Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Well, here is a new wrinkle. Someone, or some'thing' has unsubscribed my email
address from the NCGENWEB-L list:
32752 k4yaw(a)sccoast.net
k4yaw(a)sccoast.net
You have been removed from the list.
If this wasn't your intention or you are having problems getting yourself
unsubscribed, reply to this mail now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic
purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit).
Transcript of unsubscription request follows:
--
>From k4yaw(a)sccoast.net
>From: NCGENWEB-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
>Reply-To: k4yaw(a)sccoast.net
>To: NCGENWEB-L-request(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: unsubscribe k4yaw(a)sccoast.net
Anyone know what is going on with this?..and are others being unsubbed without
notice, request to be unsubbed?
Thanks, Robert
Hi folks.
Need a little help.
The three-day old problem with DISCUSS-L messages to Darleen bouncing is
still unresolved in spite of her changing her e-mail address and working
with AOL, her isp. RootsWeb to date has been unresponsive.
Was wondering if any of you had experienced similar problems with RootsWeb
lists that you administer, or if you have any suggestions on how to resolve
the problem for me or Darleen?
To recap the problem. Messages posted to the discuss list by Sandy were
blocked by Darleen. The discuss list "bounce" limit was reached and Sandy
was automatically unsubbed. Darleen changed her email address and then ALL
messages posted to the discuss list were blocked by Darleen. The problem
does not occur on the "read only" list.
Darleen's email is DRicci205(a)aol.com
Thanks y'all.
Regards,
Paul
Paul,
I wonder if the problems might relate to Darleen's
specific email client (i.e. email program) ?
For example, I am aware that some email clients
(Entourage, for example) have one or more
pre-configured "spam filters" which block/bounce email
from certain (and/ or certain "types") of senders as
found in headers.
Usually it's possible to customize and/or disable such
filters, but depending upon the configuration, quite
possibly that's easier said than done! ;-)
In any case, it might be worth asking what email
client she's using and for you or Darleen to contact
the email client's tech support (i.e., such as
Microsoft for Entourage).
-Sandy
--- Paul Buckley <PaulDBuckley(a)worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> Hi folks.
>
> Need a little help.
>
> The three-day old problem with DISCUSS-L messages to
> Darleen bouncing is
> still unresolved in spite of her changing her e-mail
> address and working
> with AOL, her isp.
<snip>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
Angie wrote,
>Same here -- I can do a lot of updating without ever changing anything on
>the main page. In order to put even an 'automatic' date stamp on the page,
>I would have to remember to upload a page with no changes, which to me is
>kind of a waste of time and computer resources. After all, even though one
>little page may not seem like it uses much bandwidth, if everyone with a
>page is doing it, that's an awful lot of little pages <g>.
>
These are good points. I don't especially like the automated date stamps
either, and I agree that they can be misleading. However, in looking at
all the county pages last week to determine which ones are being actively
maintained, these stamps at least helped me to establish a baseline date.
Very likely many of these sites have actually been updated more recently
yet, but the home page wasn't changed so the date counter didn't click
over.
Thus many of the pages that I listed as having 2001 or earlier "last
updates" probably have been revised much more recently than that, it's just
that the home page doesn't give any indication that this was done.
What seems to me more useful to the users of our sites is to put a "what's
new" section on the home page, or just a one-liner stating when the last
update was made, and what was done at that time. That way, a person who
checks a particular county page on a regular basis can immediately
ascertain whether there's any new material to look at.
Elizabeth Harris
NCGenWeb project: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/
Winston-Salem NC area genealogy: http://www.fmoran.com/ (note new address!)
Hi Holly & Sandy,
I use MS Front Page and often use themes and shared borders. If you put this
code in a shared border it will automatically appear on all of the pages.
Now, I am wondering if the time/date stamp would appear current or "updated"
on all of the pages if you just uploaded one single page that you happen to
be working on. I haven't tried it but it's worth a shot.
BTW, Glad to see you here Holly.
Kelly
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Holly Timm" <usgenweb(a)cox.net>
> To: <NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] Date Stamp Solution
>
>
> > At 02:50 PM 5/17/02 -0700, Sandy wrote:
> > >Holly and Ron,
> > >With this sort of stamp, will it automatically change
> > >(advance) itself when you update any page on your
> > >site? Or, for example, if you have it on your main
> > >page, does it only change if you re- upload that main
> > >page?
> > >(did that make sense?)
> >
> > Yes your question makes sense. It will only update if you change the
page
> > it is on but it is an easy code to paste on every page you have if you
> > like. It is very useful to put it on any page that is a table of
contents
> > to your site or sections of your site as these are the pages likely to
> > change. These are also the pages that anyone checking for signs of life
on
> > a site should be looking at to make any judgement as to absence or
> presence
> > of a CC.
> >
> > >For example, in the case of my site, my main page is a
> > >table of the links to the various topics and the pages
> > >associated with that topic. So my main page often
> > >doesn't necessarily change even though other pages in
> > >the site will. But will the main page's date stamp
> > >still update, or will I need to remember to ftp the
> > >main page every time in order to update the time
> > >stamp?
> >
> > I think it would suffice to put the code on each of the secondary level
of
> > pages. At the start, most sites have a main entry/index page linming to
> > what is on the site. As the site grows some just keep making that page
> > bigger and bigger sometimes so big it loads slowly and sometimes not at
> all
> > for some people with older slower systems. Many sites though break their
> > sites up as you have into sub-levels by topic or category. In fact,
> looking
> > at your site, the Online Data page has grown to where it almost time to
> > move the cemteries and/or census to their own sub pages <grin>. Myself,
I
> > put the date code on nearly every page on my site but I would strongly
> > recommend at least putting it on the main page and any "table of
contents"
> > type sub pages.
> >
> > >Also, my server has cgi scripting (?)....i.e., I have
> > >a "cgi bin" - is this what I would need to use the
> > >code you're showing us? And if so, can you tell me
> > >(and anyone else who wants or needs to know) how to do
> > >this? I know I have the ability to use cgi scripting,
> > >but I've never attempted it.
> >
> > cgi scripting is another animal... most often used for mail merge type
> > programs that for example will post onto a page input from visitors ...
> > most isps/servers have a basic set of cgi programs available to their
> > users. The code we are talking about is SSI and CGI is not needed for
SSI.
> > Two different animals <grin>
> >
> > And now that I am on the subject, I am the leader of the
> > Publicity/Promotion Committees Help Pages Team. This team has formed to
> > create pages to help CC's in all aspects of managing and creating their
> > sites. I would really like some input on what kind of pages/topics you
> > would find useful both now or, thinking back, when you first started. To
> > help kick off your thinking process on it, here is the description of
page
> > types from the Pub/Promo report: "These will include technical tips on
> > html, ftp, and graphics; help with design, navigation and accessibility;
> > page design and where to find resources".
> >
> > Obviously from the present discussion, a page on the last updated SSI
> code,
> > how to use it, how to configure it, etc would be useful. What other sort
> of
> > specific tutorial type pages would you like to see? What other pages of
> > ideas or how-to's would you find useful?
> >
> > Holly
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Hi All,
As a help, may I suggest the following, for changing
the date on your sight every time you do any sort of update.
Please pardon the repeat if this has already been offered.
This particular piece of code will work with both the
Rootsweb servers and the USGenNet servers.
Just place the code below anywhere on your page that you
want the updated stamp to be and whenever you upload
for revision, it will automatically show the exact date and time
you did it. So you never have to touch it.
<CENTER><EM>Last Updated: <!--#echo var="LAST_MODIFIED"--></EM></CENTER>
This code will show the stamp as follows.
Last Updated: Wednesday, 15-May-2002 19:33:35 MDT
Example from each server:
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mi/state1/http://www.rootsweb.com/~gaheard/
The time is reflected from the actual time at the server, not at
your pc.
NOTE:
The update only works if you are using FTP or other program to
download your pages to your pc. If you happen to copy and paste
the page from the web, you will lose the code. If you download the
page from the web to your pc, the code will be preserved.
Good Luck,
Ron
Holly and Ron,
With this sort of stamp, will it automatically change
(advance) itself when you update any page on your
site? Or, for example, if you have it on your main
page, does it only change if you re- upload that main
page?
(did that make sense?)
For example, in the case of my site, my main page is a
table of the links to the various topics and the pages
associated with that topic. So my main page often
doesn't necessarily change even though other pages in
the site will. But will the main page's date stamp
still update, or will I need to remember to ftp the
main page every time in order to update the time
stamp?
Also, my server has cgi scripting (?)....i.e., I have
a "cgi bin" - is this what I would need to use the
code you're showing us? And if so, can you tell me
(and anyone else who wants or needs to know) how to do
this? I know I have the ability to use cgi scripting,
but I've never attempted it.
Thanks,
Sandy
--- Holly Timm <usgenweb(a)cox.net> wrote:
> At 04:43 PM 5/17/02 -0400, Ron Eason wrote:
> >This particular piece of code will work with both
> the
> >Rootsweb servers and the USGenNet servers.
>
> It will work with any server that allows ssi calls
> (ssi=Server Side
> Includes). You can ask your isp/server where your
> pages are if they permit
> it or check out their help pages if they have any.
>
> >Just place the code below anywhere on your page
> that you
> >want the updated stamp to be and whenever you
> upload
> >for revision, it will automatically show the exact
> date and time
> >you did it. So you never have to touch it.
> >
> ><CENTER><EM>Last Updated: <!--#echo
> var="LAST_MODIFIED"--></EM></CENTER>
> >
> >This code will show the stamp as follows.
> >
> > Last Updated: Wednesday, 15-May-2002 19:33:35
> MDT
>
> Mine reads a bit differently:
> <CENTER><I>last edited <!--#config timefmt="%d %b
> %Y"--><!--#echo
> var="LAST_MODIFIED"--></I></CENTER>
> The <!--#config timefmt="%d %b %Y"--> part changes
> the "stamp" to read:
> last edited 15 May 2002
> eliminating the unneccessary and less attractive
> hour/minute/second part of
> the statement
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
I just want to say that I think it's "a good thing"
that we're taking a roll call and checking in to be
sure our counties are "manned" (or "womaned" <g>) as
the case may be.
Certainly we don't want to overlook a situation where
a cc has just quietly left the project for whatever
reason, yet left their website up there with no one
actually answering researchers' questions or updating
the site at all.
But I think it's worth remembering that time date
stamps aren't always indicative that a county has been
"abandoned." A lot of folks have devised a kind of
template for themselves, or have a main page that
remains pretty constant while pages within the site
are updated as need be.
Not everyone has a little statement saying "this site
was last updated on ____". Maybe we should, but I know
I do not, mostly because when I had one, I found I
often forgot to change it every time I updated my
site. I don't know if I'll go back to putting one up
there or not.
Regardless, we have a process going on right now to
ascertain if any counties ARE actually either
abandoned or otherwise available. That's a good thing.
I know of no reason to think the process is not
proceeding and that we'll all know soon what the
results are.
Sharon no doubt knows if researchers have been
complaining about no response from certain counties -
which is probably the surest sign that something is
amiss.
May is a busy time for many people......exams, end of
school, graduations, weddings, and travel.
I'd hate to see what began as a needed "touch-base"
with all cc's to turn into a scenario where some of
our volunteers' counties are taken from them either
prematurely or without good cause, OR where others who
had previously expressed interest in volunteering if a
particular county came open, were just forgotten.
And I think it's important to remember that just
because someone else's website isn't as good as
perhaps one of more of us thinks it could or should
be, does not necessarily mean it's not "good enough"
or that it should be taken from the current cc.
I would hope that we would not merely be relying upon
a roll call, but that in cases where the roll call
didn't receive a response, that every reasonable
effort was made to contact the cc.....allowing ample
time for a response in the event the person is just
out of town, is having computer problems, etc.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I, for one, would like
some reassurance that NO NCGenWeb "official" is
privately telling anyone that specific counties are
currently "up for adoption."
I think the appropriate thing at this point is to
complete the process we're currently undergoing and
then to have an announcement via NCGenWeb-L reporting
to ALL of us the current status of our project's
counties.
-Sandy
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
Charlie,
Just curious as to where you would get that
understanding?
It was my understanding that a roll call is underway
regarding various county sites and I wasn't aware that
process had been completed....?
(possibly I missed a more recent announcement?)
Once that process is complete, I would assume the SC
would then go through her list of folks who have
contacted her during the past two years asking to
volunteer for counties they were interested in - if
and when they came open - to see if any of those folks
were still interested.
Or at least, that's how I thought this was done in the
past. I could be wrong.
-Sandy
--- Charlie and Janet <ryangb(a)nvbell.net> wrote:
> It is my understanding that Guilford County is
> available for adoption. If
> that is not correct, my apologies.
> If it is available, I'm formally requesting that I
> be the County Coordinator
> for that county.
> Charles Barnum
>
> ********
> I noticed one county page used the term Host--which
> I assumed was the County
> Coordinator, and also the word Coordinator(not
> County Coordinator or
> Co-coordinator). Shouldn't we use "County
> Coordinator" and "Co-Coordinator",
> or if a county has a co-coordinators, then use the
> word "Co-Coordiantor" for
> each person instead of County Coordinator and
> Co-Coordinator?
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
At 03:18 PM 5/16/2002 -0400, Derick S. Hartshorn wrote:
>If apologies are due to Charles or anyone else for doubting their
>loyalties, you need to consider the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
My hope is that Derick didn't intend for his questions to sound like an
interrogation, or like an accusation. But at the same time, the situation
aroused my curiosity a little bit as well. After all, it's not every day
that someone introduces themselves on the list, says that they hope to
become a CC for one of our counties, and throws in the possibility of being
SC as well. It was a little more confusing that the hopeful-CC turns out
to be listed as CC for a county already. Given some of the unfortunate
situations that have occurred in the past, a little skepticism is kind of
understandable.
>I was concerned back then and continue to be suspicious of CCs
>"collecting" county pages. This rings especially true when other entities
>are openly displayed on the owner's home page. Please note that I have
>nothing bad to say about AHGP, USGenNet, or any of the other groups that
>provide a service. The fact that I have an uncomfortable feeling about
>divided (or counterfeit) loyalties is strictly my personal feeling which
>has since been reinforced by departing page owners who disrupt the
>organization that they originally swore loyalty to.
This is where I have a disagreement with Derick. Most of the CCs that I've
seen working on multiple counties, and/or in multiple projects, do so
because they are very passionate about the counties they've adopted, and
determined to put as much genealogical and historical information as
possible on line. USGW is the primary project I am involved with, and
always has been, but there *are* good things that can be said about others
as well. I don't think that it's a question of divided or counterfeit
loyalties to display more than one logo -- my goal is to put the
information on line for the visitor. I don't care *whose* main page
they've followed to get there, or which organization they give credit to.
In the years I've been associated with NCGW, most of the disruption hasn't
been because of CCs belonging to more than one volunteer online genealogy
project. We've had people that were so intent on their own vision of the
project that they ignored the consensus of the group to move ahead with
their ideas, and the heck with the rest of you (for instance, the whole
domain-name issue). There were several people that were unable or
unwilling to differentiate between the USGW Project and the services
provided for the project by Rootsweb, and there have been people who have
seen conspiracies behind every corner. The fact that some of these people
chose to become involved with, or remain with, other projects after leaving
NCGW was a side-effect, not the issue itself.
Whether we like it or not, there is always the chance of someone becoming
involved that doesn't want to 'play nice.' You can question people and
screen people 40 ways to Sunday, you can load down CCs with restrictions
and regulations about their activities, and you won't be able to change the
fact that someone may get in a snit and take down their page, leaving
nothing for the project. OK, it stinks, and it's wrong, but its
unavoidable in a volunteer project of this sort. On the other hand,
questioning and screening and lots of rules and regs can, and probably
will, make the CCs involved feel as though they're not trusted, or like
they have no real say or freedom to pursue their goals for their
pages. And that's likely to lead to CCs looking towards other projects, or
towards leaving this sort of volunteer work altogether -- and that's
entirely avoidable.
>There seems to be a strange mood in some genealogical communities and
>societies. I note a great deal of jealousy and childish behavior among
>some that seek power and attempt to edify themselves at the expense of
>others. I don't have any idea of why some folks seek to "collect" counties
>if they can't adequately maintain the few they have.
It's not just in genealogical communities and groups -- it's human
nature. There's simply no accounting for the way people behave. The only
thing to do is to simply deal with it and move on. It doesn't hurt to keep
in mind that 3 different people doing the exact same thing probably have 3
different reasons for doing it. That includes what's been referred to as
"collecting counties." For some people, maybe it *is* a matter of feeling
more important because they have more counties. If that makes 'em feel
good about themselves, well, so be it. I have more than one county in part
because my research has involved more than one county & I feel I have
something to contribute to more than one county. Regardless of the reason,
since we have more counties than there are volunteers willing to take them,
it hardly makes sense to me to set arbitrary limits on volunteers unless
there's something more concrete to go on than that some people don't
maintain their counties in the way that others might wish.
Angie
I totally agree with Sandy. Warren County is amazing and I view it as one of
those possible templates to use to perk up my own county not only in content,
but in intuitive arrangement for easy finding. The format and layout is
simple but impacting (I still code html by hand, can you believe my
antiquity?)
Wake Co is another awesome site which shows alot of work, thought, and care
of which I have carefully looked over as a template.
--D'Ann
Nash Co janitor (who needs to repent)
-------------
Subj: Re: [NCGENWEB-DISCUSS] A little praise
Date: 5/17/2002 6:08:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: <A HREF="mailto:teylu@yahoo.com">teylu(a)yahoo.com</A>
To: <A HREF="mailto:NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L@rootsweb.com">NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L(a)rootsweb.com</A>
Sent from the Internet (Details)
I like D'Ann's header, "A little praise."
I was thinking of this very thing yesterday and I'd
like to offer some praise to Nola Duffy and Ginger
Christmas-Beattie, the co-cc's for Warren County.
If you haven't visited the Warren County site, it's
worth doing so:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncwarren/
These two have concentrated on transcribing and
uploading data for Warren, notably deeds and censuses.
As cc for a county formed from part of Warren, I can't
even begin to tell you what a great resource the
Warren Co site is for me and all researchers of Vance
County. They have helped me immensely, not just in my
own research, but in assisting researchers who come to
me because their ancestors were in Vance. (nobody's
ancestors were in Vance for long.....Vance not having
existed prior to 1881 <g>). My job is basically to
move folks on through and out of there to someplace
else. ;-)
Anyway, I've not had the time (or inclination) to go
visit every single county site to "evaluate" which
sites might be better than others. It's not my job,
nor do I see much point. If I ran into a site in the
course of my own research that fell grossly below a
minimum threshhold of helping me, I suppose I'd drop a
note to the SC.
So I'm not singling out Warren County as necessarily
better than any other county site (although I do know
it's a lot better than my own! <g>) I'm just using
D'Ann's subject line to offer up a bit of praise for
two cc's who surely are doing a GREAT job!
So on behalf of my own personal research and the Vance
Co researchers who come to me, thank you both so much,
Nola and Ginger, for the wonderful Warren County site.
-Sandy
For what it's worth after giving some thought, I would
not support a plan to divide the state into regions
with elections for an SC and for individual assistant
coordinators.
For one thing, as a practical matter, we have enough
difficulty getting through one election for a state
coordinator, and I'm just not "up" for the hassle of
creating and executing additional elections for
assistant sc's. ;-)
That aside, I think it's better to leave "duty
divisions" to the SC, rather than dictating in advance
how the SC must divide various duties.
I don't think there's anything "magical" - or even
inherently "better" - about dividing duties by regions
than there is about dividing duties by "duty."
Depending upon time, interests and other factors, one
SC might feel more comfortable undertaking certain
duties him/her self, and one ASC might be more willing
or better suited or able to undertake certain duties
than others. Or, the SC may very well decide he/she
wants each of the assistants to take on a region. But
I think that's the choice of the SC.
This also addresses my feeling that it's best to
continue our system of enabling our State Coordinator
to select the assistants of his/her choice. It just
seems to me that the position of SC is plenty
time-consuming and demanding upon one individual, and
that he/she surely ought to be able to choose
assistants that he/she feels are competent and
dependable, and that he/she feels comfortable working
with.
I think there's just too much unnecessary "risk," (for
lack of a better word) of electing individual ASCs and
SCs who might not "click," or work well together....
and that such a scenario would not well serve any of
us OR the "general public" (i.e. researchers).
There's also something to be said for having one
person with whom "the buck stops here." That person is
the SC. If the SC has assigned certain duties (or a
region) to an assistant, and the assistant isn't
getting the job done, the buck still stops with the
SC, and it's the SC who is held accountable for seeing
that the job gets done.....including replacing that
assistant, if the SC feels necessary.
The "remedy" for an SC that does not see that "the job
gets done" (for whatever reason) is the next election.
I don't see any particular "advantage" in having ASCs
in place for whom the "remedy" would likewise be their
next election.
For all of these reasons, I just couldn't support a
proposal to divide up the state by regions.
-Sandy
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
D'Ann & list,
No one is disputing that Upper management should make suggestions and
inquiries to fix things on pages that don't follow the bylaws
guidelines or recommend things that might help your researchers. That
is great and welcomed by all!
The complaint was that a new CC can come on board and be investigated
into their private lives and accused of all kinds of things. New CC's
should be welcomed in and given all kinds of help, not beat down and
interrogated. New CC's can bring light and new suggestions to things
that we don't see anymore for whatever reason. They can be truly a
breath of fresh air! They can bring in new ideas that we hadn't
thought of. They are a good resource that can help our project. Even
if their suggestions have already been tried before, their energy and
excitement can spread to others!
The abandonment of counties "can be" for the very reasons you say, but
our state seems to have more than any other state I have visited. If
upper management sets an environment that rejects new CC's,
interrogates and berates them, then how do you think that will affect
the abandonment of counties?
Terria
DAnnAStoddard(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> To respond to the piece below, it seems reasonable to assume that people
> actually "abandon" their counties simply because they have complicated and
> busy lives, or get distracted in some way for probably good reasons. Right?
>
> I actually enjoy the suggestions and recommendations from those in charge
> through the years. There are times when I need to get my act together and be
> a little more responsible.I need to get a date on my page (which I don't have
> but appreciate the suggestion I read this very week), and fix a few things I
> have been procrastinating, etc.
>
> Upper management making suggestions and inquiries is extremely normal,
> reasonable, and important to the flow of any organization, including this
> one.
>
> --D'Ann
> --------------------------------------------
> >>Leah & list,
> A loyalty oath wouldn't be enough, some people just want blood! It is
> a shame that new CC's in this project are treated this way! No wonder
> we have so many counties abandoned or vacant!
> Terria
> <<
To respond to the piece below, it seems reasonable to assume that people
actually "abandon" their counties simply because they have complicated and
busy lives, or get distracted in some way for probably good reasons. Right?
I actually enjoy the suggestions and recommendations from those in charge
through the years. There are times when I need to get my act together and be
a little more responsible.I need to get a date on my page (which I don't have
but appreciate the suggestion I read this very week), and fix a few things I
have been procrastinating, etc.
Upper management making suggestions and inquiries is extremely normal,
reasonable, and important to the flow of any organization, including this
one.
--D'Ann
--------------------------------------------
>>Leah & list,
A loyalty oath wouldn't be enough, some people just want blood! It is
a shame that new CC's in this project are treated this way! No wonder
we have so many counties abandoned or vacant!
Terria
<<
Derick,
I think a persons private life is just that....private. No ifs, ands
or buts about it! There is no way you can know what a cc is going to
do! Face that fact and get on about the business of the state. You
can scrutinize people all you want, but you won't know how they will
react in any particular situation. In other words, it isn't your
place to even question loyalties. First of all it is the CC of the
counties first choice who they want to Co-CC with them or who they
want to give their county to. You have to trust that the CC cares
enough about the county not to give it to someone who will mistreat it
or the project.
What has happened to the trust in NCGenWeb? We have none, especially
when we accuse and attack new CC's.
Even in disagreements, I don't doubt for a minute that you or anyone
else in this project cares for the county/counties they have. We need
to stop being so critical on the good CC's of this project and accept
that we all may have differences.
And as far as servers go, we are entitled to choose whatever server we
want to place our pages on. That should never bring up a loyalty
question just because we don't use a preferred server.
Also, more than anything else, we need to be fair to one and all.
Accusations, attacks, free speech. It should all be the same. In
other words, some of the things that were said about me on this list
shouldn't have been treated any differently than what was said to you.
Did the person that said false things about me get reprimanded or
unsubbed? No....that is the point....it is not fair. Think about it
and you will see that certain ones are treated differently than
others.
Fair is fair.....same is same.....we should all feel like we are a
part of a wonderful project and not feel like we aren't wanted because
we disagree on certain points. We might see a big difference in this
state if these things are done! At least it would sure help the
morale here.....which in my opinion is at rock bottom.
Give new cc's an opportunity to grow and give.....don't slap them down
at the onset!
Trust is what we need more of....not distrust.
Terria
PS...yes, you may have CC's that run off and leave their sites
abandoned or stip them of the pages....they are hurting the
researchers. There really isn't much you can do to stop that from
happening, no matter how you investigate or screen them. All you can
do in that case, is try and find a replacement that you think will do
well. It is all a gamble, no matter how much info you have on
them....they could still do it!
"Derick S. Hartshorn" wrote:
>
> Terria and list,
>
> If apologies are due to Charles or anyone else for doubting their
> loyalties, you need to consider the circumstances in which we find
> ourselves. The DISCUSS list has not had any traffic for much of the last
> two years. While we are trying to prepare for the election and attempting
> to discover who's who, we find Charles Barnham's name as CC listed on the
> Montgomery Co. site, along with Diane as Co-CC. We had never heard of
> Charles in the NCGW and then he states he would like to adopt half a dozen
> counties and/or run for SC. His answers to questions pertaining to other
> genealogical entities seemed somewhat cloudy. We had to do a search to
> determine that he was the SC for NM on the CPROOTS system, an entity I had
> not heard of before. Then, when we look at the Montgomery page, we discover
> that while hosted by RW, USGenNet gets the credit for hosting the site. If
> nothing else, this is bound to raise suspicions. We have debated the
> question of divided loyalties before and nobody can fault us for being
> cautious. Charles makes a compelling case for "genealogy is genealogy," in
> so many words. The fact that we have experienced dissidents "taking their
> ball and going home" is something we have to be prepared for. The Military
> page is missing the War of 1812 because of dissension and, after two years,
> we still need someone to reconstruct it. The same page owner had three
> other Counties in NCGW. When the individual, when asked about the other
> entities he was "co-sponsoring" and confronted with the charge that he was
> asking for donations for his site, became belligerent. I was called a
> string of profanities in a personal e-mail before he left.
>
> I worked for GE for 25 years. As a technical writer and electro-mechanical
> engineer, my creations remained with my employer after I retired. When I
> retire from NCGW, all the 2000+ pages that I have created and the material
> I have collected will remain the property of the NCGW. I'm not asking
> anyone else to make that pledge but I feel more comfortable knowing that
> the hard work I have expended will not wind up in a filing cabinet, useless
> for someone seeking it.
>
> I was concerned back then and continue to be suspicious of CCs "collecting"
> county pages. This rings especially true when other entities are openly
> displayed on the owner's home page. Please note that I have nothing bad to
> say about AHGP, USGenNet, or any of the other groups that provide a
> service. The fact that I have an uncomfortable feeling about divided (or
> counterfeit) loyalties is strictly my personal feeling which has since been
> reinforced by departing page owners who disrupt the organization that they
> originally swore loyalty to.
>
> As for the BS about "free speech," that is really a red-herring. Nobody is
> going to stifle free speech because of what is said. Some folks have tested
> the limits of what constitutes civility. I am opposed to providing a
> sounding board for accusations, lies, inflammatory speech and bitter
> epithets. There is no need to remind anyone how to act civil. We were
> taught that in Kindergarten--it just didn't seem to take with some
> folks. If the cause is just and a majority of the eligible voters agree
> with a candidate's position, that person should be elected and all others
> should accept the reality as the will of the people. If your choice of
> candidate fails to win election then it is your duty to either go along
> with the sucessful candidate or move on. I don't know any other way to put it.
>
> Since Charles initially failed to provide details on his background,
> several of us were curious, especially in light of the timing, so close to
> election. I certainly have no ax to grind but, having Catawba Co page
> BEFORE the advent of the NCGW, I have seen a great deal transpire. There
> seems to be a strange mood in some genealogical communities and societies.
> I note a great deal of jealousy and childish behavior among some that seek
> power and attempt to edify themselves at the expense of others. I don't
> have any idea of why some folks seek to "collect" counties if they can't
> adequately maintain the few they have. If this doesn't concern you then I
> don't have anything further to provide. Just these "silly questions."
>
> --Derick
>
> At 01:29 PM 5/16/02, Terria W. Baynor wrote:
> >Leah & list,
> >A loyalty oath wouldn't be enough, some people just want blood! It is
> >a shame that new CC's in this project are treated this way! No wonder
> >we have so many counties abandoned or vacant!
> >Terria
> >
> >
> >Leah Sims wrote:
> > >
> > > Derick,
> > > Charlie just joined our project and so far has received nothing but
> > > unpleasant messages for asking questions. Now you are suggesting that his
> > > involvement is part of a plot. Are accusations going to be the
> > > future initiation of all new CCs? I am not sure why you think Charlie's
> > > other online activities are relevant. All that matters is his activities
> > > in NC.
> > > Of course CCs, such as yourself, could keep asking these silly
> > > questions, seeing conspiracies around every corner. We could adopt a motto
> > > for NC "Free speech is bad, McCarthyism is good" and force everyone to
> > > take NCGenWeb loyality oaths.
> > >
> > > Leah
> > > lcsims(a)eskimo.com
> > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Derick S. Hartshorn wrote:
> > > Two plus years is enough time to listen to dissension. The silent majority
> > > need to make their votes known when the election takes place. Perhaps this
> > > a good time to say this: Vote for whom you believe will do the best job. I
> > > don't have a clue as to who the candidates will be but you know what the
> > > direction you want this Project to proceed. If you, as a democratic group,
> > > want to cave into the fictious argument of "free speech" and want to
> > > continue to bog down in senseless division, then perhaps my message will
> > > ring hollow in your ears.
> > > >
> > > > 3. How long have you had an interest in the NCGW Project--and
> > for what
> > > > reason did you suddenly appear on the scene--and at whose beckoning?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Derick S. Hartshorn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Derick S. Hartshorn
> > > > CC Catawba/Burke, ASC NCGW
> > > >
> > > >
Leah & list,
A loyalty oath wouldn't be enough, some people just want blood! It is
a shame that new CC's in this project are treated this way! No wonder
we have so many counties abandoned or vacant!
Terria
Leah Sims wrote:
>
> Derick,
> Charlie just joined our project and so far has received nothing but
> unpleasant messages for asking questions. Now you are suggesting that his
> involvement is part of a plot. Are accusations going to be the
> future initiation of all new CCs? I am not sure why you think Charlie's
> other online activities are relevant. All that matters is his activities
> in NC.
> Of course CCs, such as yourself, could keep asking these silly
> questions, seeing conspiracies around every corner. We could adopt a motto
> for NC "Free speech is bad, McCarthyism is good" and force everyone to
> take NCGenWeb loyality oaths.
>
> Leah
> lcsims(a)eskimo.com
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Derick S. Hartshorn wrote:
> Two plus years is enough time to listen to dissension. The silent majority
> need to make their votes known when the election takes place. Perhaps this
> a good time to say this: Vote for whom you believe will do the best job. I
> don't have a clue as to who the candidates will be but you know what the
> direction you want this Project to proceed. If you, as a democratic group,
> want to cave into the fictious argument of "free speech" and want to
> continue to bog down in senseless division, then perhaps my message will
> ring hollow in your ears.
> >
> > 3. How long have you had an interest in the NCGW Project--and for what
> > reason did you suddenly appear on the scene--and at whose beckoning?
> >
> >
> > Derick S. Hartshorn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Derick S. Hartshorn
> > CC Catawba/Burke, ASC NCGW
> >
> >