I remember those days Linne, and I also remember a time where there wasn't a Bowles list, then there were two, and we have come a long way from that original two. :) Gracie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linne Gravestock" <linne@gravestock.name> To: <BOWLES-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:20 PM Subject: Re: Bowles: Cemetery Resources > Gee, Robert, I'm truly puzzled, as I did easily get 962 Bowles scrolling > before my eyes, and I'm not a member of Ancestry.com. And I wouldn't lead > any of our members astray by trying to manipulate them into joining > Ancestry. I see it as each member's choice at any time, but I don't have > that as a hidden agenda. (What I've said here sounds much sterner in > writing than it would if you and I were in person.) > I just went back to the site to check it and once again got 962 Bowles to > look at. And yes, there is a notation that if you didn't find who you > were looking for, you can find more extensive records if you join > Ancestry.com. > If you and I were standing together talking, I'd ask you to pull up a > chair and let me tell you the story of RootsWeb. Those of us who are > oldtimers know that it had a touch-and-go, delicate history in the first > few years. Ancestry.com funds RootsWeb now, which means that you and I > are no longer asked to pay for the services that RootsWeb provides for > us...so I would expect that Ancestry is going to have those notations come > up now and then. But you and I can ignore them and exchange all kinds of > information that we find in various cemeteries, libraries and other > repositories, and we never have to pay anything to Ancestry. > I guess that the Ancestry ads don't bother me because I know that they're > keeping RootsWeb alive for us. Many years ago when RootsWeb asked us for > contributions to keep the organization going, very few members paid > anything. They even sent us electronic photos of all their servers and > told us how they had to drive miles for parts and stay up all night fixing > them, and this cost money, and would we please, please contribute? There > was a daily, breathless tension as to whether RootsWeb would have to fold > or not in the days before Ancestry rescued them. > I kicked in just a tiny bit, because I didn't have much to give them. But > I felt that RootsWeb was so heroic in keeping the business going, and so > valuable to all of us who enjoyed genealogy, and it had so many more > possibilities to it than the old U.S. Post Office route, that I gave what > I could. In return for the contributions that we gave in its lifesupport > days, RootsWeb decided to pay back everyone who contributed by giving > them, after Ancestry came on the scene, further use of the Personalized > Mailing List---for free. I told RootsWeb every variation of the "bowls" > surname that I could think of at the time, and their robots scan every > board or list that RootsWeb sponsors, and every midnight I get a long list > of postings that has a Boles, Bowls, Bowles, Boales, etc. in it. > All those odd and sundry postings that you see from me almost daily are a > measure of RootsWeb's gratitude for the support that it received in a time > of real desperation. I think that each of us, depending upon when we > joined in the dance with RootsWeb and genealogy, will have a different > take on how irritating Ancestry's signs and notations are. > So just ignore the signs and use what you can. I'd rather not have ads > coming up either, but if Ancestry stays solvent and decides to keep on > funding RootsWeb, that means that we get to keep on enjoying each other's > company and information on the Bowles list. > Yours with warm wishes, > Linne > > >>I did not find any Bowles listed. Ancestory.com will give me Bowles names >>if >>I subscribe to their service which is appearently the purpose of >>findagrave.com. >>Robert Collett >> >>> Subj: Re: Bowles: Cemetery Resources >>> Date: 6/1/2005 10:17:23 PM Central Standard Time >>> From: linne@gravestock.name >>> Reply-to: BOWLES-L@rootsweb.com >>> To: BOWLES-L@rootsweb.com >>> Sent from the Internet >>> >>> >>> >>> Isn't it a surprise? Much bigger and more names and places >>> than I imagined it would have. >>> If you find a Boles/Bowles ancestor there, come back and tell >>> us. Or if you find an ancestor who was connected to a Boles/Bowles, >>> tell us that, too---and how they were connected. >> > I thought the site had some great possibilities for all of us. >>> Linne >>> >>> >>> > >>> >In a message dated 6/1/2005 6:16:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >>> >linne@gravestock.name writes: >>> > >> > >www.findagrave.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Thank you so much for sharing. This is a great web site! >>> > >>> >Susan Walters >>> >>> >>> > >
I agree Linne, I went to findagrave and got the same amount of hits but I also checked Housewright and got a lot more hits. I did join so that I could add some information I had on some of my ancestors but that did not cost anything either. Robert has confused me, if you want to join do if not don t. I joined Ancestry and believe it is the best investment for genealogy I have made besides my computer and finding terrific people like you. Lisa -------Original Message------- From: Gracie Stover Date: 06/02/05 21:41:28 To: BOWLES-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Bowles: Cemetery Resources I remember those days Linne, and I also remember a time where there wasn't a Bowles list, then there were two, and we have come a long way from that original two. :) Gracie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linne Gravestock" <linne@gravestock.name> To: <BOWLES-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:20 PM Subject: Re: Bowles: Cemetery Resources > Gee, Robert, I'm truly puzzled, as I did easily get 962 Bowles scrolling > before my eyes, and I'm not a member of Ancestry.com. And I wouldn't lead > any of our members astray by trying to manipulate them into joining > Ancestry. I see it as each member's choice at any time, but I don't have > that as a hidden agenda. (What I've said here sounds much sterner in > writing than it would if you and I were in person.) > I just went back to the site to check it and once again got 962 Bowles to > look at. And yes, there is a notation that if you didn't find who you > were looking for, you can find more extensive records if you join > Ancestry.com. > If you and I were standing together talking, I'd ask you to pull up a > chair and let me tell you the story of RootsWeb. Those of us who are > oldtimers know that it had a touch-and-go, delicate history in the first > few years. Ancestry.com funds RootsWeb now, which means that you and I > are no longer asked to pay for the services that RootsWeb provides for > us...so I would expect that Ancestry is going to have those notations come > up now and then. But you and I can ignore them and exchange all kinds of > information that we find in various cemeteries, libraries and other > repositories, and we never have to pay anything to Ancestry. > I guess that the Ancestry ads don't bother me because I know that they're > keeping RootsWeb alive for us. Many years ago when RootsWeb asked us for > contributions to keep the organization going, very few members paid > anything. They even sent us electronic photos of all their servers and > told us how they had to drive miles for parts and stay up all night fixing > them, and this cost money, and would we please, please contribute? There > was a daily, breathless tension as to whether RootsWeb would have to fold > or not in the days before Ancestry rescued them. > I kicked in just a tiny bit, because I didn't have much to give them. But > I felt that RootsWeb was so heroic in keeping the business going, and so > valuable to all of us who enjoyed genealogy, and it had so many more > possibilities to it than the old U.S. Post Office route, that I gave what > I could. In return for the contributions that we gave in its lifesupport > days, RootsWeb decided to pay back everyone who contributed by giving > them, after Ancestry came on the scene, further use of the Personalized > Mailing List---for free. I told RootsWeb every variation of the "bowls" > surname that I could think of at the time, and their robots scan every > board or list that RootsWeb sponsors, and every midnight I get a long list > of postings that has a Boles, Bowls, Bowles, Boales, etc. in it. > All those odd and sundry postings that you see from me almost daily are a > measure of RootsWeb's gratitude for the support that it received in a time > of real desperation. I think that each of us, depending upon when we > joined in the dance with RootsWeb and genealogy, will have a different > take on how irritating Ancestry's signs and notations are. > So just ignore the signs and use what you can. I'd rather not have ads > coming up either, but if Ancestry stays solvent and decides to keep on > funding RootsWeb, that means that we get to keep on enjoying each other's > company and information on the Bowles list. > Yours with warm wishes, > Linne > > >>I did not find any Bowles listed. Ancestory.com will give me Bowles names >>if >>I subscribe to their service which is appearently the purpose of >>findagrave.com. >>Robert Collett >> >>> Subj: Re: Bowles: Cemetery Resources >>> Date: 6/1/2005 10:17:23 PM Central Standard Time >>> From: linne@gravestock.name >>> Reply-to: BOWLES-L@rootsweb.com >>> To: BOWLES-L@rootsweb.com >>> Sent from the Internet >>> >>> >>> >>> Isn't it a surprise? Much bigger and more names and places >>> than I imagined it would have. >>> If you find a Boles/Bowles ancestor there, come back and tell >>> us. Or if you find an ancestor who was connected to a Boles/Bowles, >>> tell us that, too---and how they were connected. >> > I thought the site had some great possibilities for all of us. >>> Linne >>> >>> >>> > >>> >In a message dated 6/1/2005 6:16:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >>> >linne@gravestock.name writes: >>> > >> > >www.findagrave.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Thank you so much for sharing. This is a great web site! >>> > >>> >Susan Walters >>> >>> >>> > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.4.0 - Release Date: 6/1/2005