In theory, nothing is impossible, but the chances are so remote, to use any less strong language results in people thinking there is a chance (maybe 1 in a million). Even at such a remote chance, when someone uses the word "possibly" someone else will come along, accept it as fact, and drop the word possibly. I've seen it happen too many times.
I have yet to find one person who has any "source" for Nicholas GREENBERRRY's wife Ann being a DORSEY other than ultimately back to the listing on the Ancestral File. I have yet to see anyone give any reasons for why they believe that Ann could be a DORSEY. The Ancestral File (particularly in regard to pre-1700 Anne Arundel County names) is filled with information from "genealogical collectors." (people who collect names, and try to descend from as many (preferably prominent) lines as they can, with no evidence for the connections.)
The only way to attempt to put an end to all this misinformation is to use words like "impossible." If someone has any reasons based on original records of why they think she could have "possibly" been a DORSEY, then I would be glad to use a less strong word than "impossible."
On the other hand, the use of the word "possibly" implies there is some reason based on the records to indicate DORSEY could be her surname. If there are no reasons for saying she was "possibly" DORSEY other than because of the Ancestral File listing, then it would make as much sense to take a surname dictionary and say she was "possibly" ADAMS, possibly "BROWN", possibly "CLARK", "possibly" DAVIS, "possibly" EVANS, and continue on through a 100,000 different surnames.
Can anyone supply evidence to show why it could be thought Ann could "possibly" be a DORSEY? If there is no evidence, then I think the word "possibly" is too strong a word to use in saying she was "possibly" DORSEY.
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|