John
It is obvious that you are not able to see the generic example I gave, to stick to the facts and ask a question for what is needed within the family history. It must have been obvious to the rest of the people on the list, that it in fact is merely an example, than a family without name, and it sticks to genealogy/family history. The diatribe that has been going on under the heading of "going back to genealogy etc" in reality has nothing to do with genealogy, nor history. So, read all first, before you insult and criticize.
Guenter
Sorry Guenter. If you had added it to that particular thread, I probably would have. However being on a series of different lists since the mid-nineties, I have seen such oversights before, not perhaps exactly like your "obvious one", but close enough. Some almost defy belief. Maybe shows the value of adding to the thread you are making your point of, instead of starting a new one. Not sure it's so obvious the way you did it, but believe what you want. Lastly, I DID read (obviously, I responded), and it was hardly insult or criticism I was giving. Seems it is you now who missed the "obvious" humor in my reply also. Touch�.
PS. If everyone were to take your advice on giving "just the facts" and the A B C of their families and little more, this list would collapse out of boredom. Go look around G, others are dead on the vine for that VERY REASON. Be careful what you wish. It might come true.
Jb