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
Mary Ann, would you like me to take on the hosting duties for you?
I'm generally on irc around that time anyway
Holly Timm
aka MaMaT
At 04:18 PM 7/24/99 -0400, MHet703234(a)aol.com wrote:
>Hello all, I am writing you to let you know that. I have decided for various
>reasons, to discontinue hosting the Ohio CC chats.
>I enjoyed hosting them for all of you, and will miss getting to know you
>better.
>Thanks for your time.
>Mary Ann Hetrick
>Trumbull, Mahoning, and Summit Counties
>
>
>==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>
>This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb project
>by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
>OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
>Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
>Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State Coordinator
In a message dated 7/24/99 4:42:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hollyft(a)bright.net writes:
<< Mary Ann, would you like me to take on the hosting duties for you?
I'm generally on irc around that time anyway
Holly Timm
aka MaMaT
>>
Sure Holly I would love for you to do it. You can get in contact with Allen
and let him know if you want. That would allow the other CCs to be able to
still have the chats.
Thanks so much Holly.
I just don't like the holy inquisition that Allen put me through.
Big Hug
Mary Ann
Hello all, I am writing you to let you know that. I have decided for various
reasons, to discontinue hosting the Ohio CC chats.
I enjoyed hosting them for all of you, and will miss getting to know you
better.
Thanks for your time.
Mary Ann Hetrick
Trumbull, Mahoning, and Summit Counties
----- Original Message -----
From: Bennie J McRae Jr. <lwf(a)coax.net>
To: <harrisrl1(a)juno.com>
Cc: <grammy430(a)juno.com>; <ladyd(a)dnaco.net>; <RAKIS(a)ODHS.STATE.OH.US>;
<KZKF91A(a)prodigy.com>; <bjgray(a)eurekanet.com>; <ALTHOMAS1(a)prodigy.net>;
<daytonian(a)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 5:53 PM
Subject: AFRICAN AMERICAN GENEALOGICAL GROUP OF THE MIAMI VALLEY
> Information on the first meeting of the African American Genealogical
Group
> of the Miami Valley posted at:
>
> http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/aagmv.htm
>
> Please pass on to others who may be interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bennie
Hello everyone, I would like to apologize to all who showed up for the chat.
I was unexpectedly kidnaped by my husband for a family day out. I would like
to express my appreciation for all who did show up.
I was unable to even get a note off to let you know about the situation. I
would also like to say thank you to Linda from the archives for showing up to
talk to us.
If any of the CCs who showed up were able to make a log of the chat, I will
post it for you.
Thanks and I hope to be there next week. ;)
Mary Ann
Hello All!
I have been very busy the last two weeks and would like to take a minute to
say thanks for all the great chats you (the Ohio CC's) have participated in.
I am trying to think of some new topics for our future chats and would love
to hear what you want to talk about.
Our topic for tomorrow is: What's New in the Special Projects? It will be
at 9:00 PM on irc.rootsweb, in #OHIO,
If you are new to the list and don't know about the chats you can visit the
chat page at:
<A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohmahoni/chat/index.htm">Mahoning County
OHGenWeb Chat sessions
</A>
This has information on where to download and how to set up for the chat. It
also lists future chat topics, and has copies of the past chat sessions for
you to see what it is like.
if you need more help or would like to suggest a topic please drop me a line
at:
<a href="MHet703234(a)aol.com">MHet703234(a)aol.com</a>
Thanks for your time.
hope to see you in the chat!
Mary Ann Hetrick
Trumbull, Mahoning & Summit Counties
FYI
Peace, Judy
----- Original Message -----
From: jpowelljr <jpowelljr(a)worldnet.att.net>
To: <STATE-COORD-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 1999 3:14 PM
Subject: [STATE-COORD-L] Voting Software ETC.
>Hi Fellow Volunteers... Please forward this URL to your
>State Lists.
>http://www.rootsweb.com/~mogenweb/election/state.htm
>Beneath the listing of ballots on this site there is a
>rundown of the way the software works and the human
>interaction with it. If anyone has any questions or
>comments, please use the elections(a)usgenweb.org address. We
>welcome your constructive input.
>
>Thanks,
>Jim
>for
>Debbie
>Jerimiah
>Ellen
>Betsy
>Yvonne
>Tim
>Richard
>
>
Nancy, I don't have a bad opinion of the FHC. I use them too. I was just
commenting on your
>> >> LDS gets their info voluntarily from the submitters and
>> >>I've never heard them say, "Hey, you GAVE it to me. It's mine now."
>> >>Any thoughts, anyone?
Carol
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark & Nancy Dickinson <mooper(a)gte.net>
To: OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com <OHGEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Date: Thursday, July 15, 1999 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: [OHGEN-L] FHC
>I've used LDS extensively, both the centers and the web page. I've
>never had a bit of problem and they have willingly shared information.
>I and my mother have ordered things from them with no problems. Sorry
>you have such a bad opinion of a place that was "doing" genealogy before
>anyone else was.
>
>Nancy Dickinson
>
>Carol Montrose wrote:
>>
>> Nancy, obviously you haven't tried to purchase a film of one of your
county
>> records from FHC/LDS...when they film the records they DO take the
attitude
>> that it is "theirs"! or make it so difficult for you to obtain it, you
>> wished you'd never asked......maybe just a different dept. from the one
>> you're talking about....
>> The other thing is that YOU can PURCHASE books on fiche through them but
you
>> can't take YOUR purchase home....
>>
>> You asked...
>>
>> >>Has anyone considered that maybe a new server should be found? It
seems
>> >>to me that RW cheerfully allowed the use of it's server for the
>> >>depositing of Genealogy info as a means to collect data and then lay
>> >>claim to it. LDS gets their info voluntarily from the submitters and
>> >>I've never heard them say, "Hey, you GAVE it to me. It's mine now."
>> >>Any thoughts, anyone?
>> >>
>> >>Nancy Dickinson
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>> >>
>> >>This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb
project
>> >>by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
>> >>OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
>> >>Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
>> >>Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State
Coordinator
>>
>> ==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>>
>> This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb project
>> by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
>> OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
>> Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
>> Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State Coordinator
>
>
>==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>
>This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb project
>by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
>OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
>Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
>Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State Coordinator
>
>
I've used LDS extensively, both the centers and the web page. I've
never had a bit of problem and they have willingly shared information.
I and my mother have ordered things from them with no problems. Sorry
you have such a bad opinion of a place that was "doing" genealogy before
anyone else was.
Nancy Dickinson
Carol Montrose wrote:
>
> Nancy, obviously you haven't tried to purchase a film of one of your county
> records from FHC/LDS...when they film the records they DO take the attitude
> that it is "theirs"! or make it so difficult for you to obtain it, you
> wished you'd never asked......maybe just a different dept. from the one
> you're talking about....
> The other thing is that YOU can PURCHASE books on fiche through them but you
> can't take YOUR purchase home....
>
> You asked...
>
> >>Has anyone considered that maybe a new server should be found? It seems
> >>to me that RW cheerfully allowed the use of it's server for the
> >>depositing of Genealogy info as a means to collect data and then lay
> >>claim to it. LDS gets their info voluntarily from the submitters and
> >>I've never heard them say, "Hey, you GAVE it to me. It's mine now."
> >>Any thoughts, anyone?
> >>
> >>Nancy Dickinson
> >>
> >>
> >>==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
> >>
> >>This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb project
> >>by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
> >>OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
> >>Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
> >>Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State Coordinator
>
> ==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>
> This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb project
> by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
> OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
> Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
> Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State Coordinator
Nancy, obviously you haven't tried to purchase a film of one of your county
records from FHC/LDS...when they film the records they DO take the attitude
that it is "theirs"! or make it so difficult for you to obtain it, you
wished you'd never asked......maybe just a different dept. from the one
you're talking about....
The other thing is that YOU can PURCHASE books on fiche through them but you
can't take YOUR purchase home....
You asked...
>>Has anyone considered that maybe a new server should be found? It seems
>>to me that RW cheerfully allowed the use of it's server for the
>>depositing of Genealogy info as a means to collect data and then lay
>>claim to it. LDS gets their info voluntarily from the submitters and
>>I've never heard them say, "Hey, you GAVE it to me. It's mine now."
>>Any thoughts, anyone?
>>
>>Nancy Dickinson
>>
>>
>>==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>>
>>This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb project
>>by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
>>OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
>>Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
>>Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State Coordinator
Hello All, the chat log for the chat is now uploaded to the chat page at:
<a
href="http://www.rootsweb.com/~ohmahoni/chat/july99.htm">http://www.rootsweb.c
om/~ohmahoni/chat/july99.htm
</a>
This was a general open cat session. I am working on setting up some guest
speakers for future chats.
Thanks for your time.
Mary Ann Hetrick
Trumbull, Mahoning & Summit Counites
Dlkgen(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> Allen,
>
> The Defiance URL is now HTML instead of HTM as of today. You may want to
> change the OHGenWeb page. Thanks.
>
> And I still haven't heard from AOL over blocking your messages.
>
> Don Kear
> Van Wert Ohio County Coordinator,
> www.rootsweb.com/~ohvanwer/index.html
> -------------------------------------------
> Clinton Ohio County Coordinator,
> www.rootsweb.com/~ohclinto/index.html
> -------------------------------------------
> Defiance Ohio County Coordinator
> www.rootsweb.com/~ohdefian/index.html
> ------------------------------------------
> Kear/Tope Family,
> http://members.aol.com/dlkgen/tope/
> -------------------------------------------
> Rootsweb Sponsor & OHGenWeb Reunion Coordinator
> -------------------------------------------
Howdy Don:
A-OK. I've made the adjustment to the URL so that it reads
"/index.html" vs. "/index.htm".
I'll also CC the list so that anyone with links pointing toward
Defiance can make similar adjustments.
Thanks!
Allen
______________________________________________________________________
Allen Richmond
sciototrails(a)usa.net
OHGenWeb Project State Coordinator
http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/
In the asking comes sharing;
in sharing comes knowledge;
in knowledge comes wisdom which lasts a lifetime. --ar.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
FORWARDED MESSAGE - Orig: 12-Jul-99 6:59
From: jpowelljr <jpowelljr(a)worldnet.att.net>
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Fellow Volunteers... This whole no Ballot
idea is my fault and only my fault. It was my idea, Common
Sense I thought, to save us some of that last minute work.
I sold it to the committee. Yes, it was discussed. Tim,
did think it was extra work for all of us. But is was my
idea. I merely thought we had already "elected" those
candidates. Tim Pierce, as a well meaning member of the
committee
with direct knowledge of the extra effort this involved,
offered up a letter to the Board addressing that. The
Committee thought that was great, not Rootsweb. Rootsweb
as an entity did not enter into any of this. Tim and the
entire Committee were already working on setting up the
lists for the ballots. We, they would have followed any
Board motion sent to us. I usually don't call names, but
anyone that is using the name Rootsweb in this one has me,
Jim Powell Jr, mixed up with Rootsweb. Of that I can assure
you. This all just goes to show me how this Rootsweb
hysteria stuff gets started. Maybe I have been judging
Rootsweb a little too harshly. So to Rootsweb, and Tim and
the Board, and all the volunteers out there with mixed
emotions from this debate... I apologize for all of this
craziness swirling around this, common sense decision that I
made. To those stirring it up, I say "Get a life".
Sincerely,
Jim Powell Jr
==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
Remember the elections start July 1.
!^NavFont02F05460007NGHHL486A1B
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
FORWARDED MESSAGE - Orig: 12-Jul-99 4:00
From: Tim Pierce <twp(a)rootsweb.com>
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, folks -
On Sun, Jul 11, 1999 at 10:54:03PM -0700, Fred Smoot wrote:
> I believe that the
> Election Committee decided not place the names of unopposed candidates
> on the ballots. Then a motion to "correct" the decision was made. Then
> an unofficial post was made about the motion and how RootsWeb refused to
> implement an AB action.
I hate to interrupt this discussion with some facts, but the Board
never made any requests of me and I never refused to do anything.
On July 9, I sent the following message to the Board to correct some
factual inaccuracies in Motion 99-20.
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:00:50 -0400
From: Tim Pierce <twp(a)rootsweb.com>
To: BOARD-L(a)rootsweb.com
Cc: ELECTIONS-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Bill Oliver's motion
[ BOARD-L listowner, can you forward this to the list? thanks. -twp ]
Hi, folks -
Since Bill Oliver has named me specifically in this motion, I would
like an opportunity to comment on his request.
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 09:46:01AM -0400, Bill Oliver wrote:
> >A decision was made by the
> >Chair of the Elections Committee to eliminate ballots for
> >those positions that had only one candidate, by reason that
> >since there were no other nominations the single candidate
> >so nominated was acceptable to the group.
This is not really correct. The Elections Committee discussed whether
it would make sense to hold full elections for the one-candidate
positions. When they sought my advice on the technical aspects of
doing so, I acknowledged that in a one-candidate election without
write-in votes, even a single YES vote will elect, so it is not
possible for the candidate to be defeated. The committee concluded
that the outcome of the single-candidate elections was predetermined,
and chose not to distribute ballots.
So it is not a matter of assuming that the single candidates are
acceptable so much as it is the lack of any other outcome. No matter
how the electorate votes, the single candidates will be accepted into
their offices. The Committee and I agreed that to run such an
election would be a poor use of our time.
In an ideal world, the elections would run themselves and I would have
no objection to managing an election for single-candidate voters. In
reality, managing each election is quite labor-intensive. Lists of
eligible voters must be collected from each State Coordinator. The
ballot software needs to be reconfigured and tested before the
election. When the ballots are sent, many will bounce; the Elections
Committee must examine the bounces to determine which addresses were
bad, and try to determine their real addresses so that new ballots can
be sent. When the filled-in ballots are returned, they must be
checked against the eligible voter lists. Many voters vote using an
address different from the one the ballot was sent to, so these
discrepancies need to be accounted for before their vote can be
tallied.
All of this is by way of saying that while we agree that it would be
nice to hold an election for single-candidate positions, it would only
be a symbolic gesture. It does not make sense to us to expend so much
time and energy on a symbolic gesture.
I ask that the Board take these issues into consideration before
making any decisions. If there is a more appropriate way of
submitting these comments, please let me know and I will be glad to
follow the proper procedure.
Thank you very much --
--
Regards,
Tim Pierce
RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative
system obfuscator and hack-of-all-trades
==== USGENWEB-ALL Mailing List ====
Remember the elections start July 1.
!^NavFont02F0C4A0007NGHHS4C3DAE
Howdy Folks:
Though this doesn't directly impact us here in the NE/NC region, it
could in future events such as this year's USGW election. This does
directly impact those USGW coordinators in the SE/MA and NW/P regions.
This really bears some watching, IMO. Concerned that it could happen
here? Write to your regional reps, the board, and fellow CCs. Let them
know your thoughts.
http://www.usgenweb.org/about/whoswho.html <-- Advisory Board
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 22:10:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: merope <merope(a)Radix.Net>
To: USGW-CC-L(a)usgennet.org
Subject: Re: USGW-CC-L: RW Global Reject Votes?
According to traffic on Board-L, Motion 99-20 was passed with 11 votes
for adn 2 against. This motion would have directed RW to issue
ballots to voters for races in which there is a single candidate, so
that the requirement in the bylaws that Board members be elected could
be met.
However, RW has informed the board that regardless of its vote on this
motion, ballots will NOT be issued to these voters. Motion 99-20 has
been withdrawn, and the Board "will be seeking an alternative way of
handling the elections for the two seats that have only one
candidate."
-Teresa
merope(a)radix.net
______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Allen Richmond
sciototrails(a)usa.net
Scioto County OH
http://www.scioto.org/Scioto/
In the asking comes sharing;
in sharing comes knowledge;
in knowledge comes wisdom which lasts a lifetime. --ar.
I'm afraid all we can do is move our county pages. The Project has
officially named Rootsweb its server of choice. Actual data stored there
now, can't be removed. It -can-, however, be copied to other sites if you
contact the submitters and get their permission.
Rootsweb used to preach against duplications of information and services.
They have done an about face on that issue and now actively support such
duplications - even on their own server. As Martha Stewart says, "it's a
good thing" ... for revenues.
And it -is- because that is how business works. More -is- better.
I am not as sure it is so good in the long run for genealogy. But that's my
personal opinion. And while I must act for myself based on the opinion, it
has never been my intention to tell others what their opinion should be. We
each have individual decisions to make....
VOTE!!!!
At 14:38 7/11/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Has anyone considered that maybe a new server should be found? It seems
>to me that RW cheerfully allowed the use of it's server for the
>depositing of Genealogy info as a means to collect data and then lay
>claim to it. LDS gets their info voluntarily from the submitters and
>I've never heard them say, "Hey, you GAVE it to me. It's mine now."
>Any thoughts, anyone?
>
>Nancy Dickinson
>
>
>==== OHGEN Mailing List ====
>
>This list is for the discussion of topics related to the OHGenWeb project
>by OHGenWeb Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators.
>OHGenWeb Project: http://www.scioto.org/OHGenWeb/index.html
>Allen Richmond, sciototrails(a)usa.net, OHGenWeb State Coordinator
>Judy Kelble, jkelble(a)accnorwalk.com, OHGenWeb Assistant State Coordinator
>
>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
wally(a)calweb.com
Has anyone considered that maybe a new server should be found? It seems
to me that RW cheerfully allowed the use of it's server for the
depositing of Genealogy info as a means to collect data and then lay
claim to it. LDS gets their info voluntarily from the submitters and
I've never heard them say, "Hey, you GAVE it to me. It's mine now."
Any thoughts, anyone?
Nancy Dickinson
I intended not to message until I returned.
I don't know why, but 'signs and portents' have a significance for me that I
can't ignore. I have long understood that I am a mystic - that my
instincts' understandings (intuition) are far better than my conscious will
to understand. When I really TRY, I fail. When I LET IT HAPPEN, I fail,
too, but I feel much less stressed out from the trying. When I let my
intuition operate un fettered, I am usually suprised with the results. What
these particular 'signs & portents' below really mean are anybody's guess,
but....
Tonight on CBS News were two stories precisely about topics of my last message.
Story #1
Internet Advertizing pundits are claiming that the $1.9 billion spent last
year in advertizing on the Internet may be wasted cash. Questioning
browsers reveals that they mostly ignore banner ads and do not recall even
the topic or company name so advertized. "The add pops up but I continue
with MY business," [paraphrase of interviewees comment]. If that's the
case, less advertizing money will be spent on those kinds of ads.
This is not information that I had known before. It always seemed to me
that Internet banner ads were like the ads on TV. Another interviewee
explained the difference. I really think it is a significant one. He
explained that TV ads are the way they are and work well because they want
you to do NOTHING BUT WATCH. Internet banner ads, however, don't want you
to watch; they want you to click on them and change sites. Very different
agendas. A TV commercial is a very structured interruption of definite time
duration requireing passive behavior. A TV commercial HAPPENS TO you.
Internet banner ads actually interrupt browsers and force them to make
choices like continuing with what they are doing or jump for an indefinite
time period to something else (like call waiting rings??). Once they jump
elsewhere, many never return to the task that precipitated clicking on the
ad. SOme even get lost or don;t really know where they started.
Apparently, most browsers -use- the Internet for specific purposes and those
are -not- to view advertizing. Interesting. For a country based on free
commerce, we have sown the anti-commercial seeds very deeply, in fact,
subliminally.
That may be why I personally get such negative reactions to 'busier pages'
which take longer to load when I do board/list maintenance at Rootsweb now.
I no longer 'enjoy' my time at Rootsweb. In looking deeply at my internal
reactions, I can see now that those reactions are not pointed solely at
Rootsweb. I also don't use the others sites (Ancestry, FTM, Genealogy,
etc.) Rootsweb joined in their recent policy changes. That is, my
negativism is not centered on Rootsweb, it is the result of what I see as a
degredation in the quality of the information served because the sheer
quantity is where the money is. More is better for revenues. It doesn't
matter if the more is not as good. That is also the same probelm I have
with FamilySearch. I know there are errors in what I see and I have no way
to correct them (IGI mostly) so I don't enjoy the experience of using the
site because I can't trust the information.
In the case of servers like Rootsweb which espouse free genealogy (and I
have never believed that wasn't true nor that Rootsweb was dishonorable
about that), banner ads seemed like the non-advertizing advertizements now
the backbone of public TV - a kind of what is called underwriting. I no
longer watch a lot of that any more, either. I don't like the crass
interruptions of special moments you can only find on Public Televsion.
Rather than continually experience those 'jerks' to some underwriter's
reality to support their business, I just don't watch hardly at all.
Moral - better undestand your motives for your reactions! Don't blame the
messenger for the bad news. Don't believe what is written just because you
wrote it. Follow the money, even it is down the drain!
Story #2 - the roaving reporter for CBS picked a name out of the phonebook
and interviewed a freshman honor student at a high school where she also
played tuba. Her surname was DENNY and she lived in Mecer Co., Ohio.
Hmmmmmmmm. Mercer Co. is where I need to appear with the egg on my face
explaining how what I had told them was -their- list and -their- board
actually belonged to Rootsweb.
Moral - better learn the lessons of Story #1 so I put the appropriate amount
of egg on my face to appear convincingly penitent. The sun DOES shine in
Mercer Co.
Signs & Portents. Was there meaning????????? I probably made it up!
Happy Election.......
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
wally(a)calweb.com
Please don't dismiss this is as only anti-Rootsweb prattle. It's about
'bait & switch' commercialism and feeling betrayed while I was egged on to
betray others.
At 14:09 7/8/1999 +0000, Allen wrote to Jim McCluer:
>> Maybe I'm the only one confused about this.
>
>No, from what I'm reading in the flurry of email, you're not alone in
>the confusion. I'm just as puzzled too.
[long continuation.....deleted]
[longer reply.....deleted <sigh!]
I don't see any need to repeat all the message and reply, but there is one
'wrinkle' to all of this some people may be missing. If a county CC took
Rootsweb up on its repeated offers for a free list or free web space or free
GenConnect board, the 'rules' have now changed. It was not actually free.
The only thing free about it was our individual labors to maintain the 'free
toys' so Rootsweb didn't have to. And having us do that ensured very
valuable data would naturally fall into their hands which they could
eventually profit from. And to acquire MORE of these 'free' services, you
must now agree in advance to the AUP at
http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.htm
Many of us have mounted pages NOT so much for the USGenWeb Project but as a
'window on the Internet' for our favorite counties. That is, those of us
involved from that perpective have had to wear two hats and carefully
negotiate between the locals' interets, US/OHGenWeb's interests, and now
Rootsweb's interests (I should also point out that many of this group had
county pages -before- the project existed and.or Rootsweb was offering
services!). We recognized that everyone -wants- everything for nothing
<grin>, but we drew the line at destroying locals' futures because some
outsider Project was intruding on the locals telling them that locals had no
rights on the Internet. From the beginning, I mistrusted that attitude and
never agreed to those increasingly stident demands that my CC efforts should
-mostly- be acquiring data for the Archives, but I didn't know the origins
of that attitude. It wasn't the Project demanding that as I thought. It
was the Archvies and Rootsweb making that demand (see below).
I am now in this very upsetting position of appearing to have lied to my
locals about the page, list, and query board I set up for them. [Very long,
essentially person story deleted <ain't cha glad!>] Because of the last
couple of months' revelations, I can't call it anything else but a lie. I
could beg off that 'the Devil made me do it,' but who'd believe me? I
wouldn't! The planned vacation for general socializing is now ruined as I
must spend my free time contacting and apologizing to the locals for what I
have done in their name. Maybe it will glavanize them to take better care
of their own concerns on the Internet, but it certainly takes all the
pleasure out of donating so much time and effort and money to what is just
another lost cause as far as they will be concerned. They have been 'hurt'
this way before.
>> Why would Rootsweb want us
>> to have these GenConnect pages on County sites or a link thereof, if
>> they have nothing to do with USGW?
>
>Good question....
>> I thought one of the purposes of the partnership with Rootsweb was that
>> they would write software for USGW in support of it, example queries.
There is NO official partnership agreement with Rootsweb. Rootsweb tells us
what they will do and we do it by their rules or go elsewhere. Rootsweb is
not a democracy. It is a business. Oh, and anything we did there
previously with their 'free' tools, STAYS with Rootsweb when we leave. If
we don't participate in Rootsweb-think, we will be scourged and banned,
publicly labeled 'enemies of free genealogy' when it is Rootsweb that is
collecting the revenues. Go figure!
>> However, the way the GenConnect board is configured, it seems that once
>> submitted the data would become Rootsweb's and the user that submitted
>> it.
The Cluster pages are data collection/data search forms. USGenWeb can't own
them because data collected and put on the Rootsweb server are what the
banner-advertized search engines and collection pages are for - revenues. I
won't remind you of the events which marked that change in thinking last
year. If you didn't see them yourself, you wouldn't believe me now.
>> Wouldn't this dilute the USGW sites of potential data?
>
>It could, definitely. If taken far enough long enough, it could even
>possibly obliterate the need for the USGenWeb Project as an entity.
If a project CC decides not to use Rootsweb for their work and Rootsweb
determines that is an 'unfriendly attitude', CCs will get no links -from-
Rootsweb but CCs will be forced to send their browsers -to- Rootsweb for all
data now stored there in the 'name only' of the Project. Actually the
USGenWeb Archives is NOT owned by the Project. It is a separate entity
engineered by private agreement between Linda Lewis and Brian Leverich in
June/July 1996 (see archives of the USGW-CC list). That is an important
piece of information in the often puzzling events of the life of this
Project. The Project does not speak -for- the Archives nor can the Archives
speak -for- the Project. Yet they sit at the same table on the Board ad
equals. Huh???
There is a very important election in progress. If you haven't voted, DO
so. If further revelations are made, CHANGE your vote as appropriate. You
only have this month to change the course of the project for the better.
This may be the last year we all call ourselves part of the same team. The
line has been drawn in the sand. The ultimatum has been issued. We either
toe that line with no complaint and agree to the terms of ultimatum or we
get lost. I hope I will see some of you on the other side when I return
from 'The Promised Land' [that's Ohio, for the lurkers].
--------
Support your local project.....
Write and submit <mailto:editor@usigs.org> an article about US/OHGenWeb to
the Signal http://www.usigs.org/signal/signal.htm
Have YOUR say! Tell YOUR truth!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
wally(a)calweb.com
New York City, Reformed Dutch Church Marriage Records, 1639-1652
Settled by the Dutch in the seventeenth century, New Amsterdam became New
York and a part of the British Empire in 1667. Many of these early Dutch
settlers were members of the Reformed Dutch Church located in the city.
Taken from existing church records, this database is a collection of
marriage records and includes information regarding over 2600 men and women.
Researchers will find the date of marriage and the names of both bride and
groom for persons married in the city between 1639 and 1652. Although these
records appear in the original Dutch, this database can be valuable to
researchers of Dutch ancestors from the New York City area.
Bibliography: Anonymous. "Marriages of the Reformed Dutch Church in New
York, 1639-1695." Volume 6, #1, pp. 32-39. New York: New York Genealogical
and Biographical Record, 1875.
To search this database, go to:
http://www.ancestry.com/ancestry/search/3799.htm