I truly question the repeated postings such as this: "We need to recruit some more James men to have the test so that we can find more matches." The appeal appears more as commercial hucksterism than as bone fide interest in addressing the dna results being generated. If there is a wide variety of results being generated for the James surname, the more important appeals might be, Why is there such a wide variety? Do results for other surnames evidence the same wide variety? Is the wide variety of results for the James surname appearing in the tests of one company only, or in results of other testing companies as well? How many more varieties of James dna exist? If the wide variety of results applies to the James surname only, why is this so? Stating more test subjects are needed solely for the purpose of making matches is like the erroneous genealogical attempts to produce a "fit" or a "link" simply because the subject name or individual is known to exist. Bone fide genealogy research starts with the name and follows where it leads. Evidently, the test results of one dna testing company indicates there is a wide variety of James dna that exists. Where do those results lead? The answer is not to the production of more dna test candidates alone.

Dear Eric, I don't think your comment is fair to the genealogist of today. Not only that, you also offer DNA testing as a genealogical tool. To say that the JAMES DNA Project is a commercial adventure by "calling for more men (believe me, if women were good candidates, we would "sock it to you" fellows!) is outrageous and if you feel so strongly about it, why are you involved in such an "outrageous adventure"? Do you not with your wonderful collections articles on family roots, western stories, historical photos, and historical "digs" {including digging up graves to DNA test for proof} , also have other commercial "gains" on your website selling JAMES family history? After all, any type of project costs something to run, including a mere Family DNA Test Project from Sponsorships. Donations come from the general public, commercial businesses, and many other avenues of access including government grants and civic groups. Most of us are frustrated, stymied, or extremely interested in our backgrounds and family history. To not encourage people to use every avenue of possible gain (and by "gain" I mean personal not monitorial) is a sin. To share our knowledge is also not for personal gain. Rootsweb is about the best tool that most of the "below middle income, working man or woman, poverty level genealogists have for helping to locate documents that prove or disprove their family research. It would appear that there are many web sites on the internet that feature more commercial gain items which try to pursue the dollar of the amateur as well as the professional genealogist for personal gain rather than documentation. Not many of them offer any courthouse, any census view, or anything else that is classified as documentation in the field of genealogy. They rank, according to the dollars invested by the builder, owner, corporate boards, etc., from top to bottom in quality and content. Perhaps the quest of the unknown and the frustration of the missing documentations is the driving force behind DNA. Extracting promises of "do not tell", or "do not look in other places for a match", or any other types of "mental extortion" (intentional or not) are anti-progressive in anyone's search for roots, history, or any other purpose which leads people into genealogy, including the results of DNA tests. Why does anyone have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do with the material, real or artificial, that they pay for? If someone has no interest in publishing their own DNA, they should make that decision on their own and chose the programs they wish to become involved in with a good feeling. The real problem comes when those very persons do not understand the opposite side of the test results, are not able to gain the results they are expecting. Perhaps they expected visual comparison with other participants, names of possible links, what that level of a match means, and many other kinds of expectations, including contact with matches. The very nature of "matches" is misleading when people fail to realize that for every percentage of chance of a match there is a corresponding percentage of NO match. Thus, the higher the marker test the less risk of those famous notes in your mail box about matches [the ones that say Joe Blow or John Doe matches your 12 market test results and your surname is WILSON]. One has to chose the best RESULTS desired test kit for their dollar. You are correct in that it is a costly adventure. There are many things in life that are costly. Including one's car that wears out, one's clothes that wear out, and food that is consumed and eliminated. DNA is not worn out or eliminated. It is always there, solid, dependable, and documental. HOW to document is the question. What's to hide: Mass murderer, a patriot, buccaneer, bonded slave, afraid of a skeleton or mixed race? What's to gain: common goals with other researchers of all levels, friends, helping hands, knowledge possible ethnic background, history of our great country. Is there some kind of a contest here to see who can "out-gun who"? Jesse vs. Jessie? Frank vs. Frances? Clyde vs. Cloyde? William vs. William? There are over known 200 "founding JAMES" families in America. The surname is in the top 100 in the list of names in America. To date, I see less than a dozen of those immigrant founding family lines that are targets in the DNA program. The Family Tree Maker project is an open book. It is worthy and there's is nothing wrong with trying to involve more people in the testing provided they feel they are comfortable with the projects purpose. You should be ashamed. Linda M. Thank __________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric James To: JAMES-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:53 AM Subject: [JAMES-L] DNA results & the Need to Produce Matches I truly question the repeated postings such as this: "We need to recruit some more James men to have the test so that we can find more matches." The appeal appears more as commercial hucksterism than as bone fide interest in addressing the dna results being generated. If there is a wide variety of results being generated for the James surname, the more important appeals might be, Why is there such a wide variety? Do results for other surnames evidence the same wide variety? Is the wide variety of results for the James surname appearing in the tests of one company only, or in results of other testing companies as well? How many more varieties of James dna exist? If the wide variety of results applies to the James surname only, why is this so? Stating more test subjects are needed solely for the purpose of making matches is like the erroneous genealogical attempts to produce a "fit" or a "link" simply because the subject name or individual is known to exist. Bone fide genealogy research starts with the name and follows where it leads. Evidently, the test results of one dna testing company indicates there is a wide variety of James dna that exists. Where do those results lead? The answer is not to the production of more dna test candidates alone. ==== JAMES Mailing List ==== Visit the JAMES Surname homepage! http://www.rootsweb.com/~daisy/jameskin.htm Including: JAMESON, JAMIESON, JANESON, GUNNISON, GUNN, GEMISON,GAMES, HAMES,HUMES, IAMES