TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-02 > 0981212728


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Length of abbreviation of a source
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 09:05:28 -0600
In-Reply-To: <78.10116982.27ad6b1e@aol.com>


At 09:09 AM 2/3/01 -0500, wrote:
>Darrell- I too have multiple people living in the same towns, counties etc. I
>don't seem to be able to understand why a generic source for EXACTLY the same
>source is not appropriate. For all the Muellers in Roodhouse, Greene County,
>IL (there aren't any anymore, but assume there might be) the source would be
>the Greene County Census records found in the National Archives so the source
>is the same.

[snip the clear and logical explanation of Dale's system]

> If
>that all makes sense to you it means I have had a good start to a Saturday
>morning-Dale

Hi, Dale:

An explanation of what I do, and why, is in the composing stage at the
moment. But my point was, and is, that your system *is* appropriate, for
you: it makes sense, to you -- and, I make haste to add, it makes
perfectly good sense to me too! It just doesn't *WORK* for me. We are both
aiming at the same result, a clear indication to our readers of where we
got our information. But there are other considerations, that we differ on.

As I said, your method does make sense. Many should follow your example. So
you do have a good start to a Saturday morning! I do too, but it may only
be because I have four loads of laundry running in one stage or another
downstairs <grin>. But your method isn't the ONLY one that works well,
depending on the user, and does so without doing any "violence" to the
expected methods of TMG. There's that famous flexibility, again!

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois



This thread: