This "discussion" will not profit from this kind of over-emotionalism.
Good points exist on both sides of the matter and can only be
satisfactorily pursued calmly and with consideration. Otherwise, Silence
is Best.
Tony
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> 04/04/06 05:22PM
You haven't given me evidence of anything. If you don't know how
somebody else can find it, what good is it? I am very familiar with
the use of census data. I know that until 1880, in the good ol' USA
no
relationships are given between members of a household, so what are
you
talking about? Genealogical experience isn't proof of anything. I
don't know you, so how am I to judge your "genealogical experience?"
It should give us a compass to help lead us to the right conclusions,
that's it. In this case you are ignorant of a fundamental fact of
genealogical research in this country.
You say you have "instances" in your archives, and refuse to share
them. That creates a suspicion that you're not telling the truth, and
at the very least pretty selfish. This material you say you have
might
help to clarify the issue. Don't you care about that?
I don't care what any of you people think of me. I'm not interested
in
some unfounded opinion, whether you agree with me or n, so no thanks
Nat and Will. You're just trying to back down through the back door.
I don't care if Renia trawls through her archives. I can't make her
produce evidence, but can make sure that other people know she
refused
to do so and offered a completely unsubstantiated statement in return.
If you can't backup your statements people are going to draw their own
conclusions about that, and it's likely it isn't going to be positive.
I would be careful about breaking out the silk-screening gear, it
could
create the impression that when pressed for evidence the best they
could do is crack a joke. If you are a professional genealogist
that's
not a reputation I would want to acquire. If you don't want to
participate in this thread by presenting your evidence, that's fine,
but you haven't any right to claim any competence here, do you? And
niether do any of these other people that want to be taken seriously
while not wanting to identify any specific cases.
Let's go back to what Nat Taylor told Joan Burdyck of this topic 5
years ago.
"20 son-in-law admits of various uses in this period, and could extend
to step-children and their spouses as well."
Of these various uses, there are only two that apply to this
situation.
Nat didn't care enough about the case to say that, but I'll give him
an undeserved break here. Here's where Nat really screwed Joan. Nat
did not produce any evidence as to the statistical frequency of the
usage of one meaning as opposed to the other. He gave no idea of the
relative weight of his statement. Joan was given absolutely nothing
to
judge the truthfulness of his statement. Seemingly Nat is going to
toss into the rubbish any pedigree unfortunate enough to find this
term
in some record. In this case, without having even a crude idea of how
often the term was used in a certain way, we have no way to weigh its
relevance as evidence in this situation or any other. Of course we
will want to see if other records indicate say, that a "son-in-law"
was
really the "husband of a step-daughter," but the frequency of use of
the term in a certain way is going to be a major part of the decision.
This is important here, because when pressed nobody wants to cough up
any evidence so that others can see how they arrived at their
conclusions. That's convenient, isn't it? In the abscence of such
evidence it is reasonable to inquire if they have any. I think it's
pretty obvious why no evidence has been produced. Nat stores little
snippets of information in his head. He knew that "son-in-law" could
mean "husband of my step-daughter," and that's all he knew. How do I
knbow that? Because that's all he said! When Joan raised her
question, instead of trying to help her, or referring to any research
or study, whether his own or someone else's, he trotted out this piece
of knowledge like Cliff Claven and blessed the world with it.
He didn't say how often this would occur. He didn't steer Joan to any
kind of record. He didn't jusify his statement at all. He left the
dishonest impression that this was a big deal that could invalidate a
pedigree. Five years later, when confronted with this, he couldn't
even
produce one relevant example to support his statement. He cannot say
why this is a serious problem for a pedigree, or that it should be
regarded as anything more than an historical curiousity. And neither
can Renia, who needs to take a refresher course on the contents of the
US census.
The point is, people, that no journal is going to print your crap.
You
will have to provide evidence, and decent evidence. And if a journal
won't take it, why do you think I should? You think it's funny that
someone had the nerve to ask you to abide by some, even sloppy, rules
of evidence, cite sources, and explain why a given theory should be
given "X" weight? I think that most of the time the reason people
don't want to produce evidence is because they know it's not as
compelling as it should be, and they've been dissembling. At least I
can present a chronological argument for Elizabeth Dale's maternity
working from some facts. Nat and his buddies don't need no stinkin'
facts.
Here's what Eugene Stratton had to say about genealogists like Nat and
Renia:
"...we must ask--how did the person saying it know?"
That's nothing more than asking: how can I repeat your research and
see if I come to the same conclusion? And this is nothing more than
citing evidence, telling us where we can find it so we can make some
kind of judgement as to its veracity. Renia seems to think my request
for sources is an imposition. It's actually a minimum requirement for
any genealogical statement. I find it amusing that some have
suggested
I'm not a serious researcher because I didn't accept one of Will's
undocumented assertions at face value.
At this juncture, isn't it a fact that nobody has actually cited a
real
case of using "sonne in law" as "husband of my step-daughter" in 17th
century VA? Where do you people get off criticizing me? Why should I
print this stuff out and use it for anything but the liner of a bird
cage?
I got to say it--at this point it looks like you people are full of
s#@t.
Until somebody produces some hard evidence, I think I'll just let
these
people blather on and come to any conclusion they want.
JTC