Thank you for the courtesy of your reply and serving as the list coordinator. Your information notwithstanding, the fact remains that once-posted cemetery data is gone. This was within the purview of the list and the users who volunteered data. I am curious as to how the genealogical society co opted the information and removed it. The very public list was placed there by your predecessor and a number of volunteers participated in its being corrected over time. It seems reasonable if the email list and the site are separate, as you say, then the material should not have been removed by outside parties. It further seems reasonable to assume this matter is of utmost importance to the continued success of the site and those who contribute/receive information. Failure should not be an option. Doug Park, Editor The Parke Society Newsletter Carey Rogers wrote: > Let me correct one statement in the following post. The > responsibility for this list is mine and mine alone. I'm not > connected with the Genealogical Society except that > I'm a member. I believe that the discussion is about the > fate of the Greene County Genweb site. The site and the > email list are separate. When they asked for volunteers to take > over the list I replied. I received responsibility for the list > along with the big paycheck. :-) I don't have anything > to do with the web site. > > As far as I am concerned you can share any data about > Greene County you like on this list, as long as, it has some > genealogical or historical relevance, of course. > > Carey Rogers > > -----Original Message----- > From: J. Douglas Park <jdpark@acd.net> > To: ARGREENE-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Sunday, July 25, 1999 4:41 PM > Subject: Re: Why Should Gene. Societies Give Info Away? > > >I understand the Greene Co. Gen. Society has co opted the > responsibility for > >this list from Michael with the resulting outcome that information, > e.g. > >cemetery data, is no longer freely available. Separate sources have > confirmed > >this. > > > >As I had previously provided updates and corrections to Michael on > published > >lists, we enjoyed a two way street of corrected and expanded > genealogical data. > >Neither of us charged the other for the data. More importantly, the > wider world > >of genealogists, whether professional or hobbyists, had access to > better data. > > > >I am curious who will fill the role vacated by Michael so that my > information > >can again be funneled to a site which will freely share the data. I > am only > >interested in sharing data for which there will be no charge. > > > >Doug Park, Editor > >The Parke Society Newsletter > > > > > > > >