At 09:44 AM 4/30/00 -0500, Ginger wrote: > >No, it is not the same, the transcribers (and proofreaders for that matter) > >have not had their names erased from their transcriptions. I am certainly > >open to a discussion of better, more accurate, less misleading phrasing of > >the Archives statement added to the files but it is not at all the same > >thing as erasure of a person. > >Copyright violation is copyright violation. For that matter, the instance >demonstrated this morning of a change to the West Virginia >state page has nothing to do with an archives statement. I seriously doubt that anyone purposefully changed that single page. There is no rhyme or reason to it as an intentional action. > >How about we ignore *their* issue for well over a year as that seems to be > >the way of things. > >The issue of your copyright violation complaint should have >been addressed at the time it happened. I have great respect for >you Holly, but I find your use of *their* to be an excellent example >of the crux of the whole matter. Since there were a handful of emails on the topic, I used the *their* as a generic *label* for that group of complaints about the census transcription files, not as a factional labeling. I saw no point in wading through and picking out specific names. But, yes there is a touch of I think the word is acrimony in my message as I find it difficult to reconcile the current furor with the past negligence by all concerned. Perhaps the message here is that people only pay attention if you are loud and demanding and ugly about things <sigh>