Overstriking the names sounds like a good option to me. I've had people correct the info I posted from books, and I have added notes to the files stating the corrections and that they were corrections. Your solution seems fair, seems to me. Gloria ----- At 11:20 PM 12/8/2000 +0000, you wrote: >I have received e-mail, rather aggressively worded IMO, asserting that I >made a mistake in one of my on-line indices. Some comments were made with >a very non-PC implication. > >I didn't take umbrage at his saying I have mistakes; I know I do. For one >thing there's a misspelt name. The fact he asserts is error, however, is >NOT one of mine. I answered that I will re-check the source; if the names >are in there, they stay, right or wrong. I further pointed out that his >comments were invalid (and told him why) without commenting on the >implication. > >Now, I have re-checked the source and the names ARE in the source, in the >place speficied on-line. However. The entry is incomplete and what is >written has been carefully lined thru (once) as has the note See Other >Book. The Other Book has the complete entry, underscored. I clearly decided >the first time thru that since they WERE there and since they WERE legible, >I should include them. > >I can strike-over the names in HTML, just as they were in the book, if I >have to, but I still feel that they were in the source, they should be in >the index. > >What say ye? > >Cheryl >*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* >Cheryl Singhal (Singhals@erols.com) > >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cpafug >http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvhampsh/ >http://www.capaccess.org/com/troop763 >http://www.fortunecity.com/millennium/blyton/772/ (DAR) >http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap >http://members.fortunecity.com/csinghal1/ (UDC) > > > > >============================== >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/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB