Re: ancestry trees from "unknown"

Hugh-

There is a vast difference between lying and posting incorrect
data--or data about which you and someone else disagree. If I
choose in my tree to decide that evidence proves one thing and you
choose to decide the facts point in a different direction--that
doesn't mean either of us is lying. We are merely interpreting the
evidence as pointing to a different set of facts.

Eagle...

But this was the pharse I had trouble with - not what you say above.

Eagle...

To me that statement means being deliberately wrong and I disagreed
with their right to do that. That may not have been your intent but
I don't know your intent.

In your response above there is no deliberate attempt to mislead. It
is merely a difference of opinion. I find no problem with that as
long as some sort of disclaimer is added. Facts stand alone.
Interpreting them is theory, not "a different set of facts" as you
say.

If you measure a child at 2 and he is 3'1" tall, that is a fact.
One might say he will grow to 6" and another to 6'2" - that's not "a
different set of facts". It's nothiong more than a difference of
opinion, both lacking proof.

I have 16 facts proving John Sullivan was in Granville Co. NC in the
early 1700s. My probable ggggg Grabdfather was named John. If I
conclude that the Granville John was my 5g grand that is theory, not
a "different set of facts".

As an aside, other facts make it a pretty good theory but I add a
disclaimer anyhow even though no one has been able to find a flaw in
my theory.

I trust our only difference is in phraseology.

Hugh

Eagle@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)