~
For a supposedly intelligent person, your “response” sure shows extremely little imagination. In your years teaching, I wonder what you thought or would have thought if every time you asked your students questions they responded with that utterly illogical quip, “How could we know that?”. The wording of my question doesn’t even surmise that you would, could or should know everyone in order to know an answer.
The way that someone might know that is if it’s been discussed, recorded, researched, etc. That way, if others have read about it or were part of the information-gathering process, theoretically, they would be in a position to know a sensible answer.
Does that answer your question?
That is not what I meant, so that’s why I didn’t write it that way.
I know, right? Even after I detailed it in my example to you above.
“The way that someone might know that is if it’s been discussed, recorded, researched, etc. That way, if others have read about it or were part of the information-gathering process, theoretically, they would be in a position to know a sensible answer.”
~
Sorry about that, it was not intentional. Immediately after I posted, I was doing a rewrite of my post and chose to delete what it had originally written, I did not realize that you had replied to it in the interim. I never saw your post.
That’s most likely the reason I deleted and started all over again. I do that a lot.
~
Thank you, but I didn’t intend either for anyone to have knowledge of all people everywhere, or to limit responses to just the first-hand experiences of people on this website. As your answer shows, a book you cited gives an example of ancestry that goes beyond your own personal experience and beyond the limits of members here. Had I meant to limit the field of potential answers to those confines, your suggestion would be appropriately applied, though.
~
Element 99 