Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

In article <l8lcr3pt14n7spoonctqp06bhtid1j2g00@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
	Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
<snip> 
> For you, yes.  For others, the object may be different.
> 
> For me, it is a structure upon which I can build my study of history,
> whether it is of my family or some other.  History is aided by facts
> when they are available, but useful history can be built based on
> analysis of subjective information as well.
> 
> lojbab

I think one of the things Hugh's been getting at is the
question of what standards one applies to the analysis of
information, not the nature of the information, per se.  So
let me ask, what guidelines/criteria/rules do YOU apply in
the analysis of your subjective information?  I'd ask Hugh
the same question:  what standards do YOU, Hugh, apply in
examining and before accepting data?

All of us here, I think, like to believe we're fairly
rigorous in the conclusions we draw from the data we dig
up, tho' the truth is that some are more demanding than
others.  And, certainly, I'd be much more inclined to trust
the research of somebody I knew dotted all the I's and crossed
all the T's, rather than merely waved his hands over the data
and pronounced it acceptable.  Hugh may be the one extreme and,
for all I know, you might be the other (tho' I'm not suggesting
that, at all).

As to standards and standard setting organizations, I have to
say it all depends.  If your objective is to join the DAR/SAR,
then you'll do***ent your claim in accordance with their rules
and standards.  If you're gathering information on your ancestors
in order to prepare LDS temple ordinances for them, you follow
THEIR rules.  If you're a hobbyist, you have a choice and do what
satisfies your own idea of thoroughness and reasonableness.

Sloppy Ol' Bob

-- 
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it.  -- Henry Ford