Thanks Maynard. I agree with you 100%. Judy > > From: "John M. Poythress" <brerfox@bellsouth.net> > Date: 2006/04/20 Thu PM 09:00:12 EDT > To: POYTHRESS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: DNA Report > > Barbara: a dynamite job! > > Only concern I have: knowing your gracious sensitivity with respect to > "individual privacy" in this instance, I'll still ask if "privacy" is > really an issue that anyone in the study gives a hoot about? It was my > impression that each and everyone who has signed up for the program has > already signed off to the effect that the privacy of their individual > results was a matter of no consequence to them. > > My observation (objective I think) is that the very point of the "study" > is for EACH to learn where he or she stood with respect to the > the odds of a MRCA at such and such interval and if I'm a mile closer > than Vern or Bud or whomever or a mile further away than any or all of > them it's irrelevant to me as a "privacy" issue. And closer or further > to whom is also a matter that the individual who signed up wants to know > about..and, for that matter, what "closer" or "further" means in the > first place. And from your comments elaborating on the study, the > variations thus far in volatile categories open the accuracy issue of > close or distant to a degree that makes it almost irrelevant > anyway..unless the numbers are a blowout one way or the other. > > My point being that I don't really care about whether 11 out of 12 were > in such and such a "position" or 15 out of 24 were in such and such a > position. I think the guys who ponied up for the tests a) want to know > THEIR individual results, not some abstract > reckoning that means nothing to them. I seriously doubt that anyone is > going to take results with any degree of sensitivity anyway...the bottom > line being that EACH wants to know where HE or SHE stands relative to > whatever is supposed to be relevant..not "group" results. > > Now, I know you may have a feeling that puts you in the perceived > position of hurting someone's feelings and I'm conscious of that. But > again, abstract numbers are meaningless to the testee...I'm betting not > a single one of us signed on to know in the abstract if 3 of 12 sheep > scored thus and such and 9 of 12 sheep scored this or that. > > In order to make it possible for you to "carry water on both shoulders" > so to speak, I'd like to suggest a couple of alternatives: > > 1) each and every one of the testees on the wire who have no > privacy concerns send you an email confirming that. And if the > result is that everyone wires you then spread these > results out BY NAME in the overall report...which will allow you to send > out a "unified" report just as the one yesterday but delineated by names > (which, incidentally, will in and of itself > assist us in working on some genealogical mysteries). > > 2) if there is a single abstainer who wants to keep his numbers a > secret then devise some method of telling each member > how he or she stands with respect to the group numbers > (not names) and tell them so individually. I know this enormously jacks > up the job of volunteer coordinator and is an imposition on you. > However, I'm thinking that to not have individual results will have > rendered the entire exercise somewhat pointless. > > Or do you have another option in mind? Many thanks. > > Maynard > > P. S. Consider this my "public release" (if that's the term) for any and > all information resulting from the study...for starters. > > > > ==== POYTHRESS Mailing List ==== > Poythress Genealogy Research Web > www.poythress.net > >