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 Debate is good, great even, however, this debate is so old even the stink has been archived.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

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