Barbara - A very good suggestion. In the course of "discovery" on certain law suits in which I am involved, I have found that CD-rom is the most economical methodology for copying large numbers of documents. (1) It is less expensive than microfilm or large-scale paper copying, (2) storage of the "copies" is not a problem, (3) indexing is facilitated, and (4) sharing via disk or the Internet is easy [for example, a number of family Bibles are available at the Virginia State Library ... a breeze to download and print out without leaving my desk]. cld -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Eberly <[email protected]> To: Charles L. Dibble <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 09:17 AM Subject: Re: Fw: preserving records - PLEASE READ >I understand the need for preservation, but why microfilm? >I would recommend scanning all documents and putting them online or on >computer files at the very least so that they will be available to a >larger number of people. > >The cost of the scanning process would be much cheaper and much more >adaptable to new technology. > >Barbara > >Charles L. Dibble wrote: > You might recall that a couple >> of >> >years ago we tried to initiate legislation requiring counties to microfilm >> >records, but were met by opposition. Perhaps the tragedy in Allendale will >> >open some new doors." > >> >a list was attached of counties where NO filming has been done at all. >> > >> >Allendale >> >Bamberg* >> >Berkeley* >> >Calhoun >> >Cherokee >> >Dillon >> >Dorchester* >> >Florence* >> >Greenwood* >> >Hampton* >> >Jasper >> >Lee >> >McCormick >> >Orangeburg* >> > >> >the counties with * are the oldest unfilmed counties. >> > >> >I'm sorry to write so much - but I am absolutely obsessed with getting >> these >> >records preserved. We all need them. Let's please all do our part.