TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264217552
From: Connie Sheets <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] was GPS, now The Phrase
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:32:32 -0800 (PST)
I have no idea why BCG Standard 19 uses the word "extensive" while the GPS itself uses the word "exhaustive." Perhaps you have identified a continuity error that will be rectified in the pending revision. However, in checking several dictionaries, it seems to me that "exhaustive" is in fact the more accurate word for what is expected, although it could be argued that they are synonyms since some definitions of both words use the word "comprehensive."
While I recognize you have problems with the specific words chosen by the BCG, I continue to be mystified as to which concepts you have problems with. While I don't expect you to provide a complete Boswell's Guidelines for Genealogy Research for our perusal, I would certainly appreciate some specifics as to what concepts are missing, or what concepts you believe are not needed. Each time you have been asked this question (and you've been asked it by several people in a variety of ways), your answers appear to avoid the question.
What standard(s) or guideline(s) would I use to substantiate my hypothesis that John Doe is the father of Jane Doe if there is no direct evidence naming John Doe as the father of Jane Doe? What if there are two or more original sources containing conflicting information, some which say her father is John and some which say her father is Joseph?
Or would you relegate these problems to a "not solvable" category?
|Re: [TGF] was GPS, now The Phrase by Connie Sheets <>|