PENNINGTON-L Archives

Archiver > PENNINGTON > 2004-01 > 1073140591


From: Spaulding <>
Subject: Re: [Pennington-L] OK, I'm confused about PRA family groups.
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 09:36:31 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20040103.014028.-213379.0.keenebj@juno.com>


I certainly have shared Bob's angst and frustration with the PRA
groups. My line, which is Baltimore based is well documented but does not
go back far enough yet to connect to any of the PRA groups. It is all well
and good Barb to suggest that membership in PRA and in a group isn't
mandatory, but the reality is that, up until now, the focus of PRA has
understandably been on the groups where the vast majority of active
research is taking place. Those of us who have no group have been left out
in the cold and told to keep researching so that we can find a connection
to a PRA group. That's not much help, or very encouraging, frankly.

I am happy to have joined PRA, but I frankly have found it anticlimatic for
the present. I am waiting with great expectation to the coming change in
PRA which I believe will alter it to the better. The opening up of ALL the
records of all these lines to everyone through the new web access planned,
I believe, for February is a major shift in PRA. It is welcome and it was
needed. When that happens, I suspect membership in PRA will become
something far more useful to all of us and being able to connect to a
particular "group" will be easier to accomplish.

So hang in there Bob, things are about to change. Membership will be
required to access this new web based information, I believe, and that
makes sense.

Cheryl

At 12:56 AM 01/03/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Bob,
>You are far from the first person to become confused by the PRA groups.
>They were started as a way to distinguish between the different lines and
>when two lines were found to connect via a mutual ancestor,
>then the two lines were merged as one. I am a former member of PRA and
>during my years with PRA, I believed myself linked to Groups 12, 7, and
>later to Group 32. But these are merely tools, not mandatory in any way.
>
>As to the groups being mostly back to an ancestor who was found here on
>American soil, we are all trying to get back across that big ocean, but
>seldom with any success. So it looks like you may already be a step
>ahead in that your ancestors came over more recently than many of our
>ancestors. If you are a member of PRA, you may be able to start a group,
>if one does not appear to exist for your line. However, membership in
>either a Group or in PRA itself is not required to access a great deal of
>data through these lists. Most of us love to share with others.
>
>As to the lists, Pennington-L is an independent group owned and run by
>Steve Privett, and PRA-L is a list run by PRA, of course. I'd suggest
>remaining on the list and sending out an occasional query as you just
>did. I know there are a few folks who are over in Great Britain, who are
>researching as we are, for our Pennington ancestors. Possibly some of
>these list members may be helful to you. Otherwise, since there is
>probably a good paper trail, I'd go ahead and send off for as much as I
>could afford from British offices and agencies.
>
>Have you done much research with the U.S. sources? If you have been
>researching for awhile, you probably have looked at many sources of data
>on your family, but there may be more you might have missed. Let us know
>what you have tried so far. Have you checked the 1930 Census? Marriage
>records? Church records? Let us know. Many of us would like to help if
>we can. Please be careful with the data found on the internet.
>I have seen more that was proven false than was proven accurate. Try to
>find some primary sources, to supplement compilations and family history
>books, etc. These take time and effort but are worth it.
>
>Good luck,
>Barb T
>
>
>==== PENNINGTON Mailing List ====
>Please do not post virus warnings on this list.
>Practice safe e-mail habits and only open attachments you're expecting
>For addition virus info see http://www.symantec.com/us.index.html or
>http://www.mcafee.com/
>
>
>--
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content by The CCIS.net MailScanner, and is
>believed to be clean.

This thread: