This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Yates Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1851.2.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In my view, REPEATING unsourced speculative ascriptions as fact really sets back genealogy! I made the mistake of doing this myself in past decades and frankly the ROPER Message Board is littered with posts by me that I wish I could now take back. When I run across these, I DO endeavor to post updated or clarifying information. I realize that there WAS a David ROPER who was married to a Sarah and that this David ROPER was important to genealogy. * I also believe that the FIXATION on trying to connect these ROPER families back to New Kent and Charles City reflects a FAILURE to appreciate that there are a number of equally compelling and viable possibilities which others persistently FAIL TO EXPLORE. Your thinking on this is clouded by reliance on the "availability heuristic". You are more readily acquainted and familiar with the New Kent, Charles City and York data because you have spent a lot of time looking at it. You therefore see connections, some possibly valid, others simply reflecting CHANCE. You seize upon perceived connections with ancestors in those place because you are UNFAMILIAR with the data in other places where you really ought to be looking! I have explained in previous posts and a recent e-mail message WHY your analysis of the DNA data is erroneous and I will NOT bother to repeat that analysis here. * I am actually quite UNCONCERNED with proving or disproving particular asserted lineages and actually find the approach of searching for more data to support a particular speculative ascription to be a little tedious. I find it most useful to use the data to identify other possible alternatives and then to SEEK MORE DATA which helps to either support or reject alternative competing hypotheses. I find it far more productive to simply FOLLOW the data wherever it leads rather than seeking to rationalize ways that the data might support a particular desired hypothesis. Your inquiries have helped to identify some NEW data and also have encouraged folks to look at existing data in new ways. This is helpful. Reposting erroneous and misleading data is NOT helpful and doesn't advance the family history. I should have flagged the erroneous mention of Sarah YATES much earlier in this thread. As I reviewed the various posts, I realized that this assertion reappeared as accepted fact over and over. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>