[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sinclair Timeline
I think your suggestion is eminently reasonable -- indeed it connects quite
well with my attitude to these things.
I am, for example, saying something like;
"1066, Battle of Hastings:.
One cofirmed Sinclair combatant(Battle Abbey Rolls) but 8 others listed by
Thomas Sinclair(1898) with no corroboration"
This does 2 things:
1:Nails down the things we can know with reasonable certainty
2:Tells the "not-so-sure" things with provenance.
If we expunge #2, we are endlessly going to have to deal with new list
members who will remind us of Thomas Sinclair's 9.
Well said Penelope.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Penelope Blair Hillyer Law" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Sinclair Timeline
> Rory - How about listing the facts as we know them, followed by the myths
(labeled as such) on each date? That way newcomers to the List won't bring
up old arguments and endlessly repeat them as has happened in the past.
[ Excess quotations omitted. ]
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, email@example.com
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html