Hi there,
One of the hassles with online forums is that we don't get to see or hear each other, and we only get to read each other's comments. So, sometimes we mis-understand each other's comments, replies, and miss the flow of the conversations, particularly when there's several of us trying to help the person with the quest.
Perhaps I am old fashioned in my understanding of family history, but to me, the official records give the historical facts, and the family's oral history reveals how those historical facts support that oral history, rather than vice versa. To me, oral history has it's place within family history, but the official records are the essential backbone to finding the limbs to then find the sources to support/confirm or leave in the 'pending' file or eliminate the 'factoids/oral history'.
As I am very NSW centric, and most of this particular extended family under discussion at present, was Victorian, I will consider not posting further on this thread.
I am not aware of anyone mocking our OP, but it saddens me that our OP seems to have formed that view. Perhaps each generation has a different way of seeking to validate information, and also of communicating across the generations. I am one of the Baby Boomer generation, and my interest in family history is a lifelong interest, back decades before there were computerised BDM certificates, and then later, the internet, and then later, commercial websites seemingly claiming to be the source of all family history records (and even apparently claiming that indexes were 'records').
Cheers, JM