We all have reasons and preferences for doing genealogy. As CE states, his/her passion is history. I believe that brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles and etc, all had influences and sometimes great impact on our direct ancestors. Why would you not want to include these people? Clues about indirect ancestors can lead to great clues about our direct ancestors.
Sally Miller Hindley In a message dated 2/3/2010 12:36:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Exactly, Mike. I am sure most people, like me, are interested in ancestral relatives. My passion is the history of the various periods in which my ancestors and ancestral relatives lived. The issue is that, interesting and wonderful as they may be, ancestral relatives are not ancestors. CE Wood -----Original Message----- From: Mike Fry [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:46 AM "Some of us strive for precision in our research. Labelling people as ancestors when they strictly are not is, to me, an example of imprecision which can lead to - no offence intended to anyone in particular - sloppiness in research. As an example of this, I view the past behaviour of some contributors to the LDS records as being sloppy in the extreme. Just name collecting. Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg" Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
