Inconciderate might have been a more appropriate use when debating the word rude vs brutal. I'm not overly concerned with the sematics of the sentence; what I would like to see done is to force, in some way, Ancestry.com to be responsible for the materials posted to their site. Those family trees of all kinds should be deleted. With a fresh start, Ancestry.com should REQUIRE that all the information posted has been documented. There is a certain guy who posts to the site, I'd say somewhat regularly or at least did so in the past. It is not his research that he is posting but that of his long deceased father. So happens that I had corresponded with the father over a period of several years. The father was generous in sharing; therefore, I have several binders of his work sitting on a shelf. There is one segment I would consider using and that is of his own line as it dates back to the point where he and I shared a common ancestor. I do my own research on that particular ancestor to the best of my ability but what follows, I've been unable to pick up the line for verification but I do believe that it is more or less accurate. As for the remainder of the posting, it should be deleted or at least corrected. When it comes to making corrections, I understand that under their policy this is a difficult undertaking. It's my word against the word of another. What burns my gall is that when I present them with documentation, they still refuse to make the corrections. Maybe you've noticed the same as I. I pull up a certain family, find the errors, and make corrections with documentation. The next time I return to this particular family, I am not given the one that I originally saw but rather the one with the corrections I have made. I have serious doubts that others are allowed to see what I have posted. I was checking on a particular ancestor of mine, one whom I have designated as both my Traveling Man because he moved so frequently or else the county lines were being made that would change his county of residence. I also call him my Marrying Man for the simple reason he was married 5 times!!! In most cases, the names of the wives are unknown as he had a habit of never listing the name of a wife, only the one we consider to be the first. Imagine my surprise when I arrived at that site to discover that he had been married NINE times. The first 8 were simply duplicates and should have been reduced to four. There was Nancy unknown maiden name but whose given name was located in a land record). an unknown wife, Polly Washburn (incorrect maiden name), Sophia M. Robertson said to have been a widow from London, and Serena, who stated in her application for a pension under Gardner's War of 1812 that she was married to him about 1846 in Covington County. In comparing censuses, the 1820 census for Alabama, had Gardner with a wife, two daughters and a son; the 1820 census for Wayne County, MS., was not enumerated until 1821. On the later, he was listed with a wife and one son. For lack of a name for this wife I dubbed her as Madam Butterfly. By 1822 he was married to Polly, the wife from whom I descend. Madam Butterfly was a private matter that I had shared only with a friend who was in the process of doing a Broome book. In the book she included a small segment on Gardner and listed his wives in the order he had married each. She named wife number 2 as Madam Butterfly. The NINETH wife of Gardner is named MADAM BUTTERFLY. The poster of that bit of information had had access to my friend's book and had reported the name of a wife that was known to only the two of us. No documentation; just an overly active imagination on my part. Madam Butterfly and her two daughters had died. The son of this marriage survived until 1846 and was always considered to be a half sibling of the children of Polly as these were the only two wives who bore children for him. This is only one example. There is another that is so bizzarre that I won't even go into it. This is a case where a man died in DeSota Parish, LA., in 1850 and his third wife, a first cousin to my great-grandmother, died ca 1857 in the same place and both are buried in the same cemetery. Not only did Ancestry.com change the man's middle name from one thing to another but had him living until 1867. My cousin was displaced by the wife of another man, the woman having died prior to 1846 in Georgia. Would you believe that Ancestry.com had this other woman alive and well in 1846 and that she died hereafter and was buried in DeSota Parish, LA.? There are so many inaccuracies on Ancestry.com that I'm afraid to use any of their postings unless it is from a primary or a secondary one nearest to the primary one. I can use the SSDI and books such as Marriages in LA between certain years. I've even found errors in the census records they post. Go to another site or to a library and check them out. The policies Ancestry.com has in place is to protect them from lawsuits; however, I have seen cases in which I have a special interest that have been changed, contrary to their stated policies. Personally, I think that Ancestry.com should be taken to task and in some way forced to clean up their act or else get out of the business. They are doing more harm to the hobby of genealogy than they are good. In the years to come, if things continue in the same vein, there will be no way that our descendants will be able to do an accurate family tree. Ancestry.com has purchased to many copies of original records and will be able to change them to suit themselves or else make them unavailable to any who dares to disagree with them. Just count me as one who disagrees and one who frequently calls their hand on many issues. Todate, it has caused me nothing but additional problems as they simply refuse to allow me to see records they have. In one case in particular, I got to the site, failed to make notes as I thought I would be able to go back to reaccess the matter. No such thing. I haven't seeen it again. mbm