Yes, but are we who document correctly supposed to monitor what our cousins do with our informarion. I do check on what comes from these folks, but after they have gotten stuff from me I am powerless to stop errors. I have one instance where I had included on some info, that there was NO Proof, and there were 3 possible fathers, and six months later, I recieved the data from him through a third party, where birth records were cited for New England Towns that had no records in that time frame, and combined the 3 names into one person, using me as the source. Rich
--- "Paul C. Abell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Too many times, when second hand information is > passed on such as onto the > web sites, the original notes listing foster > children as such, are lost and > others don't know that. I have no problem listing > foster children as > family, because they are loved in the same manner. > However, too many people > new to genealogy and unfamiliar with historical > standards fail to make the > necessary notations. I have seen it happen too many > times. My > gr-gr-grandfather had an uncle. Someone "hand > copied" the family bible and > included his name. The majority of cousins, > including to the 3rd cousins, > think it came out of the bible. They didn't realize > it was a hand copy > before copy machines. They thought the copy was > made from the bible by a > copy machine. However, when I actually saw the > original bible, his name was > not in it. My point is that someone wanted him > included in that family when > he was not part of that family. Therefore, the > integrity of the majority of > research was compromised when cousins thought they > had a link going back > several centuries....into the 12th century to be > exact. That is also what > they hoped. So, when the original did not list him > as a child, there was a > big uproar in the family and it was all caused by a > lack of integrity and > not following the age old standards as passed down > to many of us that > learned from the best. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of ronald > ferguson > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:36 PM > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Foster children > > It is *not* "false information" to include a foster > child as a foster child > in a family with whom the child is fostered. If > people cannot read it is > their problem. > > Ron Ferguson > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > For Genealogy, Software and Social visit: > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ > *New Blogs: UK Civil Registration Timeline* > Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/Grimshaw/ > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > >From: "Paul C. Abell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > >To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> > >Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Foster children > >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:05:23 -0600 > > > So....I for one, choose not > >to pollute my database with false information. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Dora Smith > >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:01 PM > >To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Foster children > > > >I'm writing for my descendants, not NEHGS. So I > do what makes sense to > >me. > > > >Where is this emphasis on some sort of rigid rules > from God knows where > >that > > > >make no sense coming from? "Violated rule number > two twice"? Who's > >counting, and who's goinna slap mah wrists! If > people want to be rule > >bound, why do they need to try to coerce other > people to participate in > >this > > > >anxiety disorder? What difference does it make if > Laura does her > >genealogy > > > >the same way Bill Houdek does? > > > > But then, someone on one list explained to me > that some people doing > >family > > > >genealogy projects follow some bizarre outmoded > rules that NEHGS and TAG > >and > > > >another group apply to what they will publish in > their journals. I don't > >give two hoots what NEHGS and TAG allow in their > journals. I publish my > >findings on the web, and discuss problems on the > genealogy lists, and will > >never submit anything to NEHGS and TAG, and it > sounds like they might not > >publish it if I did. > > > >But with that said, noone can tell Laura how to > list those foster children. > >If the couple raised them and then they were listed > as contacts by the > >funeral home, I would think they were family, but > maybe Laura has reasons > >not to list them that way. And I don't know for > what purpose Laura is > >doing her genealogy. > > > >Now, I'm off this discussion, before I get mad, and > think of how to point > >out to Bill and others that there is not some all > powerful body we all > >swore > > > >to obey or something to tell us all how to do live, > worship, or do > >genealogy. My 17th and 18th century ancestors > came to this country > >specifically to do all that their own way in peace > - ARGGH! > > > >Yours, > >Dora Smith > >Austin, TX > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com> > >Cc: "Arnold Sprague" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 3:24 PM > >Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Foster children > > > > > > >I agree with Arnold. Is time this is discussed > and only blood line > > >individuals should be included in the "family". > That said. have violated > > ># > > > > >2 twice. Think what it all boils down to is what > the individual doing the > > >recording wants out of the Legacy record. In that > context, would not like > > >to see some sort of hard & fast rule as that will > satisfy only the person > > >laying down the rule. > > > > > > Bill Houdek > > > ---- Arnold Sprague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I think that once we open the > *genealogical* door to > > >> non-blood line children, the difference between > adopted, foster, and > > >> anything else is merely a word game. > > >> IMPHO*, there should be two categories > for children: blood > > >> line (DNA) and other. > > >> IMHHO*, we should only list children > of the parents' blood > > >> lines (DNA). Others should go into notes > > >> > > >> My comments are meant to further the > discussion as to what > > >> constitutes *genealogy*. It is not meant to > start a fire fight. > > >> Arnold > > >> > > >> * In My Polite Humble Opinion > > >> ** In My Honest Humble Opinion > > _________________________________________________________________ > === message truncated === *** Give the gift of Legacy for the holidays! Order online at http://legacyfamilytree.com/Redirect/Store-Legacy.asp or call 1-800-753-3453. *** Legacy User Group guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ For online technical support, please visit http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
