In general, I find that genealogical researchers are friendly, helpful, and compassionate people. I've seen people in libraries approach a stranger's research question with a vigor and interest that made me think the two were long lost cousins. I recently met through this list a woman in Lewis County who took the time to locate my great grandfather's grave beneath blackberry vines. We all share a common interest in finding our roots even though we may not share a common surname. I don't find this unique solidarity shattered by the discussion of research methodology. In the past, these discussions have saved me from researching the wrong line (family history gave a surname that was off by only one letter), in the wrong place, at the wrong time. I don't want to think about how much time and money I would have spent, in vain and to correct errors, had I accepted the family stories on faith. However, stories, hunches, and internet postings, tempered by a small knowledge of genealogical methods, led me to documentation (birth and marriage certificates) that I would not have been able to find otherwise. It seems to me that the central issue in the posting "something to think about" pertains to how one posits genetic relationships within observed social networks. This issue is distinct from the matter of what medium (e.g., internet) one uses to collect relevant observations that are used in making genetic claims. I think it would be difficult to argue that the internet offers little benefit to the modern genealogical researcher. Computer technology and the internet can reduce the implicit costs of conducting genealogical research and greatly facilitate communication on a global scale. However, the utility of computer-assisted communication and research depends upon how solidly researchers make their claims concerning kinship ties. We can disseminate both valid and erroneous information more quickly and more widely than ever before due to emerging communication technologies. It seems prudent, then, that we all reflect on how we as genealogical researchers bring order out of the chaos of information. Rules and guidelines are not meant to force the individual researcher to conform to a prescribed level of research rigor. The guidelines evolved as a result of the collective experiences of previous researchers who encountered difficulties, errors, and misinformation in their own investigations. Standards for genealogical research are there to make our research efforts more efficient and useful. Additionally, standards facilitate how we researchers communicate our findings and conclusions. Not everyone seeks verification of the information used to make subsequent suppositions about kinship; that's fine. When verification is an issue, however, we must all be able to agree upon standards concerning the quality of evidence we use in drawing the conclusions we reach. Sometimes our data conflict or do not support a commonly held belief. This is a naturally occurring limitation in our field. Guidelines give us reference points for interpreting the value of information that is obtained from a wide variety of sources--whether the information is written in a book or posted to a website. In this sense, genealogical research is not unlike the conduct of a scientific enterprise. When we warn others that our information is based on "guesswork," we are doing so out of deference to the use of research guidelines. The extent to which all researchers know the difference between guesswork and supported kinship claims determines how much progress the field of genealogy and the individual researcher can make. Setting and (voluntarily) abiding by research standards is not a matter of snobbery; it is merely a matter of qualifying how we know what we think we know. We're all in this together. Tom Richardson Minneapolis