Hi Matt; Thank you for the kind warning!! as for my contributions of the "Obituaries & Birth Announcements", I DO have permission to post these, whether "The Telegram" asked the persons {living relatives} I can only assume that they would likewise obtain their consent. I can stop contributing these postings, not a problem at all for me!!, very strange indeed that I did not receive a warning from the Editor of the newspaper or a telephone call, as they do have my info. If this is the wish of the "List Owners" and other listers, not to post these topics any longer, feel free in contacting me. In any case, since this topic has gotten so overly heated, I would rather not hurt any lister's feelings and will with-hold any further postings of "Obits,. Birth Announcements" or any other topic. Have A Nice Evening Evelyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Mullaly" <2matt@rogers.com> To: <NFLD-LAB-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: [NFLD-LAB] IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT - OBIT BAN > > Have you listers heard about the OBIT ban just announced? > > As of now, not only is it forbidden to REPOST published obits ( that means > you Evelyn, and Ivy and Bill) but it's also verboten to even READ them in > the first place. > > The purpose of the ban is to protect the privacy of the deceased as well as > their family.This makes a lot of sense to me as they're the ones who pay for > the publication of the obits in the first place. > > Assuming that there's always people out there who don't have proper > respect for the dead and who would perhaps cheat on this ban and read the > published obits anyway I gather that there's a move afoot to publish future > obits in an encrypted format. That would preclude anyone not having the > decryption key from reading these death announcements. Such decoding keys > would only be held by the immediate family, the RCMP, CSIS and certain > chartered banks. > > So a warning to listowners Sue and Vera: If you don't want to offend the > sensibilities of these folks and perhaps even incur their wrath in the form > of a lawsuit, I'd suggest that you institute a rule forbidding the mention > of any specific person (living or dead) on the lists - starting > immediately. > > I appreciate that this would perhaps somewhat limit the value of the lists > but perhaps this could be compensated for by more emphasis on living people. > And names are not really necessary. > > For example, genealogy software companies, well known for being ahead of > their time, must have been aware of the possibility of this ban because, in > the past few years, I've been sent genealogy files by various people with > portions that look like this: > > > DESCENDANTS OF JOHN SMITH > > > 1 - John SMITH b: 1900 d: 1980 > + Mary JONES b: 1905 d: 1990 > > 2 - Living > + Living > > 3 - Living > + Living > > Just think how simple it will be when whole trees look like this with no > mention of people's names or relevant dates or places at all. That'll make > future research a snap. I can hardly wait. > > Regards to all. > > Matt > > (whooooops!) > > Change that to: > > Living > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== NFLD-LAB Mailing List ==== > Roll Call Page for Nfld-Lab Mail List: > http://amoose4.tripod.com/ > >

Evelyn, Read my post again. It was written with my tongue firmly in my cheek. It was meant to be a sarcastic response to the "no photos in graveyards" silliness. Sorry if I led you astray. And DON'T STOP posting your obits. Regards. Matt > > Hi Matt; > Thank you for the kind warning!! as for my contributions of the > "Obituaries & Birth Announcements", I DO have permission to post these, > whether "The Telegram" asked the persons {living relatives} I can only > assume that they would likewise obtain their consent. > I can stop contributing these postings, not a problem at all for me!!, very > strange indeed that I did not receive a warning from the Editor of the > newspaper or a telephone call, as they do have my info. > If this is the wish of the "List Owners" and other listers, not to post > these topics any longer, feel free in contacting me. In any case, since this > topic has gotten so overly heated, I would rather not hurt any lister's > feelings and will with-hold any further postings of "Obits,. Birth > Announcements" or any other topic. > > Have A Nice Evening > Evelyn > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matt Mullaly" <2matt@rogers.com> > To: <NFLD-LAB-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:01 PM > Subject: [NFLD-LAB] IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT - OBIT BAN > > > > > > Have you listers heard about the OBIT ban just announced? > > > > As of now, not only is it forbidden to REPOST published obits ( that > means > > you Evelyn, and Ivy and Bill) but it's also verboten to even READ them > in > > the first place. > > > > The purpose of the ban is to protect the privacy of the deceased as well > as > > their family.This makes a lot of sense to me as they're the ones who pay > for > > the publication of the obits in the first place. > > > > Assuming that there's always people out there who don't have proper > > respect for the dead and who would perhaps cheat on this ban and read the > > published obits anyway I gather that there's a move afoot to publish > future > > obits in an encrypted format. That would preclude anyone not having the > > decryption key from reading these death announcements. Such decoding keys > > would only be held by the immediate family, the RCMP, CSIS and certain > > chartered banks. > > > > So a warning to listowners Sue and Vera: If you don't want to offend the > > sensibilities of these folks and perhaps even incur their wrath in the > form > > of a lawsuit, I'd suggest that you institute a rule forbidding the mention > > of any specific person (living or dead) on the lists - starting > > immediately. > > > > I appreciate that this would perhaps somewhat limit the value of the lists > > but perhaps this could be compensated for by more emphasis on living > people. > > And names are not really necessary. > > > > For example, genealogy software companies, well known for being ahead of > > their time, must have been aware of the possibility of this ban because, > in > > the past few years, I've been sent genealogy files by various people > with > > portions that look like this: > > > > > > DESCENDANTS OF JOHN SMITH > > > > > > 1 - John SMITH b: 1900 d: 1980 > > + Mary JONES b: 1905 d: 1990 > > > > 2 - Living > > + Living > > > > 3 - Living > > + Living > > > > Just think how simple it will be when whole trees look like this with no > > mention of people's names or relevant dates or places at all. That'll make > > future research a snap. I can hardly wait. > > > > Regards to all. > > > > Matt > > > > (whooooops!) > > > > Change that to: > > > > Living > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== NFLD-LAB Mailing List ==== > > Roll Call Page for Nfld-Lab Mail List: > > http://amoose4.tripod.com/ > > > > > >