Joan, I never intended to imply that it was OK to publish your emails without permission. I only meant to say that when my work is used anywhere, I like it attributed to me, except of course the time I mixed up a couple of a people in a private email and then the "facts" were broadcast in a huge database and copied over and over across the Net. Even then it would have been better had my name been attached, because the database owner would possibly have changed his information had he believed me when I told him of the mistake. Somebody once offered to share some research with me on a certain family. I thought I probably knew more about this family than they did, but I courteously accepted, and they sent me a very large printout of my exact words with no mention of any source. I was offended. I don't even know where they got it, but If they would have cited me as a source and had done a little of their own work, I would have been fine with it. My name is associated with some really bad research, but as long as I'm the footnote where my footnote belongs, I'm OK with it, because it's not usually my part of their information that's wrong. Debbie THANKS JOAN!!! THAT seems to be the point that I'm not getting across! I have NO problem with people having differing standards of proof, but I was completely uncomfortable even calling his standards proof!! I would FAR rather have him paraphrase to his hearts content, and claim the information as his own, than to have my diligently proven information appear as a collaboration with him! The bottom line is, he did NOT have the right to publish my e-mails, he knows that, and they are now gone....thanks in no small part to all the help I received from this list!! THANKS AGAIN!! Joan