> At 03:49 AM 4/15/03 -0300, Derek Nichols wrote: > > > >> Each incident is weighed on its merits - do I make mistakes? You > >> bet I do, yet for some reason the SC is asked to be right 100% of > >> the time, forgetting that the SC is a faulty human as well. > > > >No, this is where you are wrong. Nobody expects you to be right 100% > > of the time. We do though expect when you are wrong to say so. > >That's all anybody ever wants from their Leaders in life. > > > >> Could some situations have been handled differently? Yes. > > > >It is *NEVER* to late to correct an error. > > Never is a long time - but some things much like Humpty Dumpty can not > be put back together. One must either create an omlette or strive to > do better next time. Correcting an error is not always reversing the error. Sometimes it's as much as an Opps, I'm really really sorry made publicly. Sometimes it'll take some more than that to 'correct' the error. But rarely they can be a complete Reversal. The longer time goes on, of course it becomes less likely of a Reversal of the decision is possible. > >> Would the results have been the same? Perhaps. When folks though > >> take off in a huff without listening for an explanation, refuse to > >> answer, keep throwing up roadblocks to communication, its rather > >> hard for anyone (including the SC) to make things right to the > >> satisfaction of all. > > > >Again, it's because we are volunteers. Often we aren't treated as > >such, more as employees. We are going to get upset and react much > >more because we are here for the passion of what we believe in. This > > needs to be considered and ALWAYS taken into account. > > If this were another organization such as the Red Cross and one > volunteered to work for them - even they have rules that must be > followed - and folks who don't follow the rules are at some point > asked to leave - even though they are volunteers. Absolutely. But other than being convicted of a crime in a court, I bet there isn't much that gets you bounced on a first or maybe even 2nd offense. Do we really want a Zero Tolerance Policy, because those can get nasty very quickly. I contend we are all human and at some point we will make a fatal mistake and deserve that 2nd chance. I'll hold my Leaders to the highest of standards and expect them to follow all the rules to the letter as they expect us to do. A slip up is forgivable. A few a bit more problematic. All I want them to do when they are 'corrected' or shown that something was done wrong, to admit such and fix things to the best they can. If they decide not to act when presented with the evidence of error, their 2nd chance in this case comes with a Recall Vote and their 3rd chance would be to run again and convince the People they have changed. Lead by example I believe it's called. To get back slightly on topic and something that I sent to someone earlier that I have never seen answered about the Abandoned Site part of the Petition. The Guidelines state in 16A and B that Logos are required and each page must mention it's part of GAGenWeb. At the end of Section 16 it says IF ANY of the above is not in compliance, 30 days notice is given. You declared the site Abandoned, YET what in reality was that it was not in compliance as clearly stated by 16A and B. Why the immediate dismissal? Why was 30 days notice not given to get the site in compliance? If we are going to have Guidelines, let's please follow them. Derek Nichols Echols County.

> >Maybe the new guidelines could require that the minutes of the > >GaGenWeb Council be posted as the natioal minutes are. > >http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html Tim Said: > We have no minutes to speak of. Well perhaps we can fix that in the new Guidelines, which will at least mean someone will get some coffee :) Derek Nichols Echols County

In a message dated 4/17/03 2:30:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tstowell@chattanooga.net writes: > Personally I'm quite proud to be an American at this point - proud that our > President would seek to spread freedom abroad and not keep it all for > ourselves. > > Of course as someone else said just recently - you are free to disagree. > Tim My point was - this is not the venue for world/national/local politics. Someone wrote to the board recently that when she/he was young the USA was free. Many have used the argument that their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, etc. etc. etc. have fought for our freedom and that we pay the price of their lives for our freedom; therefore it isn't free. When I was born, the Korean War had just ended. The families who had relatives who fought in that war must have felt the way we do today. And they all paid the price of war - with lives lost. So if that is your criteria for a free country - then perhaps we have never been free. Freedom is (in part) a state of mind, isn't it? There are those who live in the USA who don't feel freedom. There are those who live in (through some eyes) oppressive countries and they feel free. Needs are based on individuality and the connotation of freedom varies from person to person Part of our nation of freedom is being "allowed" to determine the measure of freedom we want or need to feel. And then - of course - some must determine if it is our nation's rules and laws or their personal lives and choices that give them the sense of freedom - or not. Do the people who have never lost a loved one in battle feel freedom more than those who have paid the price of losing a loved one in a war? How lovely if everything was black and white and so simple to explain. And how boring life would be. MK Harrison <A HREF="http://mkharrison.com">mkharrison.com</A> <A HREF="http://www.rootsweb.com/~gabarrow/">Barrow County, GA</A> <A HREF="http://www.ancestry.com/landing/homelandsweeps2/landing2.html?SourceCode=3913&iid=3913%3A+Sweepstakes+1">Ancestry.com</A> I don't know what kind of weapons will be used in the third world war, assuming there will be a third world war. But I can tell you what the fourth world war will be fought with - stone clubs. -Albert Einstein Copyright © 2003

At 03:49 AM 4/15/03 -0300, Derek Nichols wrote: > >> Each incident is weighed on its merits - do I make mistakes? You bet >> I do, yet for some reason the SC is asked to be right 100% of the >> time, forgetting that the SC is a faulty human as well. > >No, this is where you are wrong. Nobody expects you to be right 100% >of the time. We do though expect when you are wrong to say so. >That's all anybody ever wants from their Leaders in life. > >> Could some situations have been handled differently? Yes. > >It is *NEVER* to late to correct an error. Never is a long time - but some things much like Humpty Dumpty can not be put back together. One must either create an omlette or strive to do better next time. >> Would the results have been the same? Perhaps. When folks though >> take off in a huff without listening for an explanation, refuse to >> answer, keep throwing up roadblocks to communication, its rather hard >> for anyone (including the SC) to make things right to the satisfaction >> of all. > >Again, it's because we are volunteers. Often we aren't treated as >such, more as employees. We are going to get upset and react much >more because we are here for the passion of what we believe in. This >needs to be considered and ALWAYS taken into account. If this were another organization such as the Red Cross and one volunteered to work for them - even they have rules that must be followed - and folks who don't follow the rules are at some point asked to leave - even though they are volunteers. >> For those who think this is a power trip - it is not. I seek to serve >> the USGenWeb project - GAGenWeb - to its fullest potential - to have >> it be a better place than I found it in. I do not want to be SC >> forever as some have infered. I do though wish to finish the task >> I've started. > >Now, Tim... It will never hit it's fullest potential, that is the >nature of potential, it can never be fulfilled. LOL. So can you be >more specific, what tasks and what is the progress indicator? That >isn't saying, hurry up and finish and move on, that's asking what >tasks that you mention above. Depending on how the next couple of weeks go - those items will be announced or not. Tim

My apologies for not writing sooner but I'm still playing catchup on email - the inbox is done, the Georgia box is done but the Personal box still has 866 messages to deal with and with the incoming mail I have to try to stay on top of the new stuff - only 160 today. At 06:25 AM 4/15/03 -0400, Michele wrote: >I might have missed something in the conversation (there has been quite a bot of it lately!) but I have a question or two about this guidelines committee that is being formed. I understand that the committie is supposed to review and possibly change the current guidelines... > >1) Was this committee formed with the okay from the higher ups at USGenWeb? GAGenWeb does not need approval of the USGenWeb in order to govern itself - Article XII: "Section 5. State projects are empowered to develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as appropriate, for their state so long as they do not conflict with these bylaws. State projects shall be highly encouraged to develop and adopt rules/bylaws that cover grievance procedures within the state" >2) Is is normal for a state to have a different set of rules than is already in place at the USGenWeb level? (And is it really necessary) The reason I ask this is because I am hoping to get a county in MS and I am wondering if I am going to have to play by two different sets of rules. Normal? Well some have extra rules, most do not. I don't know which states have extra rules and which do not, ie while I can name some that do and some that don't, I don't have a complete list. >3) When this commitee makes it's decisions, who has the final say so? Does it go to a vote to the CCs of the county pages and the CCs of the archives, or does the final draft go to USGenWeb for their approval? The USGenWeb National folks have no say so - only the National Bylaws do. Tim

At 05:11 PM 4/16/03 EDT, DP wrote: >In a message dated 4/16/03 4:44:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >john2936@comcast.net writes: >> But as I said I could be wrong about this but it is my best guess. Believe >Richard could advise you about the process. > >I think what she was asking was whether the guidelines committee has been >approved by the GaGenWeb Council. >I think the Secretary of the Council should post the date that the Committee >was approved and Richard Pettys appointed as Chairman. The Council does not at the present time have a Secretary. We have no need of coffee thus no need for a secretary <G> and my lap is full of cats and dogs....... >Maybe the new guidelines could require that the minutes of the GaGenWeb >Council be posted as the natioal minutes are. >http://www.usgenweb.com/official/vrecords.html We have no minutes to speak of. >Procedures according to the current guidelines: >22. Amendments to Guidelines. >These guidelines may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the GAGenWeb Council. >Amendments to these guidelines will be approved by a vote of the members of >GAGenWeb pursuant to the rules contained in 3 and 5 of these guidelines. >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/guidelines.htm Tim

At 09:20 PM 4/16/03 -0500, you wrote: >I sent a picture of Jon Bon Jovi and he posted it. I have no clue who the >girl is, but it's on the Hudson River overlooking Jersey City, NJ. :) > >BTW - Katie and I are the new CC's of Brevard County, FL. If anyone has any >connections or info about Brevard County, it would be much appreciated. > >Junior What cities are there? Is that Jacksonville? Tim

At 01:12 PM 4/16/03 EDT, DP wrote: >In a message dated 4/16/03 12:56:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >mannannan@maclyr.com writes: >> Freedom requires vigilance on the part of the people. >> Vigilance against the infringements on our freedom imposed by the >> Government. > >And being a part of a project requires the same vigilance. >Why have guidelines if you are not going to follow them? >Why have an election if you aren't going to vote? > >I think a part of the new guidelines should be that the voter list is kept >published at all times on the main GaGenWeb website. Some thought the same with regard to the National voting list and that got shot out of the water so fast it would make one's head spin - not that it was shot out of the water but by whom. >The excuse of email harvesting is not valid Actually it is a valid item - for web creatures do it all the time. >since they are all posted anyway >on the Georgia Selection List and on our webpages and/or archive sits. Actually not everyone's addy is posted on the Selection list at their request and while some folks may use one addy for getting mail from GAGEN - they use and entirely different one on their websites. Tim

At 11:27 AM 4/15/03 -0500, you wrote: >This response is regarding Tim's posting about the "alleged" competition >between the GAGenWeb Archives and the County pages. Again - a misunderstanding - what I said was that there had been a competition for quite some time - between the various Archives groups - since that was the subject under discussion. I didn't 'allege' there was competition between the GaGenWeb Archives and the County pages. >Linda Lewis, the National Archives Manager, asked that I share this with >all of you, lest anyone have a misunderstanding regarding the archives. > >I think all of you know by now that I try very hard not to be involved in >the messages which are accusatory in nature. I feel that the Archives and >the County Pages are team players in GAGenWeb and that we should treat each >other with respect and cooperate whenever we can. I never like to >embarrass anyone on this List for any reason. Unfortunately having been a victim myself of some Archives individual tactics - I do have first hand knowledge of abuses, by some individuals. >I have repeatedly asked that anyone who has any problem with the Archives, >give me the complete information, and I will follow up. When I don't >receive pertinent information on something that is said within an e-mail, >then I assume there is no basis for the complaint or allegation. Linda >Lewis has stated the same thing many times. If something is done that is >wrong, then she wants to hear about it as well. Unfortunately that was not done - until the complaints went to a more public forum - the State Coordinators list - sad but true and 4 years after the fact. >The main reason I have not answered each allegation that has been made in >recent weeks against the Archives is that we've rehashed the same >discussion numerous times. There has not been any concrete evidence to >support any of the comments made against the Archives. All of you CCs who >understand and work with the Archives, already know the system and its >benefits. Those CCs who do not want to have any part at all with the >Archives are certainly free to do so and I respect your reasons. > >The Guidelines state this: >#13 > b) The site has not been updated with genealogical data within nine (9) >months. (Some consideration may be given to sites for counties less than >100 years old. > >Also, new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in >question, may be considered an update.) >http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/guidelines.htm As the National Bylaws state - county sites must be the primary depository for data for the county and not a collection of links - this guideline needs to be modified to come into compliance with the National Bylaws. >The more people working to get information on-line for Georgia the more >researchers will be helped. And to me that is always the bottom line --- >how can we help researchers the most? Well for one thing - stop data mining. And that goes both ways. Personally the Archives are there for folks who don't want to wait on the CC to format the data to be put on-line, while the CC should put the data they contribute to the web site first and secondly to the Archives, if they so choose. What folks shouldn't do (the Archives or the CCs) - is duplicate each others work - by means of re-inventing the wheel. If the CC's or their contributors don't elect to give it to the Archives the Archives should stay away from that data. If the Archives contributors don't elect to give it to the CCs for the county sites - just link to the items if you find them useful. Some have talked of deep linking versus to the main county TOC for the Archives - the problem there being that if I had a section for marriages it would be dumb to have persons go to the TOC, then to marriages when they can go there directly. Again, just one person's opinion. Tim

At 11:26 AM 4/15/03 EDT, MK Harrison wrote: >In a message dated 4/15/03 1:49:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >tstowell@chattanooga.net writes: > >> As the President said in the last couple of days - each situation presents >> itself to be dealt with its own response. It does not mean that the whole >> project or persons in the project would do the same. > >Oye Vey Gevalt - lets not even open this can of worms by quoting George Bush. Perhaps some minority of folks still dislike the President for his stand against the former Iraqi leader but at least he did take a stand, unlike others - who like the storied creatures in the 'Little Red Hen' tale waited until the bread was done (the war won) now trot forth to say sure we'll help police the place (Canada), we'll help rebuild the place and sell them more stuff (Germany and weenie France) and the UNdead. Personally I'm quite proud to be an American at this point - proud that our President would seek to spread freedom abroad and not keep it all for ourselves. Of course as someone else said just recently - you are free to disagree. Tim

At 10:59 AM 4/15/03 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 4/15/03 2:25:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >tstowell@chattanooga.net writes: >> The RC replied privately to her with >> a Bible verse > >I give you the same Bible verse. >Revelation 21:8 >But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually >immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars - their >place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Does anyone here believe that it is ok to come on a public list and falsely accuse persons by name of actions that didn't occur? That the RC replied privately instead of publicly is commendable. Tim

At 08:51 AM 4/15/03 -0400, you wrote: >>Is this really fair to the CCs of GAGenWeb to paint everyone with the same >>brush? >> >>Individual people make individual decisions as to what to post, not post or >>totally ignore. Individual people making said decisions do not speak for >>everyone in the project. >> >>As the President said in the last couple of days - each situation presents >>itself to be dealt with its own response. It does not mean that the whole >>project or persons in the project would do the same. >> >>Tim >> >Don't you think it's fair for all CC's to know what is going on? If we are >supposed to be a happy "family", it's only fair that CC's know everything >that is going on. Would you rather me name the CC that is doing this????? > >Kim Personal issues are to be private issues. When someone complains about a county site not having such and such or not getting a response from the CC, I don't believe it should be shouted from the rooftops. The RC or the SC should try to contact the CC to see what's going on - CCs have ISP, computer, family and personal issues and while some might think that CCs should answer at the drop of a hat - they often cannot even if they wished to. What I'd rather you and everyone else do is: - not criticize other CCs web sites either by site name or person's involved in this or any other public forum of Georgia. If you have a complaint about one of my sites or Mary Sue's or John Doe's - write their RC, or if it is an RC, write me about it. If none of us can solve it - it can be moved to another plateau. Speaking of your situation in particular though - that is being addressed in private channels between the various parties involved as it should be. There is no good to be had from splattering mud all around - for inevitably mud splatters everyone. Tim

At 03:54 AM 4/15/03 -0300, Derek Nichols wrote: >Tim said: >> For those who think this is a power trip - it is not. I seek to serve >> the USGenWeb project - GAGenWeb - to its fullest potential - to have >> it be a better place than I found it in. I do not want to be SC >> forever as some have infered. I do though wish to finish the task >> I've started. > >Which in a democratic society, would mean running for office on that >platform and seeing if you have the support of those you serve. >Rather than saying, "I'm staying until I get this job done". If you >believe in that task and think you are the right person for that job, >take it to the people and confirm it is what they want. Otherwise, >you could use that argument to stay in power for years, and that's >not democracy, nor maybe what is leaving the project in a better >place than before. Please check the National Bylaws - with regard to terms for State Coordinators. State Coordinators in place at the time the Bylaws were passed were grandfathered in. SCs after that were voted in. I was not the SC of Georgia when the Bylaws were passed. Again it's not power, it's just a job that I was elected to do under the terms and conditions set out for SCs in our National Bylaws. In most state projects some folks don't even know or care who the SC is for they are left alone, to develop their pages as they see fit, without interference from the SC. That's been my basic philosophy - CCs are selected knowing what is required - supposedly they are adults and thus don't need anyone bugging them about this and that. The RCs and the ASC(s) and the SC are there for folks if needed - to assist with technical problems, answer questions of visitors or CCs - adopt out counties when vacancies occur. On occasion, sadly, some must be 'let go' for not abiding by either our Guidelines, the National Bylaws, parlimentary procedure or common decency. Tim

At 02:59 AM 4/15/03 -0300, Derek Nichols wrote: >> As this is a free society folks have 4 options: they can opt to vote - >> yes, no or present or not vote. > >Which is a much better way of stating such, than the previous method >of you encouraging people not to vote. Presenting the options, all of them, and what the result of voting in a particular way, in no way encourages folks to vote one way or the other. Tim

Thank you, Margie!! Carol At 09:45 PM 4/16/2003, Margie wrote: >Congratulations you both have succeeded. > >Margie > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Carol C-H [mailto:cch@netdoor.com] >Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:09 AM >To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [GAGEN] voting > > >At 10:20 AM 4/15/2003, TooFem@aol.com wrote: > >When I am out and about and I look around..... I am more than convinced I >do > >not want to be what is considered "normal" or "average" in our society. > >Belonging to the majority doesn't look very appealing. > >I totally agree, MK. > >Carol > > > >==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== >Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on this >list! > > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003 > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003 > > >==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== >Do you have a suggestion to include in our taglines? If so, please write >GAGENWEB-L@rootsweb.com Carol C-H <cch@netdoor.com> http://www2.netdoor.com/~cch/

The ASC fills that position as necessary. Contact Brenda Pierce. Margie -----Original Message----- From: MFLP@aol.com [mailto:MFLP@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:15 PM To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GAGEN] A question or two Wyndell, You are still on the Council aren't you? Do you have the Secretary's name? Donna ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== Genealogy research usually begins with our great-grandparents to preserve the privacy of 'living persons'. If you encounter a person searching their birth parents, the need to go to the area on the web that deals with just this type of research. Please refer them to: http://www.adoption.org --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003

You have explained it quite well Richard, thank you. I believe I am starting to understand the process now. Michele McDuffie Co *** All outgoing mail checked by Norton AntiVirus ***

I see! That makes a little more sense then. Now to my other question. Has the USGenWeb higher ups okay's this committee and the revision? Who would make the final decision on whether or not the changes are made? I am very interested in this because I am hoping to get a CC position in another state. Does this mean that every state plays by different rules? (has their own set of guidelines in addition to the ones already in place at the USGenWeb level) michele ----- Original Message ----- From: "mannannan" <mannannan@maclyr.com> To: <GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [GAGEN] GaGenWeb Council > Michelle, > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The Council and the Guidelines Revision > Committee are two separate animals. One or two of the members of the > Guidelines Revision Committee are also on the RC, but they are NOT the same. > > Richard

Yes you did miss something. Paulette Moon resigned 12/27/2002 She had written a message and said that Keith had done nothing with the page and wanted to know where to send her transcriptions to. We tried to help her, tried to work with her she refused to work with us. Bottom line she resigned and I accepted it. What part of this did you miss. SHE RESIGNED 12/27/2002 I ACCEPTED HER RESIGNATION. But you know all of this because you saw the email where I was offering to help her and accidentally sent the message to Brenda Webb. Margie -----Original Message----- From: MFLP@aol.com [mailto:MFLP@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:59 PM To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [GAGEN] Yes, no, present OOPs / voting In a message dated 4/16/03 1:38:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john2936@comcast.net writes: > Was this about the CCs cousin who wrote > those horrible emails? Gloria Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:06:20 -0500 It was about the Upson County CC who was delinked and her cousin delinked also, although I didn't see where Ms Moon wrote any bad emails. If I missed that let me know? Donna ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== Confused about Copyrights??? Review USGenWeb's policy on copyrights at: http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003

>So, to all those "Al-Jazeera" types that spin and twist what we are >doing in the Archives, give it up... the war is over! Linda Lewis is referring members of this project as "Al-Jazeera" types. No Linda Lewis you give it up. I take offense to the CC's of this project being referred to as "Al-Jazeera" types. I think an apology is in order here. This is a disgusting remark to compare CC's to Al-Jazeera. Margie -----Original Message----- From: Crilley [mailto:varcsix@hot.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 11:28 AM To: GAGEN-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [GAGEN] Accusations against the Archives This response is regarding Tim's posting about the "alleged" competition between the GAGenWeb Archives and the County pages. Linda Lewis, the National Archives Manager, asked that I share this with all of you, lest anyone have a misunderstanding regarding the archives. I think all of you know by now that I try very hard not to be involved in the messages which are accusatory in nature. I feel that the Archives and the County Pages are team players in GAGenWeb and that we should treat each other with respect and cooperate whenever we can. I never like to embarrass anyone on this List for any reason. I have repeatedly asked that anyone who has any problem with the Archives, give me the complete information, and I will follow up. When I don't receive pertinent information on something that is said within an e-mail, then I assume there is no basis for the complaint or allegation. Linda Lewis has stated the same thing many times. If something is done that is wrong, then she wants to hear about it as well. The main reason I have not answered each allegation that has been made in recent weeks against the Archives is that we've rehashed the same discussion numerous times. There has not been any concrete evidence to support any of the comments made against the Archives. All of you CCs who understand and work with the Archives, already know the system and its benefits. Those CCs who do not want to have any part at all with the Archives are certainly free to do so and I respect your reasons. The Guidelines state this: #13 b) The site has not been updated with genealogical data within nine (9) months. (Some consideration may be given to sites for counties less than 100 years old. Also, new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may be considered an update.) http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagenweb/guidelines.htm The more people working to get information on-line for Georgia the more researchers will be helped. And to me that is always the bottom line --- how can we help researchers the most? At 04:44 PM 4/9/03 -0400, Michele wrote: >The Archives and the CC pages are both part of the USGenWeb (GAGenWeb) project. > >It is not a competition nor a race to see who can get the best or the most info. Tim's response to Michele: Actually it is a competition and a race within the Archives to see who can get the most info online and it has been going on for several years. Tim Linda's response: >Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:09:36 -0400 >From: Linda Lewis <cityslic@ix.netcom.com> > > >For the record... TX won the data contest! LOL > >We had a friendly competition between the file managers, when we were >just starting out. I initiated the "contest" to activate the fm's more. > >We used to tease each other when one would go ahead of the others by a >few bytes or so. > >SD had the #1 spot for a long time, then LA jumped ahead, followed by >TX, who has remained there. They worked for months converting to ASCII >text huge databases placed online for free by the state government of >Texas. LA's former file manager urged her county fm's to put individual >obits online with the Archives Notice on each one (the Notice was larger >than the obit text in most cases <g>), to get their stats up. > >This was all in fun at the time. We are too busy with the data coming in >to "compete" (although I secretly watch Mike's NC stats since they and >VA keep switching from 7th to 8th. LOL!!) > >So, to all those "Al-Jazeera" types that spin and twist what we are >doing in the Archives, give it up... the war is over! > >Permission is granted to forward this to any list. Virginia, please >forward to your state list. :) > >Linda Virginia Crilley ==== GAGEN Mailing List ==== Have you added something signifigant to your website? Advertise it on this list! --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003