TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264218040


From: "LBoswell" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Standards of genealogy vs. history
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:40:40 -0500
References: <006301ca9bae$b0faed50$12f0c7f0$@net><8905AE8142BC4F2F96C764AE27BB3304@JackPC> <006f01ca9bbc$5f8af6a0$1ea0e3e0$@net><175923AD755C48C3B7435CF0399B629C@acer511eba12df><007f01ca9bcc$013e8a70$03bb9f50$@net><FCA7C8E0A0D249D78068E1FE3298A8C0@acer511eba12df><99893DFD774A4B26AA9969BCF055DFCC@JackPC>
In-Reply-To: <99893DFD774A4B26AA9969BCF055DFCC@JackPC>


Jack,
I'm not going to respond further to your comment. You're taking my comments
entirely too seriously. I'm sketching out some ideas, that's all. Not
threatening any existing structures within genealogy. This is not life and
death stuff, just pleasant harmless meanderings. The conversations have
been very interesting, and I've learned a lot.

But you're taking this somewhere I won't go.

Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack V Butler" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TGF] Standards of genealogy vs. history


>I confess that you confuse, me Larry. Are you deliberately playing the fool
> here, or are you seriously suggesting that Elizabeth, or any other
> professional genealogist with more than about an hour's worth of
> experience,
> does not understand what family history is?
>
> Please do get some rest and come back to the subject fully refreshed
> because
> I will be fascinated to see what, other than your inclusion of fiction, I
> mean, you see in family history that is not part of a "genealogical
> approach". I think that it will be rather interesting to see exactly what
> you thing that modern genealogy is.
>
> Jack Butler
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LBoswell" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [TGF] Standards of genealogy vs. history
>
>
>> yes. But don't throw out Garnett's dessert and pickles because those are
>> family history delights, along with the "just the facts, ma'am".
>>
>> I see a clear difference because I work from a family history approach,
>> which I think is a valid one. But has some distinctions from a
>> genealogical
>> approach. But too tired to get into this. But I'll talk about it
>> because
>> I'd like to test it out, and where better than here (now if I could read
>> minds, I'd not do that but since I can't....)
>>
>> Larry g'nite all
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [TGF] Standards of genealogy vs. history
>>
>>
>>>I wrote:
>>>>>Thanks, Jack. What is glaringly missing from Garnett's description of
>>> resources is any reference to all those things that are meat 'n potatoes
>>> for
>>> the genealogist. What's mentioned is mostly dessert (personal records
>>> and
>>> correspondence with relatives) and pickles (a nearly century old paean
>>> by
>>> offspring).
>>>
>>> Larry then wrote (in its entirety--nothing snipped here)
>>>>but meat and potatoes for the modern family 'history' side of things,
>>>>when
>>> mated to strict genealogical protocols of course.
>>>
>>>
>>> Larry, apparently I do not understand your distinction between family
>>> history and genealogy. My reference was precisely to all those local
>>> records (courthouse, church, etc.) and federal records (land, military,
>>> etc.), that provide the foundation for every genealogy and every
>>> biography,
>>> and should provide the foundation for studies of individuals that are
>>> done
>>> by historians.
>>>
>>> I don't see these as "meat and potatoes" for the ***"family 'history'
>>> side
>>> of things."*** Using them IS basic "genealogical protocol."
>>>
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> with the word
>>> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
>>> message
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word
>> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
>> message
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
> message


This thread: