I go by basic FAG rules. I don't make my own rules. Its your heritage not mine, so I naturally assume its factual. On editing my family I will fact check and either confirm I made a mistake or you have. In that case please communicate with e-mail. I will send my facts, which you can't do on FAG message. I'm not so convicted that I'm always right.
I enjoy communicating on all subjects concerning my relatives.
Families I'm interested are Dublar, Dubler, Huddleston ( and its variations), Clark(e), Harrell (and its variations), Greathouse (and its variations), Hyland, and Arnold (I'm from the Arnolds from Virginia, I own the book which includes the Arnels from North Carolina) I follow the male line. On the females I just go as far a the husband(s). One has to set limits or or trees would be unmanageable. So keep the night light on and do the research and remember these family programs don't do the thinking for you, when facts come up they are based on probability not actuality.

I go by basic FAG rules. I don't make my own rules. Its your heritage not mine, so I naturally assume its factual. On editing my family I will fact check and either confirm I made a mistake or you have. In that case please communicate with e-mail. I will send my facts, which you can't do on FAG message. I'm not so convicted that I'm always right.
I enjoy communicating on all subjects concerning my relatives.
Families I'm interested are Dublar, Dubler, Huddleston ( and its variations), Clark(e), Harrell (and its variations), Greathouse (and its variations), Hyland, and Arnold (I'm from the Arnolds from Virginia, I own the book which includes the Arnels from North Carolina) I follow the male line. On the females I just go as far a the husband(s). One has to set limits or or trees would be unmanageable. So keep the night light on and do the research and remember these family programs don't do the thinking for you, when facts come up they are based on probability not actuality.