Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:59:56 -0000, bobg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Robert Grumbine)
wrote:

>In article <47b851c4.5237220@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>Am I chastising a deceased equine?
>
>  Rather.
>
>  That issue of the 5 known candidates for a slot in your tree, and
>an unknown number of unknown candidates, is why my annoyance with
>software that tries to push conclusions rather than evidence.  One
>should be able to collect and work with candidates, rather than
>having the choice only of 'leave it blank' and 'pick one'.  The
>candidates, some at least, you may well be able to run a tree
>back farther, reliably (for however you define reliability).  While
>it may turn out that the candidate whose tree you've run back
>another 3 generations is not _your_ ancestor, he quite possibly
>is _someone's_, so a service to others (if you share your work,
>which you've mentioned you don't, but for those who do).
>
>  One ancestor of mine, relatively recent even, prompted my interest
>in method of multiple hypotheses (written up by T. C. Chamberlin
>for geology in the 1880s) for genealogy.  Common first name and
>common last name, and was born in a large city/county.  About
>a dozen candidates.   More than I'm going to try to handle without
>some sup****t.

I don't publish trees. I share one on one or in a small group where I
can help. I am working with 5 small groups at present. Any more I
discuss theories with a very limited group of people - because they
are just theories.

I find two current genealogy programs sufficient for my purposes. I
track every Sullivan line ( every Sullivan in the census) I can (with
lots of help) in VA and NC up to maybe 1850, give or take. I keep each
line in a separate data base ready to merge when neessary. I merged
two until DNA tests cast some doubt.

I write papers, for myself mostly, on theories and the facts that led
to my unproven conclusions.

That's the method that seems to work for me.

Hugh