Concerning hearsay and evidence, one must always remember the old adage: Every written (or spoken) word is somebody's opinion. It may be written but it isn't necessarily so. Marj in NC -----Original Message----- From: Paul Drake [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Fw: [VA-SOUTHSIDE-L] CLUES are EVIDENCE I have long ago discussed Greenwood's writings; in fact, many of his statements sound very much like my own writings of 40 years ago. Then too you have made my point with his very words: "but I believe that it is useful for the genealogist to think in terms of evidence rather than sources." What he correctly stated there is that to describe a genealogical fact as having come from a secondary source tells us NOTHING about its worth and weight, while to consider it as a fact - as evidence - that may be true, untrue or somewhere in between is vastly more productive and helps all who are interested in that particular group of facts. I also think all should remember that men (and gals now) over the centuries have written millions of words in describing hearsay. None have succeeded in doing so in a couple of sentences. Finally, just as in legal theory (as Greenwood said) all evidence is hearsay, it also all is necessarily circumstantial. BUT, of what value to a genealogist is that information or are those theories ??????? ZERO, None. !! Reminds me of the ancient philosophers who worried over how many angels could stand on the head of a pin - - really important, huh? ______________________________