"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:49:33 -0600, shmartonak@ticnet.com wrote: > > >Why are you reluctant to share your information? What could he do with it > >that you're afraid of? > > Bah, humbug! Now that I've identified myself.... > > They can copy the results of hundreds of hours of your effort and post > it as their own. > > >Just what are you planning on doing with "the > >entire results of my years of research" if not share it? > > I plan to share it with close family. I share with the 3 people who > have assisted me. I will assist others with hints about where to look > and compare results after they have found something. > > >Also, keep in > >mind that the results of your research do not necessarily belong to you. > > But the way I have put everything together and the way I have > personalized the data does. > > I don't have a web site and I don't plan to publish. But I have passed > some early theories to two people who later put the info all over the > internet under their own name. I spent a lot of time proving myself > wrong. > > One asked me for some info recently and I replied with a couple of > paragraphs. Within an hour I got my reply back by e-mail - it was sent > word for word as HER opinion to someone who had asked her and she > missent to me. > > Hugh I had the same thing happen except the person had retyped it and put out wrong information. She also posted bad information on the net and I got the blame.... When people questioned her she replied "oh, I got that from Bill." To say the least, no more info from me to her. I am very careful with whom I share information since that time. Best, Bill BTW... Merry Christmas to all.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:49:33 -0600, shmartonak@ticnet.com wrote: >Why are you reluctant to share your information? What could he do with it >that you're afraid of? Bah, humbug! Now that I've identified myself.... They can copy the results of hundreds of hours of your effort and post it as their own. >Just what are you planning on doing with "the >entire results of my years of research" if not share it? I plan to share it with close family. I share with the 3 people who have assisted me. I will assist others with hints about where to look and compare results after they have found something. >Also, keep in >mind that the results of your research do not necessarily belong to you. But the way I have put everything together and the way I have personalized the data does. I don't have a web site and I don't plan to publish. But I have passed some early theories to two people who later put the info all over the internet under their own name. I spent a lot of time proving myself wrong. One asked me for some info recently and I replied with a couple of paragraphs. Within an hour I got my reply back by e-mail - it was sent word for word as HER opinion to someone who had asked her and she missent to me. Hugh

Christmas time may not be the best time to pose a question which probably has multiple complex answers. Nevertheless I rush ahead of the angels.... I have three major data bases. Each has provable links but the three are not combined because the links between them are not provable by any evidence which has surfaced so far. On the other hand... There are three Sullivan families in Brunswick Co. VA between 1735 and 1800. The father and one son are well-documented but the other son, who inherited, is not. The third family appears to descend from the inheriting son but there is no absolute proof. That third family moves to Warren Co. NC before 1800 where they are the only Sullivans. That generation and the next are well documented up to 1812 as they go to Halifax, Anson, Caswell and Franklin Cos. The Sullivan in Franklin leaves a will indicating children but only names one daughter - a cause for inappropriate language. The last census before his death lists 3 males and 3 females in his household, presumably 2 sons and 2 daughters. Two years after his death the family is not on the tax list. Four years after his death three Sullivan boys appear in Johnston Co. NC. There is no proof of their origin but they are close to two other probable family members and other families which walked the same trails from county to county. One of the males is probably an older brother who was on his own by 1809. Two of the boys made bond for my gg grandfather who had at least 4 base born children by three ladies - he married the one who had two. My dad's family and my mother's family wind up in AL, about 90 miles apart, by 1835. Both sides of mother's family were in Warren Co. at the same time as my assumed gggg and ggg grandfather. All sides of my dad's family were in adjacent counties. All except my dad's family came from Surrey and Isle of Wight Co. in VA - my dad's family may have also based on probability, but fewer facts to construct logic. My question is obvious - can, or should, my three data bases be linked by preponderance of evidence? It goes without saying that the lack of absolute proof should be noted if I combine them. Isn't it funny how you can't say "it goes without saying" without saying it? 8-) Everything I have found indicates the probability of my theoretical genealogy. Nothing I have found discredits my theory. Because the family resided in Franklin Co., a part of the Lord Granville Grant, I doubt the possibility of proof ever coming to light. It appears that my probable ggg grandfather never owned land and my probable ggggg and gggg grands didn't after moving from VA. If it gets to the point, I am more of a family historian than a pure genealogist yet I draw the line somewhere. If "family" is slow and "genealogy" is fast, I guess I'm half-fast. 8-) I thank you for opinions. Hugh

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 04:15:34 GMT, sarakay@cybercomm.net (Sazee) wrote: >Bearing in mind that it's the holiday season, and we're all supposed >to be nice, please help me compose a message to this character >informing him that I have absolutely no intention of sending him the >entire results of my years of research, to do God knows what with. >The language I would use right now would be, shall we say, less than >tactful. I would send him a Christmas card with a picture of Santa descending a chimney. The pleasantry inside would be "Up Yours". Hugh

I've occasionally been using the CA birth records to find information and suddenly (this month?) find that http://userdb.rootsweb.com/ca/birth/search.cgi is now Forbidden. I wrote and was told that people had demanded it be removed. Has anyone else heard anything? I just wonder if it's not now under Ancestry.com for sale. Thanks,

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Don Nickell wrote: > I've occasionally been using the CA birth records to find information > and suddenly (this month?) find that > http://userdb.rootsweb.com/ca/birth/search.cgi is now Forbidden. I > wrote and was told that people had demanded it be removed. > > Has anyone else heard anything? I just wonder if it's not now under > Ancestry.com for sale. > > Thanks, In this case "people" was a handful of activists and a couple of noisy politicians. In addition to the usual blather about the non-existent "right to privacy", were concerns that adoptees could more easily identify their biological parents. Texas birth records have also been pulled from rootsweb and the Texas Dept of Health website. Steve --

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001, Sazee wrote: > O.K., here's my rant of the day ... > > A few months ago I got an e-mail from someone claiming to be a distant > cousin (based on the info on my web site). He wanted information > about my ggg grandparents and their kids. I e-mailed him information. > > Then he asked for copies of pictures I have on my web site. I burned > a CD and mailed it to him. > > Then he asked for a gedcom. I cut a gedcom containing the folks he's > supposedly related to (minus ones born after 1900, for privacy > reasons) and sent him that. > > Then he wrote back. "No no! I want a gedcom of your whole family > tree - everyone on your web site!" This is over 4000 names, most of > whom have not one shred of relationship to him. Actually, it hasn't > been established to my satisfaction that he has any relationship to ME > - probably because he has sent me NO information at all. > > Bearing in mind that it's the holiday season, and we're all supposed > to be nice, please help me compose a message to this character > informing him that I have absolutely no intention of sending him the > entire results of my years of research, to do God knows what with. > The language I would use right now would be, shall we say, less than > tactful. > > Grrrrr!!! Well, let's back up a minute. Let's try to give him the benefit of the doubt. It could be that he's making a legitimate request, but using less than precise or tactful language. Let's also examine your own reactions. I want all the information about all the descendants of all my ancestors. To me that is a fairly simple and a legitimate goal (not that I expect to finish it in my lifetime). This means that I often end up asking some new-found 4th cousin for "everything on your family". I try to explain why I want it and also that anything I post on the internet will have dates and locations of living people filtered out. This is usually sufficient to get the information I want. On the other hand, some people just can't understand why I want to information. Nor do they have any interest in the information I've already gathered on other branches of the family. If they don't want to give me the information, I don't make an issue of it. But I still want it. What exactly do you mean when you say "it hasn't been established to my satisfaction that he has any relationship to ME?" I think that my ancestor and my corespondent's ancestor were brother and sister. For me the evidence of this is sufficient. For her, it isn't. Does this mean I shouldn't have any interest in her family? Why are you reluctant to share your information? What could he do with it that you're afraid of? Just what are you planning on doing with "the entire results of my years of research" if not share it? Also, keep in mind that the results of your research do not necessarily belong to you. You cannot, for example, copyright your ancestor's birthdate. It doesn't matter how long it took or how much money you spent to learn it. Copyright on pictures belongs to the person who took it, not to the person who currently has the picture. If you have a 120 year old picture of your great-grandmother on your website, anybody can download it and do anything they want with it. But to your immediate question. If you don't want to deal with the guy, just ignore his emails. Don't try to write a tactful response. Just ignore him. Let him get his information off your website one name at a time. JMHO Steve http://users.ticnet.com/stevem/ --

In article <3c26a868.1796578@news.cybercomm.net>, sarakay@cybercomm.net says... >to be nice, please help me compose a message to this character >informing him that I have absolutely no intention of sending him the >entire results of my years of research, to do God knows what with. >The language I would use right now would be, shall we say, less than >tactful. Don't respond and get a copyright on your web research information ASAP. Barbara

O.K., here's my rant of the day ... A few months ago I got an e-mail from someone claiming to be a distant cousin (based on the info on my web site). He wanted information about my ggg grandparents and their kids. I e-mailed him information. Then he asked for copies of pictures I have on my web site. I burned a CD and mailed it to him. Then he asked for a gedcom. I cut a gedcom containing the folks he's supposedly related to (minus ones born after 1900, for privacy reasons) and sent him that. Then he wrote back. "No no! I want a gedcom of your whole family tree - everyone on your web site!" This is over 4000 names, most of whom have not one shred of relationship to him. Actually, it hasn't been established to my satisfaction that he has any relationship to ME - probably because he has sent me NO information at all. Bearing in mind that it's the holiday season, and we're all supposed to be nice, please help me compose a message to this character informing him that I have absolutely no intention of sending him the entire results of my years of research, to do God knows what with. The language I would use right now would be, shall we say, less than tactful. Grrrrr!!!

Ignore the person. Stop all communication, immediately. They are what I call "genealogically immature." That is, they're new to the net; new to ideas like "copyright;" have no clue what they're doing; and they WON'T be willing to go crawling around on their knees in the attic looking at the backs of pictures when it comes time to _return_ the favor. I promise you that. They will disappear, and their e-mail address will suddenly begin to bounce back to you when they think they've gotten all that they can possibly squeeze from you. Meanwhile, put copyright info on each and every item that you've put up on the web. I warn you...it's not an "if," but a "when." There are too many internet newbies out there who have no clue, and who will cut and paste and provide no credit without a second thought about it. If people are so blah-brained as to ask you for everything that you have in the first place, then you should see the clue right there that they have absolutely nothing in their own database, that they're just beginning, and that they want you to do all the work for them....They want to take the "easy way out." That's not genealogy. Unfortunately, that's one of the side effects of the "immediate information gratification network" (which is what I jokingly call the Internet). It has created a new breed of people who think that everything in the world is now categorized and sorted for them - all available simply by asking. While that may be the case in a lot of situations on the Internet, it's really not the case in genealogy. For as much as there is in the records now, its never a complete database about YOUR family. 8^) You still have to do SOME leg work. And it's never "free." These people get frustrated by that and start looking around for all the people on the web who have already done the hard work and they ask them then for "everything that (they) have." You should be frightened when you get requests like that...and run the other way. In most every circumstance that you'll encounter like that, you will nearly always end up with _nothing_ in the end, and a changed e-mail address that bounces. If it makes you feel better, I've actually received three requests like that in the last year. They also learned what silence sounds like, too. I don't play that game, anymore. Been there; done that. I've learned the hard way, myself. Tell me what YOU have, too, and ask me what my mailing address is, or send me a attachment scan of something useful, or at least DISCUSS that possibility, THEN I'll trust you a little more. (Not "you" literally...) Those kinds of people never do that, though. However, they're never short on impossible tasks for you to do, or short of the otherwise rediculous requests. Stay away from them. It's easier. ...And forget the kind letter. There is never a kind letter that they will accept. Never. They'll relentlessly hound you until you cave (or until you or they finally get mad). Just know that you WILL meet again a few years later as your genealogical paths again cross somewhere; and hopefully, by that time, they'll have matured a bit, and become a lot more realistic, and more willing to actually share, and do some work. You're not alone. I'm willing to bet that just about every "hardened" genealogist in this newsgroup has had that happen to them in the past. Okay...here's the test. ...Ready? "Hi! Saw your web page. VERY nicely done, I might add! You're REALLY good at that! (wink-wink; batting lashes; cutsie, innocent smile) Listen...would you mind giving me everything that you have in your database...I mean everything? and expensively-done laser scans of ALL your old family photos? and photocopies of each and every page of ALL the old, historical books on your bookshelf which were handed down in your family? ...and...and...and..." (I'm sure I've left something out in the above, but someone in here will be able to add to the list of the usual requests, I'll bet.) Anyway... Quick...what's the correct response, now? "GET LOST, YOU!!!" (smacks the tiny, irritating mouse away so that it splats upon the wall) Oh! VERY good! Yer catching right on, there! 8^) Todd -------------------------------------------------------------- Todd L. Sherman/KB4MHH Gainesville, Alachua Co. FL E-mail: afn09444@afn.org Web: http://www.afn.org/~afn09444 -------------------------------------------------------------- Sazee <sarakay@cybercomm.net> wrote in message news:3c26a868.1796578@news.cybercomm.net... > O.K., here's my rant of the day ... > > A few months ago I got an e-mail from someone claiming to be a distant > cousin (based on the info on my web site). He wanted information > about my ggg grandparents and their kids. I e-mailed him information. > > Then he asked for copies of pictures I have on my web site. I burned > a CD and mailed it to him. > > Then he asked for a gedcom. I cut a gedcom containing the folks he's > supposedly related to (minus ones born after 1900, for privacy > reasons) and sent him that. > > Then he wrote back. "No no! I want a gedcom of your whole family > tree - everyone on your web site!" This is over 4000 names, most of > whom have not one shred of relationship to him. Actually, it hasn't > been established to my satisfaction that he has any relationship to ME > - probably because he has sent me NO information at all. > > Bearing in mind that it's the holiday season, and we're all supposed > to be nice, please help me compose a message to this character > informing him that I have absolutely no intention of sending him the > entire results of my years of research, to do God knows what with. > The language I would use right now would be, shall we say, less than > tactful. > > Grrrrr!!!

Hello, I am looking for information about family Frejlich from region Backowice / Opatow in Poland. My grandfather, Jan Frejlich was born in 1897 in Zerniki / Backowice, his father - Karol was born in 1868, in Olszownica / Backowice. Karols father was Benedykt Frejlich. Thank you Janusz Frejlich My homepage: www.frejlich.de.vu

IMHO, your "less than tactful language" would be completely appropriate! Just don't forget to say, Merry Christmas! Eric "Sazee" <sarakay@cybercomm.net> wrote in message news:3c26a868.1796578@news.cybercomm.net... > O.K., here's my rant of the day ... > > A few months ago I got an e-mail from someone claiming to be a distant > cousin (based on the info on my web site). He wanted information > about my ggg grandparents and their kids. I e-mailed him information. > > Then he asked for copies of pictures I have on my web site. I burned > a CD and mailed it to him. > > Then he asked for a gedcom. I cut a gedcom containing the folks he's > supposedly related to (minus ones born after 1900, for privacy > reasons) and sent him that. > > Then he wrote back. "No no! I want a gedcom of your whole family > tree - everyone on your web site!" This is over 4000 names, most of > whom have not one shred of relationship to him. Actually, it hasn't > been established to my satisfaction that he has any relationship to ME > - probably because he has sent me NO information at all. > > Bearing in mind that it's the holiday season, and we're all supposed > to be nice, please help me compose a message to this character > informing him that I have absolutely no intention of sending him the > entire results of my years of research, to do God knows what with. > The language I would use right now would be, shall we say, less than > tactful. > > Grrrrr!!!

The 1659 Census Download available at http://www.gencd.com

The Soundex cards for the same Soundex code, same first name, (i.e., "John) are arranged alphabetically by birthplace. So, -- for John, same Soundex code -- cards for those born in Austria come before cards for those born in California, New York, etc. Hesse-Darmstadt would be somewhere between California and New York.

Did Mary Elizabeth have a daughter Mary Alice? If so, I may have a connection. -- Andrew Craig BEATTIE Halifax, West Yorkshire, England Family surnames I am researching: ASKEY: London (circa 1930-today) BEATTIE: Dumfries-Halifax (circa 1930-today) BELLAMY: Birmingham (1847-1991) BRAZIER: Cambridge-Halifax (1719-1983) DITCHBURN-AGNEW: Cumberland (circa 1930) ELBOURN: Cambridge (circa 1791-1825) STONES: Leicester-Halifax (circa 1887-today) TURNER: Cambridge (circa 1826-1854) WHITE: Canada BC? (pre & post WW2) WILSON-RIPPIN: London, Devon & Cornwall (circa 1930-today) "Rabbit Hunters" group Creator/Manager/Moderator http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Rabbit Member of http://communities.msn.com/alltypesofhuntinguk/homepage.msnw --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.310 / Virus Database: 171 - Release Date: 19/12/01

Correct. Of course, since they have one, you only have to present the other... On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, John Seymour wrote: >Which could easily be proven with copies of your's and your brother's birth >certificates. > >D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message >news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10112230049090.18576-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org... >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Dennis P. Harris wrote: >> >On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:21:29 GMT in soc.genealogy.misc, Paul >> >Havemann <paul@havemann.com> wrote: >> >> The prevailing question is whether the need for public >> >> availability of certain information overrides the need for >> >> privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. >> >> As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of >> >> identity theft based on them? >> >> >> >That's exactly how the purported murderer of Martin Luther King >> >got a passport to get out of the country. He used the birth >> >certificate for someone who was born about the same time he was, >> >but who died when he was 3 or 4 years old, from a search of birth >> >& death records in a state that had open access. >> > >> >Sixty Minutes or 20/20 or a similar program reported numerous >> >cases with hidden camera examples several years ago. Using one >> >birth cert of someone who died before getting a SSN, the show was >> >able to create several false IDs and obtain drivers licenses and >> >passports. >> > >> >My state now sells fancy limited edition birth certificates >> >designed by local artists, with the extra fee going to subisidize >> >childrens' programs, but I couldn't order one for my brother to >> >give him for his 50th birthday. My mother could, because he was >> >her child, and my brother could (as could his children), but they >> >wouldn't sell one to me, his brother. Under state law, they >> >can't even confirm his birth information for me. IMHO that's the >> >way it should be. >> >> I disagree. As an immediate family member, you should have been entitled, >>upon proof of relationship.

Which could easily be proven with copies of your's and your brother's birth certificates. D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10112230049090.18576-100000@exp.bde-arc.ampr.org... > On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Dennis P. Harris wrote: > >On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:21:29 GMT in soc.genealogy.misc, Paul > >Havemann <paul@havemann.com> wrote: > >> The prevailing question is whether the need for public > >> availability of certain information overrides the need for > >> privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. > >> As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of > >> identity theft based on them? > >> > >That's exactly how the purported murderer of Martin Luther King > >got a passport to get out of the country. He used the birth > >certificate for someone who was born about the same time he was, > >but who died when he was 3 or 4 years old, from a search of birth > >& death records in a state that had open access. > > > >Sixty Minutes or 20/20 or a similar program reported numerous > >cases with hidden camera examples several years ago. Using one > >birth cert of someone who died before getting a SSN, the show was > >able to create several false IDs and obtain drivers licenses and > >passports. > > > >My state now sells fancy limited edition birth certificates > >designed by local artists, with the extra fee going to subisidize > >childrens' programs, but I couldn't order one for my brother to > >give him for his 50th birthday. My mother could, because he was > >her child, and my brother could (as could his children), but they > >wouldn't sell one to me, his brother. Under state law, they > >can't even confirm his birth information for me. IMHO that's the > >way it should be. > > I disagree. As an immediate family member, you should have been entitled, upon > proof of relationship. >

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Dennis P. Harris wrote: >On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 15:21:29 GMT in soc.genealogy.misc, Paul >Havemann <paul@havemann.com> wrote: >> The prevailing question is whether the need for public >> availability of certain information overrides the need for >> privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. >> As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of >> identity theft based on them? >> >That's exactly how the purported murderer of Martin Luther King >got a passport to get out of the country. He used the birth >certificate for someone who was born about the same time he was, >but who died when he was 3 or 4 years old, from a search of birth >& death records in a state that had open access. > >Sixty Minutes or 20/20 or a similar program reported numerous >cases with hidden camera examples several years ago. Using one >birth cert of someone who died before getting a SSN, the show was >able to create several false IDs and obtain drivers licenses and >passports. > >My state now sells fancy limited edition birth certificates >designed by local artists, with the extra fee going to subisidize >childrens' programs, but I couldn't order one for my brother to >give him for his 50th birthday. My mother could, because he was >her child, and my brother could (as could his children), but they >wouldn't sell one to me, his brother. Under state law, they >can't even confirm his birth information for me. IMHO that's the >way it should be. I disagree. As an immediate family member, you should have been entitled, upon proof of relationship.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Paul Havemann wrote in article <ZrIU7.3805$0g.101587@iad-read.news.verio.net>: >Dennis P. Harris <NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net> says: >: Don Kirkman <newsman@covad.net> wrote: >:> Since the state *sells* the same information on CD venal motives could >:> be suspected, but the income probably is insignificant in the scheme of >:> things. I chalk it up to PCness, and expect a court case or two may >:> clarify things (depending, of course, on how PC the judge and jury turn >:> out to be). >: well, they shouldn't sell it at all! if i want someone to have >: my birth information (and i was, unfortunately, born there) i'll >: give it to them. otherwise, the state shouldn't give it out >: except to police agencies. period. Public documents can't be restricted from public access, though there can be requirements of time and place of access. PA doesn't necessarily imply Internet access; usually one must go to a public office or archive, or deal directly with the government office which has the records. >: the state where i live doesn't allow public access to vital >: records until 120 years after the person's birth or 20 years >: after death, whichever comes later. and rightly so. >: it's not PCness. it's the right to privacy, and prevention of ID >: theft. the law should require that we own the information about >: ourselves, and that we control who gets it and when. it >: shouldn't be sold by mailing list brokers, DMV, banks, or the >: vital statistics folks without or permission. period. The vital statistics folks, in my usage, are those who hold the records. Nobody's talking about releasing lists to brokers or banks, but DMV (surprise, surprise!) is a government agency which has its own public records to deal with. >As for privacy, I hear that too, but the same justification could >also be used to suppress any information that might possibly be >used for evil purposes. Why not ban telephone directories? After >all, if 'they' know where you live, they can rob your home, after >phoning to determine whether you're there -- or they could just >steal your mail, including anything with an account number on it. >The prevailing question is whether the need for public >availability of certain information overrides the need for >privacy. For birth records, I'm not yet certain which wins out. >As far as death records go, exactly how many cases are there of >identity theft based on them? That's the question indeed, but yes, in fact there are identity thefts based on death records of infants or young children who died at a time and place suitable for the thief's needs (such as his own age and provenance or a targeted inheritance). -- Don donkirk@covad.net

In <81e82u8a69cvhirlun84ftectrhiujib37@4ax.com> NO_SPAM_TO_dpharris@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris) writes: >her child, and my brother could (as could his children), but they >wouldn't sell one to me, his brother. Under state law, they >can't even confirm his birth information for me. IMHO that's the >way it should be. Well, where I live, "birth cerificates" as such are not used, but you can get the the birth information about anyone born at least 30 years ago, with the exception of those adopted away at birth when the records are sealed (not all adoption cases are like that, however). Records about those born less than 30 years ago (or the adoption cases mentioned above) are generally only available to the individuals in question. -frisk -- Fridrik Skulason Frisk Software International phone: +354-5-617273 Author of F-PROT E-mail: frisk@complex.is fax: +354-5-617274