Eastman's Newsletter predicts that within six months, Disney and/or other
Big Media, will, having noted the enormous number of daily hit the LDS
site has been receiving, move into the genealogy field. Some comment they
are happy because it will be bring improvement. Others will continue in
the commercial-free area.
In addition, the establishment of Clusters for the Rootsweb Lists and
their variants and not-variants is progressing but is a tremendous amount
of work and all the questions cannot be answered now and some questions
have not event been thought of.
What I am saying is -- changes are coming -- fast, but I am confident
friendly lists for people of good will be better and better and continue
to support the free exchange of genealogical information on the net.
Off the soapbox--
Hope you had a good weekend.
Regards,
Patricia
On Sat, 29 May 1999, Patricia Tidmarsh wrote:
Sir--
I disagree profoundly with two of your basic arguments.
1. - Historical material should not be posted unless it is
absolutely correct.
2. - The definition of personal privacy and copyrights.
You have a perfect and proper right to have a differing opinions, to state
them and to defend them, as you have for the past year and
specifically within the past week.
Most sincerely,
Patricia Carman Tidmarsh
On Sat, 29 May 1999, Dan Carman wrote:
> Ms. Tidmarsh,
>
> The following is a snap shot of four lists and by no means
> all. This snap shot doesn't take into account all archiving methods
> therefore a few posts might be absent. A definate pattern is clear that
> by genealogy list standards; They are not flourishing. This leads most to
> ask the question how do I improve the product. To start with, banning
> is a last resort, censoring/editing is not a good thing to most, duplicating
> what is publicly available is a waste of mail space and a constructive
> dialogue is nice. On the score of old messages, you should be aware that
> most Carman internet denizens opposed such a project for valid reasons.
>
> Since you had to use this statement, I think it illustrates the concern of
> many:
>
> "These dates are for historical information only. Information may have
> been found since 1992 which contempory compilers consider more accurate."
> Patricia Tidmarsh 17 May 1999
>
>
> The Point! If the information is suspect, why post it!
>
> Daniel P. Carman
>
>
> Month of May Report
>
> Braden List - 9 messages
>
> 2 messages had undentified subjects (one from you at echonyc
> the other from your
> listster(a)yahoo.com)
>
> 1 message from listster(a)yahoo.com
> 1 message from patriciact(a)yahoo.com
> 2 messages from patriciat(a)erols.com
> 2 messages from patricia(a)echonyc.com
>
> and 1 message from an actual list subscriber directly to the
> list!!
>
>
> QUIGGLE-L
>
> 1 unidentifed subject from you at patriciat(a)erols.com
> (same msg as the Braden List)
> 1 unidentified subject from you at listster(a)yahoo.com
> (same msg as the Braden List)
>
> 1 message from listster(a)yahoo.com
> (same msg as the Braden List)
>
> 1 message from patriciat(a)erols.com
> (same msg as the Braden List)
> 1 message from patriciact(a)yahoo.com
> (same msg as the Braden List)
>
> No messages from List Subscribers
>
> Carman-Roots-l
>
> 1 unidentified msg from patriciat(a)erols.com
> (same msg as previous two lists)
>
> 3 messages from patricia(a)echonyc.com
>
> 3 messages from patricia(a)echonyc.com (edited messages from other
> people from older lists with any contact
> information removed)
> 1 message from patriciact(a)yahoo.com
> (same msg as previous two lists)
>
> 1 message from patricia(a)echonyc.com
> (same msg as previous two lists)
>
> 1 message from patricia(a)echonyc.com (msg fwd from another list)
>
>
> No messages from List Subscribers
>
>
> Carman-L
>
> 7 messages from patricia(a)echonyc.com (messages from older lists,
> The material has been edited and identification of who
> actually cited some of this material has been removed by
> the poster, thus negating the value of the information)
>
>
> NO messages from List subscribers.
>