You brought a nice smile to my face, I loved it..... I am a Yankee too!! Love the southern drawl........ g ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Buckley To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Vote Greetings y'all, Have been inundated with about a thousun attempts per day to infect me with one of them virus thangs and with my advanced age have not egzactly follered y'all in this discuss'n. So bear with me. If'n I got this strate, har is whut's goin' on: One of them Georgia boys started this mess by not acting like the surthern gentlman his mama brot him up to be. Maybe jus cuz that Isaiah feller is a yankee...dunno. Ain't no excuse. Sumin bout the Isaih feller wantin som money to pay for hiz server that sum folks don't like but didn't brake no laws. Then, a lady tried to calm folks down and wuzn't treated like no lady for her efforts. The Georgia boy commenced to talk about everything under the sun regardin his affliction, the govment, and how everybody was wrong. One of them other yankees decided to have a kangaroo court and call for a vote (Rebels love it when yankees fit mongst theirselves) Now to get serious (If that is possible with me), I took a quick look at all of our state pages and found that only twelve do not have RootsWeb Addy's. Two are RootsWeb Redirects. Of the remaining ten state pages it is not exactly clear if they truly acknowledge that they are a "chapter" of the USGenWeb Project. Maybe two or three are incorporated as "xxGenWeb". Kansas is the "KSGenWeb Internet Genealogy Society". Don't think its any of my business, but for the states not hosted by RootsWeb, who is paying for their servers? So, should we beat up on Iowa for having a sponsor other than RootsWeb(Who always solicited contributions before they were bought by a "commercial interest")? My personal opinion is that the Iowa solicitation should be a bit more subtle. But since it doesn't break the USGenWeb bylaws and there are several other questionable state page hosting arrangemets, is there sufficient need for us to conduct a non-binding censure vote? Why can't we just state our opinions civily and responsibly? My hope is that Iowa, and any other States, will take a hard look at what we present to the public so that we keep our focus on providing free help to folks looking for their family history. Regards, Paul Buckley, North Carolina ASC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 08/19/2003

Gail, Thank you for writing this note, as it allows me to introduce some "new" information into the mix. Despite the "new" information, I would like to continue with the straw vote on IAGenWeb just so we can get a feeling for where we stand right now. Before the "new" information, I would like to respond to some things you say below. What good is the vote going to do? First it will let us know how we feel about this. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the majority don't care enough to respond. But, just suppose that a large majority feels that what IAGenWeb is doing is not in the best interest of the USGWP? In that case, I would recommend that the bylaws be revised so that soliciting funds is clearly not allowed. In Iowa's case, think GRANDFATHER (or GRANDPARENT). Iowa is a wonderful part of USGenWeb and we should all be very careful to show our respect even if some of us might disagree with Iowa's activities. This brings us to the "new" information. A few minutes ago a friend wrote me reminding me that TNGenWeb has been doing about the same (if not exactly the same) as what IAGenWeb is doing. And, I am a CC in TNGenWeb so why am I picking on Iowa? I suppose the answer to TNGenWeb is that they would be grandfathered too. I do not feel I am picking on Iowa, I have stated on several lists that Iowa is doing things the right way. My opinion, however, is that Iowa is doing the wrong thing (if that makes sense). My dim recollection is that KSGenWeb incorporated years ago but I don't know if they are soliciting money. And, I heard a tiny rumor that some CC in CA is soliciting money. In any case, I think it would be useful to proceed with this straw vote just so we can get a sense of how we all feel about mixing money into our organization. Respectfully, George On 24 Aug 2003 at 18:14, Gail Meyer Kilgore wrote: > I don't know who has the authority to call a vote, but I doubt if it > is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is going on. So, what > good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has done nothing wrong. You > are asking for a vote against an organization that has nothing to do > with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You can't vote The Friends > of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you can vote on. IAGenWeb > has done no wrong, they have not violated any by-laws. When The > Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went over the USGenWeb By-Laws > with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate standing by-laws. If you > change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not accepting donations. > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > Iowa State Coordinator > IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 08/19/2003 > >

Here is the URL for the history of TN - perhaps it will help answer your questions. http://www.tngenweb.org/genweb.htm The TNGenWeb exsisted prior to USGenWeb - R/S MAK WI ASC --- Gail Meyer Kilgore <gkilgore@globalcrossing.net> wrote: > I have been trying to find out why TN incorporated > and as long as five years ago. What was their > reason for doing so and are they incorporated > non-profit? I see absolutely nothing wrong with it > and it is probably a good idea. I have just been > trying to find out why they did incorporate and not > to use it against TN or KS or any other state that > may have incorporated. Maybe it would be a good > idea for IA to incorporate if I could find the > reason why and what prompted some states to chose > that direction. Would everything then posted to the > county pages be part of a corporation? > > Gail > ----- Original Message ----- > From: George Waller > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 6:41 PM > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Vote > > > Gail, > Thank you for writing this note, as it allows me > to introduce some > "new" information into the mix. Despite the "new" > information, I > would like to continue with the straw vote on > IAGenWeb just so we > can get a feeling for where we stand right now. > > Before the "new" information, I would like to > respond to some things > you say below. What good is the vote going to do? > First it will let us > know how we feel about this. It wouldn't surprise > me to find that the > majority don't care enough to respond. But, just > suppose that a large > majority feels that what IAGenWeb is doing is not > in the best interest > of the USGWP? In that case, I would recommend > that the bylaws be > revised so that soliciting funds is clearly not > allowed. In Iowa's case, > think GRANDFATHER (or GRANDPARENT). Iowa is a > wonderful part > of USGenWeb and we should all be very careful to > show our respect > even if some of us might disagree with Iowa's > activities. > > This brings us to the "new" information. A few > minutes ago a friend > wrote me reminding me that TNGenWeb has been doing > about the > same (if not exactly the same) as what IAGenWeb is > doing. And, I am > a CC in TNGenWeb so why am I picking on Iowa? I > suppose the > answer to TNGenWeb is that they would be > grandfathered too. I do > not feel I am picking on Iowa, I have stated on > several lists that Iowa > is doing things the right way. My opinion, > however, is that Iowa is > doing the wrong thing (if that makes sense). > > My dim recollection is that KSGenWeb incorporated > years ago but I > don't know if they are soliciting money. And, I > heard a tiny rumor that > some CC in CA is soliciting money. > > In any case, I think it would be useful to proceed > with this straw vote > just so we can get a sense of how we all feel > about mixing money into > our organization. > > Respectfully, George > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 18:14, Gail Meyer Kilgore wrote: > > > I don't know who has the authority to call a > vote, but I doubt if it > > is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is > going on. So, what > > good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has > done nothing wrong. You > > are asking for a vote against an organization > that has nothing to do > > with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You > can't vote The Friends > > of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you > can vote on. IAGenWeb > > has done no wrong, they have not violated any > by-laws. When The > > Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went > over the USGenWeb By-Laws > > with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate > standing by-laws. If you > > change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not > accepting donations. > > > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > > Iowa State Coordinator > > IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release > Date: 08/19/2003 > > > > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release > Date: 08/19/2003 > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

It's not a binding vote Gail, it's just a straw poll of what others perceptions are of the Friends project. I believe everyone is aware that this poll has no bearing whatsoever on what you do. Jan ----- Original Message ----- From: Gail Meyer Kilgore <gkilgore@globalcrossing.net> > I don't know who has the authority to call a vote, but I doubt if it is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is going on. So, what good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has done nothing wrong. You are asking for a vote against an organization that has nothing to do with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You can't vote The Friends of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you can vote on. IAGenWeb has done no wrong, they have not violated any by-laws. When The Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went over the USGenWeb By-Laws with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate standing by-laws. If you change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not accepting donations. > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > Iowa State Coordinator > IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 08/19/2003 >

I find your comments interesting. IAGenWeb is not incorporated and will not be incorporated or there is nothing in the works for such at this time. I have been trying to find out why TN incorporated and as long as five years ago. What was their reason for doing so and are they incorporated non-profit? I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and it is probably a good idea. I have just been trying to find out why they did incorporate and not to use it against TN or KS or any other state that may have incorporated. Maybe it would be a good idea for IA to incorporate if I could find the reason why and what prompted some states to chose that direction. Would everything then posted to the county pages be part of a corporation? Gail ----- Original Message ----- From: George Waller To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Vote Gail, Thank you for writing this note, as it allows me to introduce some "new" information into the mix. Despite the "new" information, I would like to continue with the straw vote on IAGenWeb just so we can get a feeling for where we stand right now. Before the "new" information, I would like to respond to some things you say below. What good is the vote going to do? First it will let us know how we feel about this. It wouldn't surprise me to find that the majority don't care enough to respond. But, just suppose that a large majority feels that what IAGenWeb is doing is not in the best interest of the USGWP? In that case, I would recommend that the bylaws be revised so that soliciting funds is clearly not allowed. In Iowa's case, think GRANDFATHER (or GRANDPARENT). Iowa is a wonderful part of USGenWeb and we should all be very careful to show our respect even if some of us might disagree with Iowa's activities. This brings us to the "new" information. A few minutes ago a friend wrote me reminding me that TNGenWeb has been doing about the same (if not exactly the same) as what IAGenWeb is doing. And, I am a CC in TNGenWeb so why am I picking on Iowa? I suppose the answer to TNGenWeb is that they would be grandfathered too. I do not feel I am picking on Iowa, I have stated on several lists that Iowa is doing things the right way. My opinion, however, is that Iowa is doing the wrong thing (if that makes sense). My dim recollection is that KSGenWeb incorporated years ago but I don't know if they are soliciting money. And, I heard a tiny rumor that some CC in CA is soliciting money. In any case, I think it would be useful to proceed with this straw vote just so we can get a sense of how we all feel about mixing money into our organization. Respectfully, George On 24 Aug 2003 at 18:14, Gail Meyer Kilgore wrote: > I don't know who has the authority to call a vote, but I doubt if it > is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is going on. So, what > good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has done nothing wrong. You > are asking for a vote against an organization that has nothing to do > with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You can't vote The Friends > of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you can vote on. IAGenWeb > has done no wrong, they have not violated any by-laws. When The > Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went over the USGenWeb By-Laws > with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate standing by-laws. If you > change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not accepting donations. > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > Iowa State Coordinator > IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 08/19/2003 > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 08/19/2003

Ummm -- either it is OK for all or it is not OK for all. Otherwise, everyone will slap a "Friends of XXGW" logo on their pages so they will be "grandfathered in" should circumstances make it necessary later on. --- George Waller <George@Waller.Org> wrote: > Gail, > Thank you for writing this note, as it allows me to > introduce some > "new" information into the mix. Despite the "new" > information, I > would like to continue with the straw vote on > IAGenWeb just so we > can get a feeling for where we stand right now. > > Before the "new" information, I would like to > respond to some things > you say below. What good is the vote going to do? > First it will let us > know how we feel about this. It wouldn't surprise > me to find that the > majority don't care enough to respond. But, just > suppose that a large > majority feels that what IAGenWeb is doing is not in > the best interest > of the USGWP? In that case, I would recommend that > the bylaws be > revised so that soliciting funds is clearly not > allowed. In Iowa's case, > think GRANDFATHER (or GRANDPARENT). Iowa is a > wonderful part > of USGenWeb and we should all be very careful to > show our respect > even if some of us might disagree with Iowa's > activities. > > This brings us to the "new" information. A few > minutes ago a friend > wrote me reminding me that TNGenWeb has been doing > about the > same (if not exactly the same) as what IAGenWeb is > doing. And, I am > a CC in TNGenWeb so why am I picking on Iowa? I > suppose the > answer to TNGenWeb is that they would be > grandfathered too. I do > not feel I am picking on Iowa, I have stated on > several lists that Iowa > is doing things the right way. My opinion, however, > is that Iowa is > doing the wrong thing (if that makes sense). > > My dim recollection is that KSGenWeb incorporated > years ago but I > don't know if they are soliciting money. And, I > heard a tiny rumor that > some CC in CA is soliciting money. > > In any case, I think it would be useful to proceed > with this straw vote > just so we can get a sense of how we all feel about > mixing money into > our organization. > > Respectfully, George > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 18:14, Gail Meyer Kilgore wrote: > > > I don't know who has the authority to call a vote, > but I doubt if it > > is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is > going on. So, what > > good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has done > nothing wrong. You > > are asking for a vote against an organization that > has nothing to do > > with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You > can't vote The Friends > > of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you can > vote on. IAGenWeb > > has done no wrong, they have not violated any > by-laws. When The > > Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went over > the USGenWeb By-Laws > > with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate > standing by-laws. If you > > change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not > accepting donations. > > > > Gail Meyer Kilgore > > Iowa State Coordinator > > IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system > (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release > Date: 08/19/2003 > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

While I do understand what the Friends of IAGenWeb is doing, I don't think its in the best interests of the USGenWeb project. My perception of it all, is that it's going to open a big can of worms, in that others will be doing the same. I do think they have made an excellent attempt, but, once started, will others do the same? Jan Cortez MI SC ----- Original Message ----- From: George Waller <George@Waller.Org> > Richard et al., > Thanks for asking for a clearer definition of "best interests test." > For the purposes of this poll it means best interests of the USGWP. > I doubt if we could get all of us on the same exact meaning, but I > do believe we all have a reasonable idea of what it means. > > Anyone voting is welcome to make explanatory comments. > > The results of the poll will, if nothing else, put us on record as to how > we feel about what IAGenWeb is doing. This might have some impact > on how the bylaws get revised. > > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb/CTGenWeb > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 13:25, mannannan wrote: > > > George, > > > > While I like the idea of a poll, official or unofficial, binding or > > non- binding, I believe we need to get a definition of the "best > > interests test". I know what it means, and you know what it means and > > Ellen knows what it means. In fact, all of us know what it means. > > However, it may have different meanings or connotations for each of > > us. Some may deem it to mean in the best interests of the USGWP. > > Others may deem it to mean in the best interests of IAGenWeb. Still > > others may deem it to mean "not directly harmful to USGWP". > > > > So, can we elaborate on this before we take a straw poll? > > > > The other concern is this: if we agree that it is not in the best > > interests, what have we truly said? And what can we do about it if we > > find that it is not in the best interests? I mean, the NC appears to > > have started "Friends" or, if not, is certainly a mover and shaker > > with it. We can't exactly fire him for it any more than we can > > de-link IAGenWeb. > > > > So, in truth, I guess my question is, "What is the point of such a > > poll? Is it an effort to stop the discussion? Or is it an effort to > > cease the problematic issue where we have neither the ability to act > > nor the teeth to enforce our vote?" > > > > Richard Pettys > > Second ASC Georgia > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW > > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is > > > > not >free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is > > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best > > > > interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior > > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best > > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous > > > > precedence. > > > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > > Respectfully, > > > George > > > MAGenWeb > > > CTGenWeb > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along > > > > with several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a > > > > number of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This > > > > project needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and > > > > cooperative behavior. > > > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But > > > > we do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. > > > > For that to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a > > > > polite and respectful fashion more palatable to those we are > > > > addressing. > > > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC > > > > Regulations, I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the > > > > Friends Board members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I > > > > believe it is a clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board > > > > members are the direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) > > > > of the funds they themselves solicit, control and disperse. No > > > > one on that Board should be an IAGW member, except perhaps a > > > > "guest" IAGW member, without voting rights. > > > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW > > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is > > > > not free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is > > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best > > > > interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior > > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best > > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous > > > > precedence. > > > > > > > > Ellen

Richard et al., Thanks for asking for a clearer definition of "best interests test." For the purposes of this poll it means best interests of the USGWP. I doubt if we could get all of us on the same exact meaning, but I do believe we all have a reasonable idea of what it means. Anyone voting is welcome to make explanatory comments. The results of the poll will, if nothing else, put us on record as to how we feel about what IAGenWeb is doing. This might have some impact on how the bylaws get revised. Respectfully, George MAGenWeb/CTGenWeb On 24 Aug 2003 at 13:25, mannannan wrote: > George, > > While I like the idea of a poll, official or unofficial, binding or > non- binding, I believe we need to get a definition of the "best > interests test". I know what it means, and you know what it means and > Ellen knows what it means. In fact, all of us know what it means. > However, it may have different meanings or connotations for each of > us. Some may deem it to mean in the best interests of the USGWP. > Others may deem it to mean in the best interests of IAGenWeb. Still > others may deem it to mean "not directly harmful to USGWP". > > So, can we elaborate on this before we take a straw poll? > > The other concern is this: if we agree that it is not in the best > interests, what have we truly said? And what can we do about it if we > find that it is not in the best interests? I mean, the NC appears to > have started "Friends" or, if not, is certainly a mover and shaker > with it. We can't exactly fire him for it any more than we can > de-link IAGenWeb. > > So, in truth, I guess my question is, "What is the point of such a > poll? Is it an effort to stop the discussion? Or is it an effort to > cease the problematic issue where we have neither the ability to act > nor the teeth to enforce our vote?" > > Richard Pettys > Second ASC Georgia > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:07:53 -0400 > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is > > > not >free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best > > > interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous > > > precedence. > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > Respectfully, > > George > > MAGenWeb > > CTGenWeb > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along > > > with several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a > > > number of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This > > > project needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and > > > cooperative behavior. > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But > > > we do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. > > > For that to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a > > > polite and respectful fashion more palatable to those we are > > > addressing. > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC > > > Regulations, I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the > > > Friends Board members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I > > > believe it is a clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board > > > members are the direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) > > > of the funds they themselves solicit, control and disperse. No > > > one on that Board should be an IAGW member, except perhaps a > > > "guest" IAGW member, without voting rights. > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is > > > not free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best > > > interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous > > > precedence. > > > > > > Ellen > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > >

I don't know who has the authority to call a vote, but I doubt if it is an SC who really has no knowledge of what is going on. So, what good is your vote going to do? IAGenWeb has done nothing wrong. You are asking for a vote against an organization that has nothing to do with IAGenWeb but supporting its server. You can't vote The Friends of Iowa out, they don't belong to anything you can vote on. IAGenWeb has done no wrong, they have not violated any by-laws. When The Friends of Iowa was formed the attorney went over the USGenWeb By-Laws with a fine tooth comb so as not to violate standing by-laws. If you change the by-laws, why? IAGenWeb is not accepting donations. Gail Meyer Kilgore Iowa State Coordinator IAGenWeb: http://iagenweb.org --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 08/19/2003

I do not believe this is in the best interest of USGWP. We are opening up ourselves to liability should someone abscond with the funds. --- George Waller <George@Waller.Org> wrote: > Richard et al., > Thanks for asking for a clearer definition of "best > interests test." > For the purposes of this poll it means best > interests of the USGWP. > I doubt if we could get all of us on the same exact > meaning, but I > do believe we all have a reasonable idea of what it > means. > > Anyone voting is welcome to make explanatory > comments. > > The results of the poll will, if nothing else, put > us on record as to how > we feel about what IAGenWeb is doing. This might > have some impact > on how the bylaws get revised. > > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb/CTGenWeb > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 13:25, mannannan wrote: > > > George, > > > > While I like the idea of a poll, official or > unofficial, binding or > > non- binding, I believe we need to get a > definition of the "best > > interests test". I know what it means, and you > know what it means and > > Ellen knows what it means. In fact, all of us > know what it means. > > However, it may have different meanings or > connotations for each of > > us. Some may deem it to mean in the best > interests of the USGWP. > > Others may deem it to mean in the best interests > of IAGenWeb. Still > > others may deem it to mean "not directly harmful > to USGWP". > > > > So, can we elaborate on this before we take a > straw poll? > > > > The other concern is this: if we agree that it is > not in the best > > interests, what have we truly said? And what can > we do about it if we > > find that it is not in the best interests? I > mean, the NC appears to > > have started "Friends" or, if not, is certainly a > mover and shaker > > with it. We can't exactly fire him for it any > more than we can > > de-link IAGenWeb. > > > > So, in truth, I guess my question is, "What is the > point of such a > > poll? Is it an effort to stop the discussion? Or > is it an effort to > > cease the problematic issue where we have neither > the ability to act > > nor the teeth to enforce our vote?" > > > > Richard Pettys > > Second ASC Georgia > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:07:53 -0400 > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > > > > > Well put Ellen! > > > > > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off > point to > > > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > > > > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's > statement: > > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, > and I applaud IAGW > > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. > However, IAGW is > > > > not >free standing with total ability to act > autonomously. It is > > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must > first act in the best > > > > interests of the project. I don't believe > there are any ulterior > > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the > actions pass the "best > > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is > setting dangerous > > > > precedence. > > > > > > Thanks to those who will participate. > > > Respectfully, > > > George > > > MAGenWeb > > > CTGenWeb > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > > > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > > > >Ellen, > > > > > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely > understood it, along > > > > with several thousand other notes that have > drifted through from a > > > > number of folks, from a number of lists, for a > number of years. > > > > > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has > got to stop. This > > > > project needs to take a major turn towards > mature, respectful, and > > > > cooperative behavior. > > > > > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected > speech, modems, or > > > > interstate commerce. > > > > > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say > anything we want. But > > > > we do not have the right to be listened to or > taken seriously. > > > > For that to occur, we must at least try to > frame our words in a > > > > polite and respectful fashion more palatable > to those we are > > > > addressing. > > > > > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me > of making cutting > > > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're > explaining FCC > > > > Regulations, I agree with both of you re IAGW, > if only because the > > > > Friends Board members are all IAGW members. > Legal or otherwise, I > > > > believe it is a clear conflict of interest > when the Friends Board > > > > members are the direct benefactors (albeit via > the state project) > > > > of the funds they themselves solicit, control > and disperse. No > > > > one on that Board should be an IAGW member, > except perhaps a > > > > "guest" IAGW member, without voting rights. > > > > > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, > and I applaud IAGW > > > > for it's many accomplishments over the years. > However, IAGW is > > > > not free standing with total ability to act > autonomously. It is > > > > first a member of the USGW Project, and must > first act in the best > > > > interests of the project. I don't believe > there are any ulterior > > > > motives at all, but I do not believe the > actions pass the "best > > > > interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is > setting dangerous > > > > precedence. > > > > > > > > Ellen > > > > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

I agree with Ellen's statement. Shari Handley SC Maryland and Delaware [-----Original Message----- [From: George Waller [mailto:George@Waller.Org] [Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 1:08 PM [To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com [Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested [ [ [Well put Ellen! [ [I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to [hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. [ [The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: [ [> I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for [> it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is [not >free [> standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is [first a member [> of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the [> project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at [all, but I [> do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. [I believe, [> in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. [ [Thanks to those who will participate. [Respectfully, [George [MAGenWeb [CTGenWeb [ [ [ [ [ [ [On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: [ [> At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: [> >Ellen, [> > [> >Had you truly read my note, [> [> [> I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with [> several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number [> of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. [> [> I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. [This project [> needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and [cooperative [> behavior. [> [> It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or [> interstate commerce. [> [> We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we [want. But we [> do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. [ For that [> to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and [> respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. [> [> The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting [> remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC [Regulations, [> I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board [> members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a [> clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the [> direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they [> themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that [Board should [> be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without [> voting rights. [> [> I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for [> it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free [> standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is [first a member [> of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the [> project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at [all, but I [> do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. [I believe, [> in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. [> [> Ellen [> [> [

Making decisions for the project without Susan's points considered, would and may come back to haunt the project as a whole in the future. When dealing with anything you receive free of charge, preparing for the day that it is no longer available "for free" is a responsible action. That should be considered and prepared for in the formation of any group or project's by-laws and organizational rules. Non-profit does not mean money is not exchanged. It means exactly what it says, that no one person or entity makes a profit. If that is kept in mind and stressed with the set up of any future by-law changes or policies, it would keep the door open for the future of the project and any server changes or other events that may change the way things are now. Patricia Wazny ASC MIGenWeb Project http://www.rootsweb.com/~migenweb/ Michigan FGS Project FM http://www.rootsweb.com/~migenweb/fgs/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan W Pieroth" <pieroth@ix.netcom.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 2:06 PM Subject: [STATE-COORD] Let's Suppose > Let's suppose that continuing with my space on RootsWeb becomes an > unacceptable option - we can all think of many reasons for this. As a > retired emergency planner I purchased www.RIGenWeb.com and > www.RIGenWeb.org and set them to redirect to the RootsWeb pages. This > was an inexpensive thing to do - just in case. > > Now let's suppose that when I move the pages from RootsWeb the cost of > maintaining server space (based on fees for both the number of gigabytes > of space for all the scans, plus the hits volume) is more than I > personally could take out of pocket. > > I could solicit for funds privately from members of the RIGenWeb > community. Is that acceptable? I could create CDs of the map and book > graphics and sell them on eBay. Is that acceptable (I own the originals, > so I guess it is). > > And how is this all transferred when I am no longer the RIGenWeb > coordinator? The choice of web space location is up to each coordinator. > The ability to have space in one fixed place certainly makes it easy to > have elections and change command. Now a person declines a nomination > based on time and interest. How would finances influence future choices? > > The point is not that we *should* not be raising funds, but that there > may be a time when it is necessary. Guidelines now seem to be in order > so we will be prepared for that future moment. > > Susan > -- > Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/ > Coordinator Newport County RIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~rinewpor/ > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19 August 2003

Let's suppose that continuing with my space on RootsWeb becomes an unacceptable option - we can all think of many reasons for this. As a retired emergency planner I purchased www.RIGenWeb.com and www.RIGenWeb.org and set them to redirect to the RootsWeb pages. This was an inexpensive thing to do - just in case. Now let's suppose that when I move the pages from RootsWeb the cost of maintaining server space (based on fees for both the number of gigabytes of space for all the scans, plus the hits volume) is more than I personally could take out of pocket. I could solicit for funds privately from members of the RIGenWeb community. Is that acceptable? I could create CDs of the map and book graphics and sell them on eBay. Is that acceptable (I own the originals, so I guess it is). And how is this all transferred when I am no longer the RIGenWeb coordinator? The choice of web space location is up to each coordinator. The ability to have space in one fixed place certainly makes it easy to have elections and change command. Now a person declines a nomination based on time and interest. How would finances influence future choices? The point is not that we *should* not be raising funds, but that there may be a time when it is necessary. Guidelines now seem to be in order so we will be prepared for that future moment. Susan -- Coordinator Rhode Island USGenWeb ~ http://www.rootsweb.com/~rigenweb/ Coordinator Newport County RIGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~rinewpor/

George, While I like the idea of a poll, official or unofficial, binding or non- binding, I believe we need to get a definition of the "best interests test". I know what it means, and you know what it means and Ellen knows what it means. In fact, all of us know what it means. However, it may have different meanings or connotations for each of us. Some may deem it to mean in the best interests of the USGWP. Others may deem it to mean in the best interests of IAGenWeb. Still others may deem it to mean "not directly harmful to USGWP". So, can we elaborate on this before we take a straw poll? The other concern is this: if we agree that it is not in the best interests, what have we truly said? And what can we do about it if we find that it is not in the best interests? I mean, the NC appears to have started "Friends" or, if not, is certainly a mover and shaker with it. We can't exactly fire him for it any more than we can de-link IAGenWeb. So, in truth, I guess my question is, "What is the point of such a poll? Is it an effort to stop the discussion? Or is it an effort to cease the problematic issue where we have neither the ability to act nor the teeth to enforce our vote?" Richard Pettys Second ASC Georgia ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "George Waller" <George@Waller.Org> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 13:07:53 -0400 Subject: [STATE-COORD] Unofficial poll requested > Well put Ellen! > > I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to > hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. > > The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Thanks to those who will participate. > Respectfully, > George > MAGenWeb > CTGenWeb > > On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > > > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > > >Ellen, > > > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > > behavior. > > > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > > interstate commerce. > > > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > > voting rights. > > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > > > Ellen > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------

Ellen, Since we are all in agreement regarding "Friends of IAGenWeb", and agree that it is a serious conflict of interest, a violation of the bylaws and setting a dangerous precedent, the question begs, "How do we handle this as a Project?" To allow this to continue potentially places all of the XXGenWeb Projects in a perilous position. Either we follow suit, or we fall apart at the seams. I, for one, am not in favor of following suit, as it opens the door for tremendous abuses. At this point, what stops me from creating Friends of Gilmer County GAGenWeb and pocketing all of the money under the auspices of paying myself for maintaining the site? I agree that the petty bickering among the USGWP must stop. However, for that to stop, we have got to get on the same page. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:14:30 -0500 Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] PLEASE STOP > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > >Ellen, > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This > project needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and > cooperative behavior. > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > interstate commerce. > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But > we do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For > that to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite > and respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > remarks > (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, I > agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board > should be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, > without voting rights. > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a > member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests > of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at > all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" > test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Ellen ------- End of Original Message -------

I agree that their actions do not appear to be in the best interest of the USGenWeb Project. Les Shockey At 01:07 PM 08/24/2003 -0400, you wrote: >The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence Les Shockey email address = lshockey@citynet.net or wvgenweb@citynet.net RootsWeb Listowner for the SHOCKEY family discussion group. SHOCKEY-L@rootsweb.com Visit the Jackson County, WVGenWeb Page, part of USGenWeb Project at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvjackso/JACK.HTM Visit the (West Virginia) WVGenWeb: http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvgenweb/

Well put Ellen! I would like to take your note as a jumping off point to hold an unofficial poll amongst SCs and ASCs. The question is do you agree with Ellen's statement: > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not >free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. Thanks to those who will participate. Respectfully, George MAGenWeb CTGenWeb On 24 Aug 2003 at 10:14, Ellen Pack wrote: > At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: > >Ellen, > > > >Had you truly read my note, > > > I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with > several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number > of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. > > I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project > needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative > behavior. > > It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or > interstate commerce. > > We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we > do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that > to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and > respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. > > The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting > remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, > I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board > members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a > clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the > direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they > themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should > be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without > voting rights. > > I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for > it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free > standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member > of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the > project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I > do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, > in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. > > Ellen > >

At 01:18 PM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: >Ellen, > >Since we are all in agreement regarding "Friends of IAGenWeb", and agree that >it is a serious conflict of interest, a violation of the bylaws I didn't say it's a violation of the by-laws. Frankly, I'm unable to make a determination one way or the other, because I'm not sure the By-Laws even cover this type of setup. There are some rather unusual factors and circumstances. More the reason for concern, perhaps, because the project is looking at something precedent-setting. Ellen

At 10:06 AM 8/24/2003 -0400, Pettys wrote: >Ellen, > >Had you truly read my note, I say again, I did read it, and completely understood it, along with several thousand other notes that have drifted through from a number of folks, from a number of lists, for a number of years. I'm agreeing with Vicki. The bickering has got to stop. This project needs to take a major turn towards mature, respectful, and cooperative behavior. It has nothing at all to do with protected speech, modems, or interstate commerce. We all have the Constitutional right to say anything we want. But we do not have the right to be listened to or taken seriously. For that to occur, we must at least try to frame our words in a polite and respectful fashion more palatable to those we are addressing. The irony is that while Phyllis is accusing me of making cutting remarks (not my intent at all), and you're explaining FCC Regulations, I agree with both of you re IAGW, if only because the Friends Board members are all IAGW members. Legal or otherwise, I believe it is a clear conflict of interest when the Friends Board members are the direct benefactors (albeit via the state project) of the funds they themselves solicit, control and disperse. No one on that Board should be an IAGW member, except perhaps a "guest" IAGW member, without voting rights. I don't like to interfere with other states, and I applaud IAGW for it's many accomplishments over the years. However, IAGW is not free standing with total ability to act autonomously. It is first a member of the USGW Project, and must first act in the best interests of the project. I don't believe there are any ulterior motives at all, but I do not believe the actions pass the "best interests" test. I believe, in fact, it is setting dangerous precedence. Ellen

Ellen, Had you truly read my note, then you would have understood exactly what was being said. Offensive speech is likely protected here because of FCC regulations on modems and telephone lines and things of that nature which invoke, sadly, federal issues. It may also be protected due to the invocation of the interstate commerce issues of the internet (and since IAGenWeb is soliciting donations, the entire project may be considered to be in the stream of commerce via the interstate commerce theories), not to mention national security. Yeah, those guys in IAGenWeb and Friends of IAGenWeb may actually force everyone else to do the exact same thing to protect themselves and their projects. Nonetheless, that is not the issue we are arguing. The issue here is the protection of speech. The only speech that is protected is offensive speech - the speech you do not wish to hear - because there is no need to protect speech which you want to hear. Of course, there are limits to those protections. For instance, an email full of vulgarities would likely not be protected. Moreover, stories of an unlawful sexual nature (I am not going to go into detail on this - use your own favorite immoral or indecent sexual offense) would liklely not be protected. On the other hand, your claims, offensive as they may be to me, that I was notified of my removal from the EC, are protected without regard to the truth or falsity of the same. And my opinions with which you and the NC and others disagree are also protected. So, yes, offensive speech is protected here. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Ellen Pack <e.j.pack@natchezbelle.org> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 11:00:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] PLEASE STOP > At 09:13 AM 8/23/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Ellen....had you read Mr. Petty's ENTIRE post instead of looking for > >something to make a cutting comment about, > > I did read the entire note. Read his previous notes, too. Also > read Vicki's note, and Isaiah's, and everyone else. Understood them > all quite nicely. > > And now I'm reading yours. > > Ellen ------- End of Original Message -------