I have had answer to my question: "what exactly in my postings is objectionable to this list?" The answer was "DNA". That's all. Just "DNA". A comment about my supposed "anti-Christian views" makes me wonder if the reason is religious. Bob New > >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:50:19 +0100 >> From: Dave Newburuy <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [WOR] Worcs Gene Pool >> To: Bob New <[email protected]> > >> Did I not say this subject is closed >> >> PLEASE lets get back to list business as before >> >> Dave > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob New" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Worcs Gene Pool (Dave Newburuy) > I'm sorry, I missed your posting that the subject was closed. My posting > took a day to think about and compose during which time I failed to follow > the thread. And I haven't saved those postings so I still don't know what > they contained. > > I used the thread to make a statement about the work of the Surname NEW > Y-DNA Testing Project, particularly in Worcestershire, and about the > genealogy of the NEW family long established there, and to appeal for more > contributors of DNA for mine and other projects. What exactly in my > statement is not "list business"? > > Some staffers at Rootsweb have in the past been unsympathetic to any > mention of DNA, and have been known to remove postings from lists. One > suspects that they emanate from the Bible Belt in Middle America where DNA > seems to be the work-of-the Devil, but the last time I looked > Worcestershire was still safely in England. > > I thought I understood that that policy has changed over the past year or > so. I think Rootsweb is now owned by Ancestry.com, and all probably owned > by the Mormon Church. Ancestry.com have themselves recently entered the > DNA testing market, and I think that their testing is done by the Sorenson > Foundation's laboratories. (I mention Sorenson in my posting, and > Sorenson are in Salt Lake City.) I think Ancestry.com's prices were > mentioned in one message in the thread. I have never made an exact note > of this ownership business because I never expected to have to get into a > legalistic debate about it. > > So the question remains - what exactly in my postings is objectionable to > this list? > > Bob New > >> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 12:34 +0100, Bob New wrote: >>> I qualify to join this thread by being a Worcestershire man and the >>> coordinator of the Surname NEW Y-DNA Testing Project. A William NEW was >>> recorded in the 1327 Glos. Subsidy Roll in Northway, between Ashchurch >>> and Tewkesbury, just 10 miles away from Evesham where I was born over >>> 600 years later. The NEW family of Evesham are well documented from >>> c.1600 and three of us, distant cousins, have been Y-DNA tested, and >>> match. In total, 27 generations separate the three of us. Our most >>> recent common ancestor, James NEW, was born c.1655 and died in 1725. We >>> don't know for certain who his father was. It was soon after the >>> English Civil War(s) and may be obscured by an association with the >>> Quakers. One of James's properties exists today as one of those in the >>> frontage of the Quaker Meeting House on Cowl Street, Evesham. >>> >>> However, a representative of a NEW family that came from Defford, just 8 >>> miles from Evesham, and moved to Eldersfield 12 miles further away about >>> 1749 has been Y-DNA tested and doesn't match us from Evesham. This is >>> unexpected because of the geographical proximity and also because the >>> I.G.I. (on www.familysearch.com) claims that the Richard NEW of Defford >>> is the same as a Richard NEW who was the grandson of the James NEW, >>> c.1655-1725, mentioned above. The IGI records were however "submitted >>> by members of the LDS church". The mismatch remains to be explained, >>> and we need another contributor from that family. >>> >>> I have genealogies for a NEW family of Ripple and a NEW family of >>> Worcester, but need DNA contributors from both. >>> >>> A map of the distribution of the NEW name in England from the 1881 >>> Census clearly indicates (but doesn't prove) that the name originated >>> perhaps once only in the southern counties, Hampshire or Wiltshire, and >>> spread from there. It was/is commonest in Portsmouth. Of the 17 >>> contributors to the Surname NEW Y-DNA Testing Project the nearest to the >>> three of us from Evesham is a 10/12 marker 'match' with a NEW who >>> originates from the Isle of Wight. This 10/12 score is not good enough >>> to claim a real match; 12 markers isn't enough, but it does raise hopes. >>> >>> Most of the other NEWs tested are from North American. Five of them >>> match, and one of them has a good paper trail to (another) Richard NEW >>> c.1620-c1681 a pioneer in Virginia. For none of these North American >>> NEWs can we yet establish an English origin (or even continental if the >>> name was originally NEU). Incidentally, one 'British' NEW who claimed a >>> Huguenot origin 'matched' 10/12 a NEU in America who also had a family >>> tradition of a Huguenot origin. As I said before 12 markers isn't >>> enough to be certain. >>> >>> Another aspect of the Y-DNA testing is our "haplogroups". Most of the >>> NEWs are R1b, as indeed are, say, 70% of the 'English' population. The >>> Welsh are about 90% and the Irish more than 95%, with similar figures >>> for the Iberian peninsula, with the Basques at nominally 100%. In >>> direct male line we are descendants of the original Palaeolithic >>> hunter-gatherers who repopulated these Isles after the end of the Ice >>> Age 12,500 years ago. The reason I don't look Basque is because of all >>> the women partners of my male-line ancestors. That's where the >>> differences come from. My ancestors have also changed their language. >>> From something originally shared with the Basques, and perhaps last >>> spoken in this country by the Atecotti (in 'Scotland'), to Celtic and >>> then to English. >>> >>> One of the NEWs and a NEU were E3b indicating an origin with the >>> agriculturists from the Middle East, and another NEW was I1b1 from the >>> Balkans, perhaps via a Roman mercenary. We can only speculate! >>> >>> DNA contributors of any and all surnames are needed. There may well be >>> a Surname group who will snap up a result. >>> Try http://www.dnalist.net/ for your surname. Population and >>> Migration route studies depend on a mass of results. Your DNA result >>> will still be useful in 100 years or for much longer into the future. >>> What else can you leave that will be so useful (besides descendants!)? >>> The costs of tests has already appeared in this thread and I don't dare >>> to repeat them (too commercial) but there are FREE tests offered by the >>> Sorenson Foundation http://www.smgf.org/ . Select Y-database or >>> mtDatabase at the bottom LHS of the page. Results take up to 2 years or >>> more to appear in their databases; your identity (except surname) is >>> concealed but you can recognise your result from the pedigree that you >>> supply. The test involves a mouthwash or scrapping the inside of your >>> cheek with a cotton bud. >>> >>> Bob New >>> coordinator of the Surname NEW Y-DNA Testing Project >>> coordinator of the SAYCE Y-DNA Testing Project >>> admin. of the [email protected] list >

Bob New wrote: > I have had answer to my question: "what exactly in my postings is > objectionable to this list?" > > The answer was "DNA". That's all. Just "DNA". > > A comment about my supposed "anti-Christian views" makes me wonder if the > reason is religious. You got a death wish or summat? The admin has decided that a discussion about DNA is not appropriate for this list. His decision is final whether you like it or not.