I am surprised to find out that apparently a large group of computer users don't have a "delete" key. I sneak a peek and if I don't want to read farther click good old "delete". By the way, my GGgrandparents came from Scotland, spent 7 years in Ireland on their way over in 1853 and I didn't realize until my first trip to Scotland in 1985 how much of my family's customs, sayings, and especially food came from the old country (even though the grandparents I loved were 1st generation American-born). I love it SOME OF THE TIME when the theme turns a bit off plain genealogy. Learn a lot from those times and, if not, there's still that delete button. Sometimes I don't understand why Linda gets so uptight with things that some of us enjoy, but I guess that comes with the list manager's job description. Then she has to deal with the "up-tight" members. Bless her heart! Mary Lander ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy" <nmcfarl@racc2000.com> To: <Scotch-Irish-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: November 23, 2005 11:53 PM Subject: Re: [Sc-Ir] Asking for Traditions > > I actually use my "delete" key if I happen to not like the subject on one of > my e-mail groups I subscribe to, or if the subject doesn't pertain to me. > > Nancy McFarland > > > > > Hi List , > > There is nothing wrong wanting to have traditions, recipes info > etc. as > > long as its not over-the-top off-topic. > > In genealogy, we have a) primary documents e.g. vitals b) > secondary > > data e.g. census c) verbal info passed-down & d) generically applicable info > > e.g. recipes, traditions etc. It is d), the generic info that is so often > the off > > topic offender and these aspects are not going to establish your ancestors > > true identity. Only the higher level data, especially the primary docu., > for the > > 18-19th centuries will begin to differentiate Scotch-Irish (S/I) from > > Ulster-Scot (U/S) etc. > > Again, even more so, we can have 30,000+ mail list (this is good), > if we > do not presently have a "S/I Traditions" and even a "U/S Traditions" list > etc. > Actually, only 16-17th century docu./data will differentiate S/I & U/S and > we > all know that is even less likely / available. > > Walt > > > > >