Peter, I was not suggesting that you did not thoroughly review the material before making an assessment only that the term "vetted" was not used by you and that neither you nor Leslie required proven lineages be disclosed to the list. It is precisely because both of you did do a thorough review that it was possible to "grandfather" in those participants who went through the process with either of you. The suggestion was made that those grandfathered in just "copy" their lineages and post them. Since earlier process did not involve producing a succinct compilation on a computor, there may not be anything to copy, therefore, it would be an undue hardship for the participant to produce a lineage post. Perhaps it might help those interested to know that any vetted participant from #63547 on will have a vetting post. Those with lower numbers may or may not have been "vetted" by either you or Leslie prior to the present system. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetted Kincaids > This is incorrect. Participants sent me what they knew > of their lineage and I went through it thoroughly as one > does when lines are posted to the list. I requested > follow-up information and obtained what I could > on their line from the sources available to me. Some > sent me material by mail. This material I sent to Sue. > Based on this process I prepared a brief lineage for > the web page and used terms like "participant believes" > to highlight that conclusive information was not presented > to me for the connection. Leslie basically did the same > type of review except that she personally had access to > more US sources to personally review. I think a > number of participants can attest how much of a pain > I was to 1) understand the details of their line and > 2) not suggest something conclusive that was not. > > With regards to the notion of a line being designated > "vetted" in a table, I did not wish to give such labels. > This was a development by my successors. > > My review of participant lineages was done on the > understanding that I would keep confidential what the > participant wanted. What was presented on the web > page was what they reviewed and consented to. If the > participant wanted anything made public they could post it > themselves to the list. While I understand the interest in > participants' lineages I respect participant privacy wishes. > > One can contact the person directly if they wish participant > lineages. Contact information is available on their own FTDNA > web pages under matches or from Don Kincaid; albeit he > has his own privacy guidelines to follow. > > Peter Kincaid > Fredericton, NB > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sue Liedtke" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:36 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetted Kincaids > > >> We didn't keep track of who was vetted before the current process was >> adopted. Our first administrator was Peter. He did not actually "vet" >> lines >> but rather used words in short lineage compilations to indicate his view >> on >> whether the line was valid. > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 6095 (20110504) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 6095 (20110504) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 6095 (20110504) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 6095 (20110504) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > To join the DNA project, go to: > www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Kincaid&Code=J21027 > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I believe I would have a copy for #49289 if there is interest in me delivering it to someone. On May 5, 2011, at 8:26 AM, Sue Liedtke wrote: > Peter, I was not suggesting that you did not thoroughly review the material > before making an assessment only that the term "vetted" was not used by you > and that neither you nor Leslie required proven lineages be disclosed to the > list. It is precisely because both of you did do a thorough review that it > was possible to "grandfather" in those participants who went through the > process with either of you. > > The suggestion was made that those grandfathered in just "copy" their > lineages and post them. Since earlier process did not involve producing a > succinct compilation on a computor, there may not be anything to copy, > therefore, it would be an undue hardship for the participant to produce a > lineage post. > > Perhaps it might help those interested to know that any vetted participant > from #63547 on will have a vetting post. Those with lower numbers may or may > not have been "vetted" by either you or Leslie prior to the present system. > > Sue Liedtke > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:57 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetted Kincaids > > >> This is incorrect. Participants sent me what they knew >> of their lineage and I went through it thoroughly as one >> does when lines are posted to the list. I requested >> follow-up information and obtained what I could >> on their line from the sources available to me. Some >> sent me material by mail. This material I sent to Sue. >> Based on this process I prepared a brief lineage for >> the web page and used terms like "participant believes" >> to highlight that conclusive information was not presented >> to me for the connection. Leslie basically did the same >> type of review except that she personally had access to >> more US sources to personally review. I think a >> number of participants can attest how much of a pain >> I was to 1) understand the details of their line and >> 2) not suggest something conclusive that was not. >> >> With regards to the notion of a line being designated >> "vetted" in a table, I did not wish to give such labels. >> This was a development by my successors. >> >> My review of participant lineages was done on the >> understanding that I would keep confidential what the >> participant wanted. What was presented on the web >> page was what they reviewed and consented to. If the >> participant wanted anything made public they could post it >> themselves to the list. While I understand the interest in >> participants' lineages I respect participant privacy wishes. >> >> One can contact the person directly if they wish participant >> lineages. Contact information is available on their own FTDNA >> web pages under matches or from Don Kincaid; albeit he >> has his own privacy guidelines to follow. >> >> Peter Kincaid >> Fredericton, NB >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sue Liedtke" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:36 AM >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetted Kincaids >> >> >>> We didn't keep track of who was vetted before the current process was >>> adopted. Our first administrator was Peter. He did not actually "vet" >>> lines >>> but rather used words in short lineage compilations to indicate his view >>> on >>> whether the line was valid. >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature >> database 6095 (20110504) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature >> database 6095 (20110504) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature >> database 6095 (20110504) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature >> database 6095 (20110504) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com >> >> >> >> To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls >> >> To join the DNA project, go to: >> www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Kincaid&Code=J21027 >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > To join the DNA project, go to: > www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Kincaid&Code=J21027 > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Bob Arnott [email protected] (303)741-3468 (h) (303) 475-9885 (c)