"The Spirit of ....", "The intentions were ... ", ..... yes, Phyllis, you and some others are correct, when you want something, all that is necessary is how to get around the obstacle. Probably one of the worst examples, yet maybe so fitting, and I have no solution for ... the commandment "The shalt not kill." But, I keep wondering what part of those four words don't we understand? There is nothing wrong with an Irish Temper, except when it results in the loss of teeth ... it handicaps the chewing and the speaking. Experience has taught that the leadership, and probably the FOIAGW, will do what they will do and they will justify it, at least to themselves. Bill Oliver -=- Phyllis Rippee wrote: > "We just need to be dilligent to review each situation on its own merit in > order to protect the project." > > And, I respectfully ask....who is "we"? > > You know as well as I do that if 1500 members of this Project protested what > FOIAGW is doing, it wouldn't make one bit of difference because that is what > they are going to do. > > I maintain that if it is all right for some people to organize a non-profit > group that will "accept" contributions for whatever reason to "further > enable" (support) the placing of FREE access material on line, then it > should be okay for any CC to "find" a non-profit group that will "accept" > contributions to "further enable" the CC to place FREE access material on > line. > > Phyllis

I said no such thing, and I have no idea where you're getting such an idea, because in fact, I said quite the opposite. I've been looking at IAGenWeb pages, and on the ones that even mention FOIAGW, I've seen a "thank you" to FOIAGW, and link to the FOIAGW page. Which is the exact same thing that I said would be acceptable on your page -- thank WCH&GS for their support and link to their page. Angie >-----Original Message----- > > >According to your reply to my question, it's okay for FOIAGW, >but the WCH&GS >can't follow their example. > >Phyllis >----- Original Message ----- > > >> Double standard? What in the world are you talking about? Where are >> you seeing a double standard? >> >> Angie >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> > >> > >> >Ah, Yes! Apply the "ol' double standard." It's okay for one, >> >but not for >> >another. >> > >> >Phyllis >> >----- Original Message ----- >> > >> > >> >> No, but it would certainly be acceptable to thank them for >> >their support >> >> and provide a link to their site. And that's all that >> >actually appears >> >> on the IAGenWeb pages. >> >> >> >> Angie >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> > >> >> >Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be >> >> >acceptable for >> >> >me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all >> >of my pages, >> >> >except the main one which serves as an index to the others? >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> 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: 8/19/2003 >> >> >> >> > >--- >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003 > > --- 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: 8/19/2003

I agree. And who is *WE*? With all due respect, to allow the NC and the AB to be the "WE" would be akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse. I note with interest that, if we had done this in Georgia, the NC would have been up in arms about it. Richard ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Phyllis Rippee" <wchs@getgoin.net> To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:54:56 -0500 Subject: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > "We just need to be dilligent to review each situation on its own > merit in order to protect the project." > > And, I respectfully ask....who is "we"? > > You know as well as I do that if 1500 members of this Project > protested what FOIAGW is doing, it wouldn't make one bit of > difference because that is what they are going to do. > > I maintain that if it is all right for some people to organize a non- > profit group that will "accept" contributions for whatever reason to > "further enable" (support) the placing of FREE access material on > line, then it should be okay for any CC to "find" a non-profit group > that will "accept" contributions to "further enable" the CC to place > FREE access material on line. > > Phyllis ------- End of Original Message -------

Mr. NC, With all due respect, I do not believe that you and I are reading the same document where we discuss Article IX, Section 2. My reading of this section makes it very loud and clear that we should not be soliciting donations. of course, you are going to say that we are speaking only of a link from the IAGenWeb home page, where I then respond by stating that the purpose of this section is as clear as a bright and sunny day at the beach. Is there a loophole that you may have discovered that makes the actions of the "Friends of IAGenWeb" fall within the bylaws? Probably so, since the solicitation of money is not on the home page. Does that mean that "Friends" falls within the spirit of the bylaws? No more than smoking marijuana and not inhaling (for the record, I do neither of those - I do not smoke marijuana and I do inhale, but only oxygen, or what passes for it in Atlanta). The spirit of this bylaw is clear that we are here to provide "free" genealogical information. Nothing in the bylaws allows us to ask for any donation or "love gift" or anything of that nature, whether it is the USGWP or the XXGenWeb Project. While I understand the history behind all of this, at least to some extent on some levels, I also understand our purpose. If we are asking for donations, then we are no better than anyone else who says free, but then asks for a donation or invites you to purchase something in exchange for their "free" whatever it is. I have read where someone else mentioned abuse of the system (I believe it was Pam Reid, but could be wrong). This is another concern of mine. If there is a system in place, someone will find a way to profit from it. I had always allowed and welcomed CC's in my Region in Georgia to post information of auctions on eBay for materials that were for sale regarding their county. I am having to reconsider this inasmuch as I discovered that one was listing materials that he was selling on eBay, but with a different name and email. This is an abuse of the system. Are you going to tell me that no one will discover a manner in which to abuse the system, exploit the system, and profit from that personally? I hope not, for such a blanket statement would be an absolute mistake and words which you would, in time, eat. Now, with so many of us expressing and voicing concerns, do you believe that there may be some merit in our contentions? Are you now willing to re- evaluate that situation and make a determination based on our input and the opinions expressed by several of us on this list? Or are you going to continue to enjoy your loophole all the way to the bank? With respect to your comments that, to hide behind and then spring a disability is not deserving of an apology is way out of line. It may even be discriminatory. I don't care about an apology from you and would likely not accept it. I was simply noting for the record that none was offered. You confirmed the same with your insensitive and crass response. Your response was wholly inappropriate and is illustrative of the insensitivity that has marked your regime as NC. I believe it was Les who pointed out that many of us with disabilities do not announce them, perhaps because they are sore points for us, perhaps because they are not an issue for us, perhaps we do not believe that you have a need to know. For that matter, perhaps we simply want to be accepted for the work that we do and the things that we are able to accomplish. Whatever it is, your comments show a complete and total lack of respect for anyone or anything. In closing, Mr. NC, I believe that the voice of the people is speaking through Les, through Bill, through Pam, through me and through others. I agree that most of the members of this project would be shocked by the interpretation of the bylaws and I believe that most would feel that the Friends of IAGenWeb" goes against the grain of our purpose - our stated purpose. Respectfully submitted, Richard R. Pettys, Jr.

Just a quick note - I am getting many emails from servers which are saying I am giving them a virus - catch is, I don't have the VIRUS. So if you are getting mail with my name on it saying that, it ain't me (grin). The virus sends these bogus emails out from the infected mail box. That means a few of you out there that have my email addresses in your address book makkuehl@yahoo... and MAKTranscriber@yahoo... need to check your machines for a virus. Also, I am getting a number of emails from people with nothing in them - that means - you have a virus.... yahoo chops out the message and I get a blank hull... To avoid having someone harvest your email box, you can make an erroneous entry under last name type 001 under first name type 0001 and save, it will become your first entry. When the virus tries to open your address book, it gets stopped in its tracks. I answered all mail which had something in it today, so if you sent me something - please check for virus and then resend. Sorry about that. R/S MAK ===== MAKTranscriber - http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

With all respect may I ask a few questions. I would think that the USGWP National site would have the same worries and concerns over the future of their sites as IA has. I fully understand that they want to be independent and not rely on a service that may not be here down the road. Many of us CC have felt the same way. I want to know why this was not proposed and done for the USGWP and all the Special Projects like the archives. Since this was done for IA to ensure that all that data being stored will always belong to the IAGWP project shouldn't we also be more concerned over this for our National page. I have posed many questions about the archives and still to this day have not received answers to the questions below. I will again ask some questions that I am concerned over. 1. When the USGWP says they sponsor the Special Projects just what does that really mean. 2. Since the Special Projects coordinator position is an appointed one or so stated in our guidelines who does that Coordinator report to. 3. Does the AB and the NC really have any authority over the Archives coordinator, or is this a stand alone project and we only sponsor this project and if we only sponsor it , why do they have voting rights to influence the USGWP if they are not a CC or hold other positions outside the SP. 4. Does the AB and NC receive and accept complaints and act upon those complaints regarding the archives. I was told they have their own internal process and if so why? If they handle all their complaints internally where are their grievance guidelines ? Who is *THEY*. 5. Who determines what complaint will be heard and which one will not be heard? 6. What recourse does a person have if a complaint is never even acknowledged? 7. Who has the authority to remove the Coordinator of the archives if there were ever any misconduct? 8. Is there a web page to show complaints filed by members? 9. Why did Linda Lewis negotiate the RW contract and not the NC if they are part of the USGWP and not a sponsored organization? Who negotiated for the other SP hosted on RW? These questions are not to make trouble these questions are out of concerns that I have as result of my *EXPERIENCES* with the archives. We should know if this is a sponsored organization ran by someone other than the AB and NC. Respectfully, Margie A. Daniels --- 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: 8/19/2003

According to your reply to my question, it's okay for FOIAGW, but the WCH&GS can't follow their example. Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: Angie Rayfield <angie@inmyattic.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 21 August, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > Double standard? What in the world are you talking about? Where are > you seeing a double standard? > > Angie > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] > >Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:12 PM > >To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > > > > > >Ah, Yes! Apply the "ol' double standard." It's okay for one, > >but not for > >another. > > > >Phyllis > >----- Original Message ----- > > > > > >> No, but it would certainly be acceptable to thank them for > >their support > >> and provide a link to their site. And that's all that > >actually appears > >> on the IAGenWeb pages. > >> > >> Angie > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> > > >> >Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be > >> >acceptable for > >> >me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all > >of my pages, > >> >except the main one which serves as an index to the others? > >> > > >> > >> > > --- > 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: 8/19/2003 > > > >

Double standard? What in the world are you talking about? Where are you seeing a double standard? Angie >-----Original Message----- >From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:wchs@getgoin.net] >Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:12 PM >To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > > >Ah, Yes! Apply the "ol' double standard." It's okay for one, >but not for >another. > >Phyllis >----- Original Message ----- > > >> No, but it would certainly be acceptable to thank them for >their support >> and provide a link to their site. And that's all that >actually appears >> on the IAGenWeb pages. >> >> Angie >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> > >> >Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be >> >acceptable for >> >me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all >of my pages, >> >except the main one which serves as an index to the others? >> > >> >> --- 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: 8/19/2003

"We just need to be dilligent to review each situation on its own merit in order to protect the project." And, I respectfully ask....who is "we"? You know as well as I do that if 1500 members of this Project protested what FOIAGW is doing, it wouldn't make one bit of difference because that is what they are going to do. I maintain that if it is all right for some people to organize a non-profit group that will "accept" contributions for whatever reason to "further enable" (support) the placing of FREE access material on line, then it should be okay for any CC to "find" a non-profit group that will "accept" contributions to "further enable" the CC to place FREE access material on line. Phyllis

Welcome Mari, and Thank you Nancy. Mary Ann Hetrick SC COGenWeb In a message dated 8/21/2003 11:16:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, IsaiahH@cox.net writes: > > Welcome to Mari Byers the new TNGenWeb State Coordinator and goodbye to > Nancy Cole who intends to settle into a well-earned "retirement." > > -Isaiah >

And how do we do that? That's like saying "if we think state XX would abuse it, we won't let them do it...". That's really out of line for anyone to do. Whatever is allowable should be an all or nothing deal. After all, who would judge the "acceptability" of it? Someone made an excellent point (sorry I can't remember who). How does one receive money that was donated to the cause? Do they have to show a receipt for funds spent and hand over rights to that info? Or can that person get paid for money they've spent and when they don't want to play with USGW anymore, they take the info with them? Are they going to be able to be paid for time they've spent transcribing? If so, I'm sure IA will have a waiting list for their counties! --Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: seek4fam@earthlink.net Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:54:04 -0400 (GMT-04:00) To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > I agree - what IAGenWeb is doing does not appear to be a violation of the bylaws. It appears to be properly and tastefully done. I believe each case such as this needs to be judged on its own merit, and I don't believe we need to attack IA for what might happen in some other situation in the future. > > We just need to be dilligent to review each situation on its own merit in order to protect the project. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Angie Rayfield <angie@inmyattic.com> > Sent: Aug 21, 2003 1:22 PM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > > No, but it would certainly be acceptable to thank them for their support > and provide a link to their site. And that's all that actually appears > on the IAGenWeb pages. > > Angie > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be > >acceptable for > >me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all of my pages, > >except the main one which serves as an index to the others? > > > > --- > 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: 8/19/2003 > > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers

I really wonder how many of our CCs agree with this? I'm in 9 states and whenever I went to a new state, I "looked around" before offering to adopt. I find FAR more sites that don't focus on being such a gateway--but rather focus on transcriptions and volunteer networks. I OFTEN find that we duplicate efforts that exist free-of-charge elsewhere. For instance, Rootsweb has a "Books We Own" project that offers lookups in books. I never turn away an offer for lookups and will always post a volunteer on my site; but I also make the volunteer aware of the "Books We Own" project. Likewise, I was recently asked if I'd like the transcriptions for a cemetery in one of my counties. I responded that I'd love to have them, or the submitter could put them on the TP and I could link to them (and provided the link to the TP). I think some of our CCs feel they are personally responsible for providing information instead of FACILITATING finding of information. I don't think we give good direction to them, nor do I think many of them agree with or understand what we're saying here. I say this based on feedback of my own sites--which are generally 90% information on finding sources and 10% transcription (and that's if I'm lucky; but in some counties there are TONS of transcriptions available). We also never got clear on what we use the archives for... and I've seen countless e-mails that constitute "turf war" on where work should be held...! Any suggestions on renewing the spirit and mission of what our CCs should be doing--and guiding them in their mission? --Heather Jones DeGeorge ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kimm Antell" <kantell@austin.rr.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:11:04 -0500 To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] What's our purpose? What makes a "useful" site? > I agree with you Heather. I think our purpose is to provide information. > Providing information does not mean only doing transcriptions. I see our > sites as gateways to point genealogists in the direction of where they can > find information regarding their relatives in the county that we sponsor. > If we have the time to do transcriptions, that's great. However, I don't > have time and this is probably the same for many other people. I try to > contribute small transcriptions that I can do quickly rather than the huge > ones that there is no way I can take the time to do. (Which is a good idea > as the small ones tend to get lost. :) ) But if my site has a wealth of > links and information on how to obtain genealogical information, does that > make it less of a site that might have a few links and 5 transcribed > cemeteries? > > I recently won an award for Tom Green County in Texas and was also showcased > on the Dear Myrtle radio show as being an excellent gateway to information. > I feel proud of that work. I think it is important that my users can find > the information quickly and easily. > > Cheers everyone! > Kimm > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Heather DeGeorge [mailto:heatherdegeorge@writeme.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 10:00 AM > > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [STATE-COORD] What's our purpose? What makes a "useful" site? > > > > > > > > All this talk about soliciting funds to further the efforts > > brings me to a rather relevant concern... > > > > About a month ago I was told by a reporter that one of my county > > sites looked like any other and "nothing special"--which he > > determined by comparing mine to 2 others (this was his total > > exposure to such sites and genealogy in general). I was > > thoroughly infuriated with him because the site in question, > > while it had little or no transcriptions, pointed users to TONS > > of information resources--some on the net which had > > transcriptions; some on the net that provided information on > > topics or how to order records; and some that were locations, > > instructions, and contact information on getting to original > > source records. Most of these I had actually used myself or > > contacted the places to ensure I knew what was available and if > > there was a fee associated with it, etc.--all stated for the > > user. I also noted (for non-online resources) how to best get > > the research objective met by having contacted those places > > myself and asking how they'd prefer the researcher to deal with them. > > > > As someone who researches locally and not locally, I find that > > this information is infinitely useful. Finding the location of > > the primary resource is half the battle won. Knowing what > > libraries exist--especially those devoted to special interests > > (like race, religion, industry, etc.). > > > > I think it's unfair to say that only transcriptions provide value > > and that pointing to resources does not--especially since > > transcriptions are subject to human error and incompletions. I'd > > rather go to the source--as many researchers would--and therefore > > I value the resource location more than the transcription. Not > > to say I don't appreciate transcriptions, I just appreciate more > > the original/primary source location. > > > > So what's the purpose here? I thought it was to help users who > > were looking for their ancestor's in XYZ county? Showing them > > all of the information that exists there for their use? > > Transcriptions were a bonus--and something I leave to the > > archives (which I link out to in addition to providing the > > original source location of the records transcribed--especially > > since few resources are transcribed in total). > > > > Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts... > > > > --Heather Jones DeGeorge > > -- > > __________________________________________________________ > > Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com > > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > > > CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search > > http://corp.mail.com/careers > > > > > --- > 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: 8/19/2003 > > -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search http://corp.mail.com/careers

Whoot! Congrats, Tennessee Rocks and I know you will do a great job. Margie Daniels ASC ALGenWeb ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Morgan" <damorgan@nyx.net> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] New State Coordinator > On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Isaiah Harrison wrote: > > > Welcome to Mari Byers the new TNGenWeb State Coordinator and goodbye to > > Nancy Cole who intends to settle into a well-earned "retirement." > > > > -Isaiah > > > > Welcome, Mari! > > David > > David W. Morgan damorgan@nyx.net Honolulu Hawaii > SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ > FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm > ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/ > > --- 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: 8/19/2003

I agree - what IAGenWeb is doing does not appear to be a violation of the bylaws. It appears to be properly and tastefully done. I believe each case such as this needs to be judged on its own merit, and I don't believe we need to attack IA for what might happen in some other situation in the future. We just need to be dilligent to review each situation on its own merit in order to protect the project. -----Original Message----- From: Angie Rayfield <angie@inmyattic.com> Sent: Aug 21, 2003 1:22 PM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds No, but it would certainly be acceptable to thank them for their support and provide a link to their site. And that's all that actually appears on the IAGenWeb pages. Angie >-----Original Message----- > >Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be >acceptable for >me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all of my pages, >except the main one which serves as an index to the others? > --- 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: 8/19/2003

Wonderful post, Pam. David On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Pam Reid wrote: > Just by coincidence, I was interviewed today by a reporter from a Florida TV > station about The Tombstone Project and USGenWeb. She was very impressed > with what we do on the whole, though her primary interest was sparked by the > TP. She actually went to a cemetery with a couple who do transcriptions for > us in Florida and decided to a special interest report. Now, this certainly > isn't the first time I have been interviewed for a news article or program > concerning the TP, but this reporter asked me a question that I had never > been asked before. She said, "All this is totally free to anyone, anywhere?" > I told her that it was and would always remain so and that if that ever > changed, I would take my ball and go home! She asked why I felt it was so > important that it be free and I explained to her that genealogists are on > the whole a very generous group who enjoy sharing their research and efforts > with others. We also feel that public domain records should be entirely free > to all. We are just striving to make those records more easily accessible > by placing them on the Web. We were all helped in the beginning and what we > do as USGW volunteers helps to pay it back by "paying it forward." > > The spirit of the entire USGenWeb Project would be destroyed if we charged > for services or asked for donations. As I said before, we were all helped > by some generous researchers when we first got started and are now "paying > it forward" by doing what we do as USGW volunteers. > > Pam > > -----Original Message----- > From: Heather DeGeorge [mailto:heatherdegeorge@writeme.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:23 PM > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > > > > Talk about losing the spirit of volunteering (I'm not talking about > Phyllis--just about the concept of soliciting funds). > > I've devoted countless hours to gathering and transcribing and researching > free of charge. Would I love to be paid for it? Of course--and often I do, > but not via the USGenWeb project. What I do for USGenWeb is strictly > volunteer work. If I don't have the money to get something I want to provide > for my users, I point them to the resource and warn them of whatever fees > might be involved. My goal is simply to connect them to information they > need in their hunt for their ancestors--and to do so free of charge. If I > can't provide it myself free of charge, I CAN (free of charge) point them to > a resource that they can choose to use or not. Likewise, if there are > resources that are free of charge, but not transcribed or available > online--I point them there as well. I've attempted to set up volunteer > networks of locals willing to go to those places for lookups, but only > successful in a few places. > > It's a volunteer project. If you need money to accomplish it, then go > somewhere else. Am I missing something? > > --Heather Jones DeGeorge > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Phyllis Rippee" <wchs@getgoin.net> > Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:39:56 -0500 > To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > > > TIC!!! > > > > Since ALL of the information on my county site has been placed there by > the > > Wright County Historical and Genealogical Society, or has been > specifically > > (in written documents signed, sealed and delivered by snail-mail) "loaned" > > to the Society to be placed on line.....only as long as I do the > > site........and since the WCH&GS is an incorporated non-profit > > organization.............. > > > > Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be acceptable for > > me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all of my pages, > > except the main one which serves as an index to the others? > > > > When I first was given the site, I had to promise not to do so.....or > > forfeit my first born and then my head. > > > > Is it now safe to assume that promise is nullified? > > > > "We hope this information is of help to you. We depend on donations to > help > > keep our door open and our lights on. We would appreciate any sum you can > > send. Wright County Historical Society, P. O. Box 66, Hartville MO 65667" > > > > Phyllis Rippee > > Wright County Historical Society > > SW/SC CC Representative USGen Web Project Advisory Board > > > > -- > __________________________________________________________ > Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com > http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup > > CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search > http://corp.mail.com/careers > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Isaiah Harrison wrote: > At 04:23 PM 8/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Well, the Wright County Historical & Genealogical Society is a Friend of the > >MOGenWeb Project, specifically the Wright County division thereof. > > > >So, since it is incorporated non-profit and since the information on the > >site is FREE access, I fail to see any difference in WCHS soliciting > >"donations" and "Friends of IAGenWeb" soliciting funds. FOIAGW is going at > >it the "right way?" If I've read correctly, they are "in the process" of > >getting their non-profit status established. > > > >Shucks! WCH&GS already has been able to accept gifts and give receipts for > >contributions (thus making them tax deductible) because of its doing things > >THE RIGHT WAY! Nothing was accepted until ALL the legal work was done. > >Seems to me that is MORE RIGHT! > > > >And, no money has ever been accepted because of the information on the > >website because of a promise given to Megan Z. who was NC of the Project and > >SC of MO at the time I was given the site. Now, it appears that there's a > >new Sheriff in town and the laws seem to have changed. > > > >If what Friends of IAGenWeb is doing and is planning on doing is okay bylaws > >wise......as we have been told......then, what's fair for one is fair for > >all. > > > >So, let the Free For All begin! > > > >Phyllis > > What IAGenWeb is doing is hardly a free for all. We have a logo/link on > most of our pages that says: "Space for the IAGenWeb Pages is provided by > Friend of IAGenWeb. Thanks." The link goes to the Friends of IAGenWeb > pages. If people choose to click on the link, they are given the > opportunity to find out about the Friends and to make a donation if they > want to. > > It is very low key. In fact, the plans of Friends are to secure corporate > sponsorship once we have our not-for-profit status. The links are there > primarily for the information they provide. It is far to passive an > approach for effective fund-raising. Gee, maybe we should try "Pledge > Weeks." ;=} > > -Isaiah > Corporate sponsorship? Isn't that what Rootsweb tried before they finally sold out? I really hate to see the project headed in this direction. David David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Dear Mr NC, Like many things, one of the URLs you listed gives an ERROR message, though your suggestion to read them does not answer the question. If the same people happen to "serve" on two organizations there is always the question as to who wags whom. "Friends of ..." can claim it sole purposes loud and wide, however, that does not eliminate questioning who or what controls. Bill Oliver -=- Isaiah Harrison wrote: > At 07:10 AM 8/21/2003 -0400, you wrote: > <snip> > >Who wags the "tail", "Friends of ..." or the XXGenWebProject?? Whichever > >does the > >wagging, what conditions or requirements are there to belong to the > >other? What > >safeguard for "conflict of interest" is provided? In the case under > >discussion, it > >might appear that both ruling classes are the same. Does it spread than > >to the > >National? > <snip> > >Sincerely, > >Bill Oliver > >-=- > > I suggest you read this statement: > http://iagenweb.org/state/friends_of_iagenweb/friendsofiagenweb.htm > > Then visit this website: > http://iagenweb.org/state/friends_of_iagenweb/ > > For answers to your questions. > > -Isaiah

I really try to avoid the controversial debates that go on since nobody ever listens anyway - but there is something about this I would like to say. Just call if food for thought. While I agree that accepting donations is not inherently wrong, there is a very fine line between proper use of these donations and making a profit from them. My years with USGW have shown me the "ugly side" and that is disheartening, but it is there. If a practice is in any way open to abuse, someone out there will abuse it. That is what scares me. JMHO - Pam -----Original Message----- From: Bill [mailto:wnoliver@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 7:11 AM To: STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD] Mr National Coordinator if you wouldplease answer a few? True, change is the order of the Universe. Hairs are being split thinner than "Philadelphia Lawyers" can do, and in the process, the concept of furnishing "fee" free information for genealogy is moving further and further from its goal. It is not a large jump from "you may contribute" to "you must pay an initiation fee to contribute and/or use". Who wags the "tail", "Friends of ..." or the XXGenWebProject?? Whichever does the wagging, what conditions or requirements are there to belong to the other? What safeguard for "conflict of interest" is provided? In the case under discussion, it might appear that both ruling classes are the same. Does it spread than to the National? "on the home page" was inserted in the By-Laws as a compromise to appease those who did and those who did not want solicitations. And, it accomplished what it meant to do ... moved it to a back burner ... that is, prolonged the [k]nit-picking [sic]. It is an unstoppable force colliding with an immovable object. Debate is good, great even, however, this debate is so old even the stink has been archived. Thinking must bounce "out of the box" for a good and true solution. Sincerely, Bill Oliver -=- Isaiah Harrison wrote: > At 11:42 PM 8/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >No, sir, I said that I see it as a breach of the blaws. You stated that I > >need an eye exam and asked for a cite to the specific section. > > > >Get your facts right, Mr. NC. > > My facts are correct. In my second message I quoted your original > response--copied and pasted. > > >I interpret it as being violative of Article IX, Section 2. It states: > >"Solicitation of funds for personal gain is inappropriate. This is defined as > >the direct appeal on the home page of any of the websites comprising The > >USGenWeb Project for funding to do research, to pay for server space, to do > >look-ups, etc." > > Perhaps you should visit the IAGenWeb pages so you can see what is actually > there. What is there is a thank you and a link. There is no appeal on the > home page. > > >That seems to be clear to me that we cannot solicit funds under any > >circumstances on any Project page. > > That's not what the bylaws say. You quoted them above but apparently did > not read them. > > >If the IAGenWeb page contains a link > >to "Friends of IAGenWeb", which it most certainly does, then I would argue > >that there is a direct solicitation. > > There is a difference between a direct solicitation and a link. > > >If you want to declare "Friends" to be > >a separate entity and not part of the Project, that is your choice, but I > >think it is a flagrant and obvious violation, especially given the fact > >that "Friends" is stored on the IAGenWeb servers. > > Actually, IAGenWeb is stored on the Friends servers. Friends of IAGenWeb > paid for the domain name and pays for the server space. > > >And I note that your explanation did not include an apology for your blatant > >and discriminatory remarks. > > > >Richard Pettys, Jr. > > If you choose to conceal your disabilities and spring them on people > unawares, you deserve no apology. The remarks were not blatant. The remarks > were not discriminatory. I am well aware from personal experience of the > difficulties that handicapped people face and the courage and endurance > with which most of them face those difficulties. > > You're trying to take advantage of my lack of knowledge of your poor > eyesight. I assure you, my opinion regarding what the bylaws say and mean > is no different for handicapped people than it is for people without handicaps. > > -Isaiah

And if you don't have an address book, but are still getting several hundred virus e-mails a day, what is your solution? The e-mails I am getting that contain a virus have the from: line forged. They aren't really coming from the CCs whose e-mail addresses I recognize. David On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, MAK - Transcriber Only wrote: > Just a quick note - I am getting many emails from > servers which are saying I am giving them a virus - > catch is, I don't have the VIRUS. So if you are > getting mail with my name on it saying that, it ain't > me (grin). The virus sends these bogus emails out from > the infected mail box. That means a few of you out > there that have my email addresses in your address > book makkuehl@yahoo... and MAKTranscriber@yahoo... > need to check your machines for a virus. > > Also, I am getting a number of emails from people with > nothing in them - that means - you have a virus.... > yahoo chops out the message and I get a blank hull... > > > To avoid having someone harvest your email box, you > can make an erroneous entry under last name type 001 > under first name type 0001 and save, it will become > your first entry. When the virus tries to open your > address book, it gets stopped in its tracks. > > I answered all mail which had something in it today, > so if you sent me something - please check for virus > and then resend. Sorry about that. > > R/S MAK > > > > > > ===== > MAKTranscriber - > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiwood > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wiportag > http://www.rootsweb.com/~wimonroe > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

Ah, Yes! Apply the "ol' double standard." It's okay for one, but not for another. Phyllis ----- Original Message ----- From: Angie Rayfield <angie@inmyattic.com> To: <STATE-COORD-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 21 August, 2003 12:22 PM Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Soliciting Funds > No, but it would certainly be acceptable to thank them for their support > and provide a link to their site. And that's all that actually appears > on the IAGenWeb pages. > > Angie > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >Based on the theory behind Friends of IAGenWeb, would it be > >acceptable for > >me to place a statement soliciting funds for WCH&GS on all of my pages, > >except the main one which serves as an index to the others? > > > > --- > 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: 8/19/2003 > > > >