Elizabeth R. wrote: >I used that example because ... There was an assertion that ESM showed differences in the citation. . . . I must admit that I don't have Evidence Explained so I can't look it up.
Elizabeth, I smiled at this one. You'd never believe how many times my jaw has dropped off my face at things I've read in one forum or another saying "ESM asserts ...." One dear soul (who uses different software) wrote quite a discourse on how he had used Thistlebottoms's published _Book of Marriages_ (names changed to protect the guilty), in which he had found 500 marriage records on his family, and why he had no intention of following ESM's "dictates" on how to cite marriage records. According to her, the list was told, he had to create a separate Master Source Entry for each of those 500 marriage records in Thistlebottom. Instead, he had decided to do the logical, simple, thing and create one Master Source Entry for Thistlebottom's book and then cite the specific page number each time he mentioned a marriage from it. Gee, how could ESM have made such a simple thing so complicated? After a few exchanges with others on the list, he admitted he had never read ESM's little _Evidence!_ . However, others had told him what it said. (What he clearly missed, of course, was the point that he was not dealing with 500 original marriage certificates inherited from umpteen branches of his family--and even if he had, he could have handled them all with one Master Source Entry for a family collection. In fact, he was not even dealing with 500 "marriage records." He was dealing with one book that simply had 500 information statements he was interested in.) And then there's a well-known genealogist in the western states whose lectures and handouts for the past half-dozen years (including those still posted online) inform his audiences and readers that _Evidence!_ insists each time a census is used for a different household, one has to create a different Master Source Entry. Sighhhhhh. As with all things genealogical, trusting hearsay and derivative sources without checking the original is a good way to be led astray. Even if the "abstract" we get is correct insofar as the limited detail that is passed on, the details that are omitted from the "abstract" can make a tremendous difference in our interpretation and use of that evidence. Elizabeth *** Holiday discounts on Legacy 7.0, add-ons, books, and more. Visit http://tinyurl.com/65rpbt. *** Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
