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.

Thanks Maynard, for your feedback to me in your List message (below) tonight. In response, I'll share with you & our entire Poythress-List, that the main points/issues I see are: 1. *Not* everyone has signed the company's Release Form to go with their test samples; our only hold-out is our English participant, who I initially understood would be signing it, but who has not done so. That is why I call him "our English participant" rather than use his first name. 2. The majority of the Study participants are *not* subscribers to our Poythress-List. Most of those non-Listers are only Study participants because they did the test as a favor for a family member, or as a result of my gentle arm-twisting. While they did sign the company's Release forms, and I doubt if they care about our List-subscribers knowing their first names, those folks really don't enter into our day-to-day give & take of theories & thoughts & List messages; not all of them are even easy to reach; some of them are not very responsive; and even *if* I tracked them all down I kinda doubt they'd be wild about having their names plastered about on our Poythress research website (which is what I primarily wrote last night's piece for -- updating the info about the Study that has been on our website, currently www.poythress.net, since about 2003). 3. Those of you on the List who are Study participants *have all* received your individual results from the company. Each time the company has test results for you, they've sent you either a paper report, or they've emailed you a link to your report on their website. Their report to you (in whichever fashion) lists your DNA numbers for all the markers you've had tested so far. Think about it for a moment: Nothing prevents you from touting your DNA numbers immediately, far & wide, to our List in a message or even further. (I've been somewhat surprised that you haven't done so in the past) And even without you touting them widely, you can print off or pull out your copy of their report to you, and find youself in what I wrote. For example, I'll use you here since you explicitly gave me permission in your message below. Pull up (or pull out) your report & you can readily see that you (Maynard) are: (a) one of the numerous men matching identically in the 12-Marker Test Results & are thus in Haplogroup R1b; (b) in the 25-Marker Test Results section, you are *not* one of the 4-matching-men I mentioned whose ancestors went to GA, and that you *are* one of the 2 men I mentioned in that part whose DYS-458 differed from the "16" that the majority had. You are the man who had a "15" (& from Bud's & my earlier communications, I don't think Bud will mind me saying he is the one who differed as a "17") (c) in the 37-Marker Test Results section, you can also see from your report that you are the one GA participant who "had a difference on only one faster mutating marker, DYS-CDYb - [with] one more repeat, 39, versus 38 for 6 of the other 7 Haplogroup R1b participants" Still I appreciate your point, and I've wrestled with it myself, re it being more meaningful to the group of active researchers who subscribe to our Poythress-List, to be able to better identify which lines are which. Frankly, I feel more comfortable *not* referring to Study participants by name in the *website* posting (especially since once something is posted to a webpage it will be available on the internet forevermore, whether at the same URL or at some "archived-URL" website). However I don't have as much discomfort referring in List-messages to most Study participants by name, and have previously done so. Since last night's message was not really designed *just* for our List, I didn't use the names there. Our List-subscribers who have followed earlier update messages (from 2003 to recently) already know that you, Bud, Dale, Kevin, Gene, John, Elaine's dad, & my brother Karl are Study participants. You & Bud are List-subscribers whose ancestors went to GA early, so you're fairly recognizable in the update message (& even more so after the above recap from me today). You have now ordered the 37-to-59 Marker upgrade test; and Bud has now ordered the 25-to-59 Marker upgrade test. Sarah (whose husband is Dale, a NC descendant of John Lewis) is a List-subscriber; she is the logical contact-point re that family line. Dale's 37-to-59 Marker upgrade test has been ordered. Kevin was a List-subscriber in 9/03 when he wrote to the List about his results on the first test. I don't think he is currently a List-subscriber, but he has ordered the 25-to-59-marker update. He is also a NC descendant of John Lewis, so Sarah could respond to questions etc re that line anyway. Gene is not a List-subscriber but with his okay in our previous conversations, I've referred to him in List-messages as our Florida descendant of John P. & a cousin of Linda. Gene's 37-to-59 Marker upgrade test has been ordered. Debbie is a List-subscriber (her half-brother John is not a subscriber; they are descendants of William E in GA); she is the logical contact-point regarding her family line. (He has not responded to my message asking him about upgrading from 25 to 59 markers, and I'm not even sure that I have a current email address for him.) Elaine is a List-subscriber & is the logical contact-point re her dad's line (a Mississippi descendant from David). His 37-to-59 Marker upgrade test has been ordered. I am the logical contact-point re my & my brother's line (Alabama descendants from James Edward). His 37-to-59 Marker upgrade test is soon to be ordered. More recent Study participants are: BPW's cousin, Victor: BPW told me when I asked last month that I can use his name with the List; he is not a List-subscriber; he is a descendant of David. His upgrade from 12-markers to 59-markers has just been ordered, so his numbers only showed up in the initial 12-Marker section of yesterday's update message. Teresa's uncle, whose line stayed in Virginia, & who shows descent from Lewis. His 37-to-59-Marker upgrade test has been ordered. Lee, descendant of "Jack" Fredrick Elmo D'Auther Poythress, who we think is descended from James R. Portis/Poythress & Sarah Crowder whose line they formerly thought had some American Indian in it, and that turns out to be reflected in his results (Haplogroup A) on the 37-marker test. "Our English participant" whose 37-to-59-marker upgrade has been ordered And there is one other Study participant who is not a List-subscriber (At least I haven't seen any evidence of him or a family member of his being a subscriber). He is also a descendant of William E. of Georgia, and he is the one in last night's message who I mentioned in the 37-Marker Results "had a greater difference on that same DYS-CDYb: he has 40 repeats on it, and he further differs on faster mutating DYS-CDYa by having 38, versus 37 for all of the other 7 Haplogroup R1b participants..." His 37-to-59-marker upgrade has been ordered, too. This man *is* responsive to my messages, & I'm sending a copy of this message tonight to ask how to refer to him -- whether to mention him by name -- in List messages. From all the above, I think it can be clear to you who the participants were in last night's DNA-update message: In the 25-Marker Results section, the 4 matching men in the NC-AL-MS group are: Dale, Kevin, my brother, and Elaine's dad. And in that same section, the 4 men in the English-FL-GA group are our English participant, Gene, John, and our other just-mentioned descendant of William E. of GA. As mentioned above, you & Bud are the ones who differed "15" and "17." Teresa's uncle is the last one mentioned in that 25-Marker Results section. In the 37-Marker Results section, the 3 NC-AL-MS men are Dale, my brother, and Elaine's dad. Teresa's uncle is the next one discussed; then our English participant; then you; then Gene; and then our other last-mentioned descendant of William E. of GA. This will *all* be easier to discuss in List messages when we have the 59-marker test results that most participants are getting, because then there won't be so many participants at various (12, 25, 37) testing levels! All for now, Barbara 4/20/2006 John M. Poythress wrote: > 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 > >