Comments on: The Hunt for Michelle Obama’s Roots http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2012/05/07/the-hunt-for-michelle-obamas-roots/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-hunt-for-michelle-obamas-roots The official blog of Ancestry.com Wed, 22 May 2013 16:27:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: BobNY http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2012/05/07/the-hunt-for-michelle-obamas-roots/#comment-55398 BobNY Wed, 16 May 2012 14:14:37 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=7517#comment-55398 One of the postings has mysteriously returned. But, when you first go to this blog entry it indicates "2 comments" when there are actually 3. It will be interesting to see if after I post this it will indicate 3 comments or 4 comments. One of the postings has mysteriously returned. But, when you first go to this blog entry it indicates “2 comments” when there are actually 3.

It will be interesting to see if after I post this it will indicate 3 comments or 4 comments.

]]> By: BobNY http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2012/05/07/the-hunt-for-michelle-obamas-roots/#comment-55396 BobNY Wed, 16 May 2012 14:01:21 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=7517#comment-55396 YOU HAVE NOW DELETED THIS MESSAGE THREE TIMES AND ALSO SOMEONE ELSE'S ORIGINAL POST ON THIS TOPIC. WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR PROBLEM? Why not just admit your error, fix the bad grammar and move on. ========================================== Okay, so now you have proofread and edited this piece after the errors were pointed out in a previous comment (which you have deleted). Still we find, "There is nothing quite like the thrill of pouring through stacks of records . . ." REALLY? really? Wouldn't that leave the records rather wet and soggy? Should we blame a NY Times reporter, the social media maven who insists on posting these cross-promotional, self-serving, third-party pieces, or maybe some anonymous third-world transcriber who was bleary-eyed from reading 1940 population schedules for not knowing the difference between "pouring" and poring?" YOU HAVE NOW DELETED THIS MESSAGE THREE TIMES AND ALSO SOMEONE ELSE’S ORIGINAL POST ON THIS TOPIC. WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Why not just admit your error, fix the bad grammar and move on.
==========================================
Okay, so now you have proofread and edited this piece after the errors were pointed out in a previous comment (which you have deleted).

Still we find, “There is nothing quite like the thrill of pouring through stacks of records . . .”

REALLY? really? Wouldn’t that leave the records rather wet and soggy?

Should we blame a NY Times reporter, the social media maven who insists on posting these cross-promotional, self-serving, third-party pieces, or maybe some anonymous third-world transcriber who was bleary-eyed from reading 1940 population schedules for not knowing the difference between “pouring” and poring?”

]]> By: Nancy Yancey http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2012/05/07/the-hunt-for-michelle-obamas-roots/#comment-55385 Nancy Yancey Tue, 15 May 2012 16:21:41 +0000 http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/?p=7517#comment-55385 I never win anything, but hey, you never know. This would be so cool. I appreciate the tremendous work you must have gone to in doing this project, and one way or another I want the book, signed please:) Also, am hoping one comes out on Mr. Obama? Now that would be an insurmountable undertaking, but one that would take your success to a height you never dreamed it could go. The number one thing wondered about today in modern world times is his lineage. Wow, you should go for it! Thanks, Nancy I never win anything, but hey, you never know. This would be so cool. I appreciate the tremendous work you must have gone to in doing this project, and one way or another I want the book, signed please:)
Also, am hoping one comes out on Mr. Obama? Now that would be an insurmountable undertaking, but one that would take your success to a height you never dreamed it could go. The number one thing wondered about today in modern world times is his lineage. Wow, you should go for it! Thanks, Nancy

]]>