know I have typed up about 1000 obits and placed in my books and it takes time to do this. It is easy to cut and paste, but is it right. Well now, are we not doing the same thing with our newspaper obits from the past, I mean cutting and pasting. The only thing that is different is that we are not sending away for the material, but getting it right off the computer. So let us keep on digging for those roots and let us check out the material to see if it is correct and you might be able to add to the whole story by finding out something new when you check the information. No David I think we are very lucky to beable to have access to such a large data base. Before the computer it was the people who lived in large cities that had access to the data that is on the computer. But now every one has a chance to research his tree. Thank You Wayne L McKean, Seattle, WA

You might have noted the absence of [email protected] from the CC list-- it is because I subtracted it. It is the only one that has a "closed" list-- you can only post to it if you are a member. It is their safeguard against spammers. Several on that list I thought had already done this-- what happened? Of course it may be that the Ohio List was the only one I got a message from-- others might be closed and you just don't get a message back. At any rate, I guess you know you can choose this protection-- I suppose it's relatively easy to arrange for. "Water simply flows around obstacles it encounters." "Chance favors the prepared..." FROM: Michael Milton Mason <[email protected]>

David, I have read your, et al., comments... You make some crucial points, and while I was surprised at the callousnous of some, the belittling of the problem, the gloss-over solutions... Fact is, you describe the problem-- any solutions, besides "Now children, stop it?" The idea to only submit what you know to be documented fact would work-- 99% of the time. But documents are sometimes in error, and I'd rather have a GB of "maybes" than a database someone has climbed onto a stack-of-Bibles with that has an error-- somewhere. There have been times when I accepted documentation as gospel-- for a year or two, until there was overwhelming/sufficient indication otherwise, that "that just can't be so-- it doesn't fit with all this other." Point is, I could have submitted, confidant that it was incontravertable fact. I like your depiction-- "I used to prowl around courthouse attics and weed covered graveyards to uncover a choice treasure now and then with great anticipation and joy." Why did you stop? I just described to my (extended) family how I often claw a mile to get a foot. Why not take those leads and determine if they are are fact or fiction-- whether they indeed fit into your tree? At 09:39 AM 4/11/98 -0400, you wrote: >To all genealogists, > > I have been very concerned lately about the destruction of our hobby. The >fate of genealogy is being written as we speak and it is in your hands to >stop it. > >WHY THIS SUDDEN ALARM? > > Our data is being destroyed by two cancers known as "CUT AND PASTE" and >"MERGE". > >ONLINE GENEALOGY > > I began my online genealogy in 1981, the reason for purchase of my first >computer. Soon after I reasoned that if I could just afford that 3MB hard >drive at Radio Shack for only $5000.00 my problems would be over, now at >6GB I am running out of space. I used to prowl around courthouse attics and >weed covered graveyards to uncover a choice treasure now and then with >great anticipation and joy. Now I can get a hundred times more info in an >hour or two. So much so I haven't even had the time to read most of it, let >alone put it into my own database. Which leads me to my point. > >CUT AND PASTE > > Being involved in keeping a Family Website, I get many requests for >information, and some criticism as well. There are two camps. One thinks >every fact needs to be on the Two Tablets Moses brought down from the >mountains. The other thinks that if it is in ASCII it's proof enough. I >have submitted my own tree to the WFT Project, most of which was my own >work. Hoping to find corroborating works I check other trees often, only to >discover my own work pasted into someone else's tree. > >THIS PRACTICE IS DESTROYING ONLINE GENEALOGY. > >FIRST, it gives undue validity. When one piece of erroneous information >becomes 1000 pieces of the same erroneous information, it takes on a life >of it's own and an enearned "truth". >SECOND, it clutters up the internet search engines with hundreds of links >to the same bogus info. When someone does try to verify a fact, they can't >wade through the countless references. >THIRD, file sizes are increased to the point of unmanageablility with the >same, tired, redundant information, even when true. This makes sharing >impractical. >FOURTH, it discourages people with genuinely obtained first generation info >from releasing it. >FIFTH, if carried to it's logical conclusion, everyone will have the same >file. All of them wrong. >SIXTH, it makes compiling huge trees all too easy. >SEVENTH, it makes it impossible to tell whether you are seeing a >corroborating opinion of your data or a repeat of it. > >EXAMPLES > >Great database services, like GENSERV and the World Family Tree project, >although well conceived and of great potential, are being ruined by well >meaning genealogists who seed them with redundant information gathered from >those very same databases. > >Private websites, including my own, have been swamped by large file sizes >which are largely repeat information. (This was a result of my own policy, >which I have rethought, so no criticism intended) > >Believe it or not I have been offered "Family Trees" in excess of 75 MB and >over 125,000 names. I foolishly submitted some trees to add to this pile of >spaghetti. > >WHAT CAN WE DO? > > I propose creating a guide for online genealogists. A compilation of >voluntary "rules of the road". Netiquette for the Genealogist. > > To this end I am offering a few sample suggestions of my own to get the >ball rolling. Please send your comments, criticisms, suggestions, pros and >cons to me personally. (I do not subscribe to ALL the lists above) After >compilation of the ideas, I will submit them for a vote. Success will be >determined by the level of participation. Please submit ideas by April 24th. > >SUGGESTIONS > > If you have undocumented info to share, state that it is speculation. If >you receive that information, paste it into your own file if you choose, >but DO NOT redistribute it with your file. Instead, keep it as a separate >entity. > > As a general rule, do not combine other people's data with your own files >that you redistribute. Keep a file for your eyes only and another for >distribution. Distribute only work which you have done yourself from >primary sources, or have independently verified from primary sources. Do >not simply pass along someone else's data because they have it documented >either. > > Do everyone a favor and pass along transcripts of primary documents. > > If you find documents or trees on a website, download and keep it because >it may evaporate unexpectedly, but do not redistribute it. Instead, if >someone asks for it, check on it's availability and send them a link. > >SAMPLE SUBJECTS AND CATEGORIES > > Etiquette; File contamination avoidance; Source Documentation; Passing on >other's data under what conditions; Submission to databases; Merging trees; >Merging scraps of data; Requesting info; Providing info; Submissions to >redundant websites or databases; Should we pass secondary info at all or >just the source?; How about an unlinked but searchable family group sheet >database, each submitted sheet required to be nearly complete and well >sourced, and containing parents and children of the husband and wife? Any >interest in an online index of primary documents with the cost of >membership being to submit one? > >SEND ME YOUR IDEAS > >Thank you for your time, >Dave > >THE KEYSTONE PROJECT - A PENNSYLVANIA CARD CATALOG of GENEALOGY FILES >In it's infancy, please help! http://www.stonecabin.com/keystone >__________________________________________________________________________ >David H. Smith, Sr. Bensinger Family Genealogy >[email protected] http://www.stonecabin.com/bensinger > >----------------------------------------------- > Lost your welcome message? >Send GET PENNSYLVANIA-ROOTS-L WELCOME to [email protected] for another copy. > > "Water simply flows around obstacles it encounters." "Chance favors the prepared..." FROM: Michael Milton Mason <[email protected]>

Is anyone doing research on the family of Jacob YEAGER and Hannah/Elizabeth KREBS/KREPS (no dates) children are: Elizabeth (mar. John COMFORT) Mary (mar. Jacob B. MARTIN) Susan (mar. Simeon HILE) Jane (mar. Thomas LEESE) Jacob (mar. Mary KEISTER) James (alias John Benjamin ADAMS)b.Richfield,next to Snyder Co. line ---------------------------------------------------------------- James (alias J.B.ADAMS) 1849-1926 and Margaret "Maggie" TROUT 1856-1926 mar. 19th 2m 1871 Schuylkill Haven, Schuylkill Co. Pa. children are: Annie Mayze (mar. Stoughton Walker & "Frankie" FRANKENBURGER) Julia Ann (mar. Fred ASHWORTH) Minnie Rebecca (mar. Willard PRATT) no children John Trout (mar. Mary Edith KIRK) my grandparents Maude May (not mar.) Loyd Albert (died young) Lee Russell (mar. Emma TATE) Percie Palmer (mar. twice?) Mamie (mar. Irving Miller) Omer Paul (mar.?) ...if so please contact me. Regards, Joan

[email protected] wrote: > > Subject: > > PASNYDER-D Digest Volume 98 : Issue 28 > > Today's Topics: > #1 [PASNYDER-L] introdution ["Dave and Brandi Ferster" <seancon] > > Administrivia: > To unsubscribe from PASNYDER-D, send a message to > > [email protected] > > that contains in the body of the message the command > > unsubscribe > > and no other text. No subject line is necessary, but if your software > requires one, just use unsubscribe in the subject, too. > > ______________________________ > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: [PASNYDER-L] introdution > Date: Mon, 06 Apr 98 06:29:47 PDT > From: "Dave and Brandi Ferster" <[email protected]> > To: "snyder co" <[email protected]> > > Hello All! > I'm new to the list and I'd like to know if anyone has an index of the > Hassinger White Church graveyard. If not, maybe directions to the church, > keeping in mind that I'm from Allentown, Pa. > Researching : > Kramer/Acker/Page/Bertsch/Leiter/Bowersox/George/Zeller/Knouse/Lantz/Keiser/ > Keller/Pursel/Fornwald/Crossley/Folk/Spigelmyer/Haines/Ritter/Hartman/Galer/ > Switzer/Dolin/Emery/Knepp/Seibert/Howell/Wagner/Ulsh/Zerbe/Stine/Wolfley/Sho > wers/Reisch/Snook/Flannigan/Bartholomew/Oberdorf/Miller/Weiser/Conrad/Cooper > /Schneider/Guth/Good/Peiffer/Hetrich/Broscious/Weigart/Snyder > Thanks, > Dave Some of the Snooks in Snyder Co. came from Sussex Co., NJ. Who are you looking for? Nancy Pascal "Faith is daring the soul [email protected] to go beyond what <http://www.gate.net/~pascalfl/> the eyes can see."

Hello All! I'm new to the list and I'd like to know if anyone has an index of the Hassinger White Church graveyard. If not, maybe directions to the church, keeping in mind that I'm from Allentown, Pa. Researching : Kramer/Acker/Page/Bertsch/Leiter/Bowersox/George/Zeller/Knouse/Lantz/Keiser/ Keller/Pursel/Fornwald/Crossley/Folk/Spigelmyer/Haines/Ritter/Hartman/Galer/ Switzer/Dolin/Emery/Knepp/Seibert/Howell/Wagner/Ulsh/Zerbe/Stine/Wolfley/Sho wers/Reisch/Snook/Flannigan/Bartholomew/Oberdorf/Miller/Weiser/Conrad/Cooper /Schneider/Guth/Good/Peiffer/Hetrich/Broscious/Weigart/Snyder Thanks, Dave

Hi, I see you will be willing to do lookups in your book. Thank you so much. Also you have listed the names, Bowes, Wagner and Hall. Can you tell me what it says about these families? Thanks so much. Linda

I've posted this to a couple of lists so sorry if you get duplicates. :-) Hi, I found a terrific book (actually a microfiche of the book) called A History of the Slear Family. It has been indexed but I've yet to find it. I would like a copy of the book. Does anyone know where I can get it? If you have Slear in you I can see you you're ancestors are in the book. This line conects to the Hummels as well. It takes the Slear line back to Germany. I'm willing to do lookups. Some other prominent surnames are: Bowen, Sierer, Snyder, Doebler, Reichley, Lingle, Dreisback, Foote, Corman, McClintic, Kunes, Stover, Stricker, Bowes, Glossner, Ritter, Harman, Glossner, Maurer, Lepley, Wagner, Oldt, Lutz, Martin, Bishop, Lloyd, Conzelman, Ballard, Marshall, Horley, Himmelreich, Bitting, Hall, McLarren, , Brownell, Kreisher, etc. Hope I can help someone! Leanne [email protected]

I've been working on a web page, and have listed my ties to Snyder County area. Please check it out, and see if we connect somehow! If so, I'd be glad to exchange information with you! Thanks for looking! http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/taunton/79/Genealogy.html Linda Stienstra Jim and Linda Stienstra [email protected] http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/9227/homepage.html Tehachapi, California