On 2-Aug-08, at 5:40 AM, Firebird wrote: > Carolyn Perkes wrote: > >> Perhaps there is a middle ground. >> >> I recently shared some information about causes of death of a common >> ancestor with a cousin. . . whose mother had just died of the same >> illness. The information came too late, certainly not at the right >> time. Well, it confirmed things after the fact. I found the >> information helpful, but I do realize that it is not helpful to every >> one of my distant relations. >> >> Perhaps it would be easier, on these lists, if people establish a >> connection, to share such information privately; at least it allows >> people to make judgment calls. . . > > This is why I say there shouldn't be a blanket ban. If people want to > give out CoD then fine, but if people don't, then that's fine too. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, I am not sure about what is meant by a blanket ban. I have received information on CoD for a couple of ancestors posted by members on other lists; since I am researching family history (and I am the only one in my more or less immediate family to do so), I was grateful. That said, sometimes postings on some lists can be accessed by anyone googling the Internet for any given name, and I share the view expressed by others who have related their discoveries, that some types of information, such as CoD, can be extremely sensitive and should not necessarily be so readily available. This list is wonderful, I have had fantastic help here from members who wrote to me privately, which knocked down two significant brick walls (SALTMARSH in Essex and other lines in Scotland). Some of the information provided was indeed sensitive and I am glad that it was not spelled out on the list. In fact, some of it helped me clear up a rumour with my mother that was based on confused information passed down through three generations - it put my mother at ease. On the other hand, some of the information about other ancestors, which I shared with other family members (because they had expressed an interest), only gave rise to a defensive reaction (they were interested until certain truths were revealed). To say, our predecessors had their reasons for keeping secrets, mainly out of good intentions, to avoid passing down hurt and shame imposed in a given timeframe), and I think that intention deserves some respect. Most of us on these lists do have a more compassionate view of the world and the reasons of the human heart, or an ability to put things in context, but this is not the case for everyone. So yes I think people should have a way of sharing information with fellow "gardeners" but I think it is important that privacy be respected. Lawrence expressed this much more poetically. Thank you all for this discussion, it's an important one. Carolyn (Canada)