Nov 1-5 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Nov 1 12:59:40 2000

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:59:39 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001101075209.15526A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

A hair of the dog...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Tuesday 31 October 2000:

Voting proceeds on the amendment to Motion 00-30. Thus far, ten Board

members have voted no.

Voting proceeds on motion 00-33. Thus far, two Board members have voted

yes, six have voted no, and two have abstained.

[This is quorum on both these motions. The amendment to Motion 00-30 has

failed, and with six no votes already, Motion 00-33 has probably failed

also.]

Election Study Committee Chair Holly Timm announces the release of the

Election Study Committee Report. Full text is available at:

http://www.timmweb.pair.com/esc/report.html

Wednesday 1 November 2000:

Ginger Hayes thanks the ESC for its hard work and "for producing an

excellent report." She moves that "the report of the Election Study

Committee be accepted in it's entirety and that the recommendations of the

committee be accepted and implemented." Joe Zsedeny seconds Ginger's

motion and recommends "that the normal discussion period be extended so

that the full report can be thoroughly reviewed."

Maggie Stewart suggests to Tim that he should do the motions "in order and

in a timely manner we could make some sense out of this chaos." She also

suggests that he attach the motion they are voting on to the request for a

vote.

Joe Zsedeny also compliments Holly and the ESC for an excellent report.

Although he hasn't "digested" it all yet, he does "appreciate the effort

that went into producing this fine report."

===

"Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working

together is success."

---Henry Ford

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 2 13:25:38 2000

Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:25:37 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001102131342.343B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

That'll show 'em...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Thursday 2 November 2000:

Holly Timm notifies her Board colleagues that "The Election Study

Committee is standing by for questions if the Board has any."

===

Bigger IS Better Corner: As reported in the San Francisco Chronical on

October 31, 2000, MyFamily.com has added another member to the "Family."

MyFamily.com bought ThirdAge Media in a stock swap, but did not disclose

the terms of the acquisition [sound familiar?]. Jim Barnett, the

president and CEO of ThirdAge, will become the president and Chief

Operating Officer of MyFamily [!]; he expects the combined companies will

begin to show a profit by the second quarter of next year. [Neither has

previously been profitable.] The full article is online here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/31/BU104202.DTL

===

Today's quote was sent in by a reader:

"All adverse and depressing influences can be overcome, not by fighting,

but by rising above them."

---Charles Caleb Colton

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 3 13:46:48 2000

Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:46:47 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001103134615.28372B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

Taunting you a second time...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Friday 3 November 2000:

Tim Stowell announces the results of the vote on the amendment to Motion

00-30: 10 Board members voted no, and the amendment fails.

Tim tells the Board that he'd do the motions in order "if one didn't amend

them and/or folks didn't keep making one motion after another until the

others go cleared." He notes that "Perhaps with a Secretary, this wouldn't

be a problem." He points out that the motions were attached to the

original calls to vote, which went out on Oct 22 [yep, nearly two weeks

ago].

Tim gives the motion to accept the ESC report in its entirety number 00-36

and opens the floor for discussion. He reminds the Board that the ESC is

still available to answer questions about the report.

Tim announces the results of the vote on Motion 00-33: 2 yes votes, 6 no

votes, 2 abstentions. The motion fails.

Tim calls for a vote on Motion 00-35, to appoint Roger Swafford as Board

Secretary. [He seems to have forgotten the other motion 00-35 regarding

sending a letter to USPTO protesting Linda Lewis' service mark

application, which was submitted on 16 Oct, erroneously given number

00-33, then erroneously given Motion 00-35, and now apparently being

ignored.] Thus far, one Board members has voted yes, and five Board

members have voted "no".

Tim asks a series of questions about the ESC report: "Under formation of

the subCommittee - paragraph 3 - 'This list of volunteers shall be

submitted to the AB for approval or disapproval.' Question: So this is a

straight up or down vote on the whole committee? If one member of this

subCommittee is not approved of, the whole committee has to be selected

again until the ESC [sic] Chair gets it to the liking of the AB? Should

the AB let the ESC [sic] chair know who or why the list is being rejected,

if it is? Under Duties of the subCommittee - paragraph 1 - where the ESC

[sic] is charged with handling all national elections. Question:

Would/could the ESC [sic] hold/host an election for an individual state or

project at that entity's request? paragraph 5e - where the national voter

list and communications are handled by two members chosen by the NC and At

Large Rep. Question: Is this selection to take place from the member pool

of the ESC [sic]? Under Section C - Eligibility of voters - paragraph 1 -

the 30 day rule for eligibility to vote. Question: For our July elections

- is this date to be set as June 1? paragraph 2 - challenges to a

member's eligibility to vote Questions: 1. Will people who leave the

Project before the election starts be allowed to vote anyway? 2. Is there

to be a cutoff when challenges must be made by? In other words, if voting

starts July 1 and someone challenges June 30, the chances of someone

getting address it before July 1 are rather slim. [Presumably our

Esteemed National Coordinator is talking about the EC in the above and not

the ESC.]

Holly Timm informs the Board that the ESC will discuss Tim's questions and

get back to the Board tonight or tomorrow.

Joe Zsedeny says that "while the Bylaws do allow unlimited voting that is

the one of the most important issues that needs to be addressed in a

Bylaws amendment and I feel that the committee was remiss in not

discussing and recommending as much."

Shari Handley points out there was one section of the ESC report in which

the committee members were evenly divided, that of allowing Board members

to serve on the EC. Shari is in favor of allowing them to serve, noting

"AB members have up to now been allowed to serve on election committees.

I don't feel there would be any conflict of interest if the AB member is

not running for office. We strive very hard to be inclusive in this

project, and so I don't see any compelling reason to EXclude *this* group.

AB members, obviously, are also CCs, SCs, Special Project

volunteers...members of The USGenWeb Project."

===

Pat On The Back Corner: The November 1 edition of Everton's Family

History Newsline highlights the "Missouri In the Civil War" webpage,

founded by USGenWeb's own Kathy Heidel and now managed by Yvonne

James-Henderson. Everton's notes "If your own ancestors were involved in

that terrible national (and state) struggle, you will definitely want to

visit the "Missouri in the Civil War" website created by Kathy Welch

Heidel as part of the USGenWeb Project. This single website is the key to

dozens of resources with information on Missouri's role in the War Between

the States. Among those resources are discussion lists on the war, burial

records of Missourians who died during the conflict, regimental lists,

battlefield data, information on Missouri veterans, photographs, and links

to dozens of other Internet sites on Missouri and the Civil War. If you

are just beginning your research on a Civil War ancestor in Missouri, this

website is a must-see." The Missouri In The Civil War webpage is at:

http://www.rootsweb.com/~mocivwar/mocwindex.html. Kathy also maintains a

similar page for Kansas at:

http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/civilwar/index.html. Congrats to Kathy

and Yvonne! [We dimly remember when the high mucky-mucks in USGW told

Kathy her civil war webpage would never amount to a hill of beans. <g>]

===

"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give

them the power to pull ours.

---Aldous Huxley

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Nov 4 13:12:33 2000

Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:12:32 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001104121852.12965A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: RO

X-Status:

Like lambs to the slaughter...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Friday 3 November 2000:

Richard Howland also commends the ESC on their report, but notes that it

might be premature to "accept the report in its entirety." He notes "I'm

not sure it is finished enough to warrant a motion to implement it in its

entirety? It is a wonderful start. Perhaps we should split it into

sections and have committees work on each section till it is shaped to

something workable? To accept this as is in it's entirety with both

Majority and Minority Opinions, might be a bit confusing."

Teri Pettit also thanks the ESC, noting their report " is worthy of being

an example for future study committees on other issues to aspire to."

[*blush*] Regarding the issue of excluding sitting Board members from the

EC, Teri notes that its her impression that "despite the even vote split

the "no-exclusion" policy was nevertheless given "majority recommendation"

status, perhaps due to past precedent." She agrees with Shari that AB

members should not be excluded, as it would deprive the committee of

willing and able members. She notes that "standing Board members not

running for re-election are no more likely to be biased towards one

particular candidate than are other project members, some of whom while

not running for office themselves act as de-facto campaign managers for

someone else."

Richard Howland reminds the Board of his petition

[http://www.wf.net/~richpump/petition1b.html] and notes that thus far only

31 people have signed it. He asks "Should I (we) assume that this is a

matter of little importance to the membership? Or that it has not reached

them. Or like the elections that draw so little participation, that it is

just to much trouble to voice an opinion?"

Teri says she hasn't signed it because the wording is too confusing. She

says she intended to sign it, but once she read it, decided "it was so

fuzzy I couldn't tell whether I agreed with it or not."

Ken Short forwards a post by John Schunk regarding a portion of the ESC

report with which he disagrees [Section C, the one that says all project

members can vote, per the bylaws]. Ken agrees with John's sentiments and

notes "The was the ESC report reads, I could appoint a dozen assistant

cc's if I wanted to and we could all vote, how ludicrous. Come on

folks, use your heads for something besides a hat rack." [Yes, well, we

all saw what a bang-up job Ken's Trademark Committee did.] John's message

reads in part: "My concern is with the possibility of vote-packing. The

vote-packing issue is addressed in the Overview section of the ESC Report

which notes that "there is no realistic means of controlling this practice

in every conceivable situation without adversely and unfairly affecting

members who are not vote-packing."...it appears to me that allowing an

unlimited number of co-coordinators per town, county, state, or

state-level project is an open invitation to vote-packing. This problem

seems to me most likely to occur at the local level...I would favor

imposing a maximum of 3 votes per local site." [He then engages in some

of the convoluted bylaws interpreting that is a parlor game to some people

in this project in order to justify denying the vote to eligible project

members.]

Saturday 4 November 2000:

Shari disagrees with Rich that reworking the ESC's report is a good idea,

and notes "To have committees tear apart and rework the work of the

committee we put together to do the job in the first place seems

ridiculous." She suggests working on the section of the report that was

ambiguous [excluding AB members], and then amend Ginger's motion.

Holly Timm forwards a series of replies to Tim and Joe's earlier questions

about the ESC report. They are summarized as follows:

Number of CCs per county [Joe's question]: The ESC discussed this

extensively and as stated in our report, we wanted to 1) stay within the

current bylaws; 2) avoid limiting member participation in the project; and

3) avoid forcing an SC or SPC [or the Board] from choosing among equally

hard-working CCs, file managers, etc. This was one of our toughest topics,

lots of opinions were expressed, and we did come to the conclusion, after

much thought, that following the bylaws in this area was the best

approach...Limiting the number of CC's per county is definitely an area of

potential bylaws revision, but that was beyond the scope of this

committee...Truly, the only reason for _not_ allowing as many LCs or file

managers as do the work to vote is because of the fear of vote-packing. We

agonized over this one, and if we were "remiss" at all, it was because we

chose to believe in the basic honesty and goodness of people rather than

figure out ways to eliminate them! Part of the discussion also added

thoughts that...the EC has no business deciding who or how many can manage

a county. That's the SC's job! It was the final consensus that per the

bylaws there is no restriction on number and thus not an area in which the

election subCommittee could set limits. In the final round, 16 of 19

members voted on this section and none disagreed with it. We were

certainly not "remiss" in this area."

Board approval of EC members: "Yes, a straight approve or disapprove.

Feelings were and still are mixed on whether the Board should include why

it is disapproved thus reasons for disapproval are not required of the

board but neither are they forbidden. The main reasoning of the ESC on

this was that it prohibits handpicking of election committee members by

the Board."

Will the EC hold state elections upon request: "The issue was not

previously addressed to any significant degree. Some on the committee

presently feel that it should not assist states with their elections so as

not to imply any interference in state level business but others believe

that IF a state requests such assistance with an election, it is a matter

to be decided between the state and the election committee."

Voter lists: "...in the adjustments between the choice of two sections

earlier in the report, this sentence was not caught and adjusted to

comply with the final majority opinion although it complies with the

minority opinion. It should read: "...where the national voter list and

communications are handled by two members selected for the NC and At

Large Rep region." This would accommodate the choice of either the

majority or minority opinion."

"30 days equal June 1?": "The ESC finds the reply rather obvious, 30 days

is 30 days. For an election period beginning July 1, this would be June

30 [sic, she probably means June 1]. For any special elections at other

times of the year, 30 days might be on the 2nd of the previous month, or

in the case of a February 1st election date, back into the very end of

December depending on whether it is leap year or not. It is even

conceivable that an election might start at any day of the month..."

Challenges to eligibility: "The consensus of the ESC is that once they

have left they are no longer members and do not vote...The opinion of the

ESC is that 30 days is an administrative cutoff date, not a punitive or

preventative date and should therefore not be selectively enforced.

Challenges may be addressed once an election is underway certainly but it

is a valid point that perhaps there should be a cutoff date and the

committee suggest perhaps 7 or 10 days before the end of the election...to

permit time for assessment/challenges of the challenge. If the person has

voted and the challenge upheld, their vote can be discarded at any time up

until the final results."

Joe Zsedeny responds that "Federal, state and local officials of this

country are certainly wary of relying on the basic honesty of our

citizens, a cross section of which are represented in this Project...we

can't rely on the basic honesty and goodness of people because their are

always enough who are not honest and good to screw up this assumption. As

for how many people a SC chooses to manage a county, that is certainly

their choice. But as for how many can vote, well, that is a choice for all

members to decide...we need a Bylaws amendment to decide this...I stand by

my previous statements...The ESC did a wonderful job but were remiss in

this touchy area...I can support the ESC Report because the area I have

concern about is covered by a Bylaw...I hope the Board will tackle this so

that an emergency Bylaw amendment can be ready before the next election."

[and there you have it...its is better to punish the innocent than let the

guilty get away with something.]

[There were no futher votes on Motion 00-35]

===

"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's

contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a

suspect."

---Edwin Meese, former Attorney General

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 5 13:21:36 2000

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:21:31 -0500 (EST)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>

Subject: Daily Board Show

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001105070135.3558A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Status: O

X-Status:

Using our heads as hatracks...its Your Daily Board Show!

*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

Saturday 4 November 2000:

Voting on Motion 00-35 proceeds. Thus far, 4 Board members have voted yes,

5 have voted no, and one has abstained.

Holly Timm posts the following correction for one of the ESC responses she

posted previously: "The ESC finds the reply rather obvious, 30 days is 30

days. For an election period beginning July 1, this would be June 1.

(not 30th)"

Pam Reid brings up the issue of genealogicial societies that have adopted

counties and asks "Does this mean that every member of the Society would

be allowed to vote?" She is concerned that this might lead to

vote-packing. She notes "So few members actually vote in our elections

that the elections have been decided in most cases by a small number of

votes. I do have a concern that we are opening the door for trouble if we

leave the bylaws as they currently stand...we do need, IMO, to consider a

bylaws change that would eliminate the possibilty of vote packing...If the

majority feels that it doesn't matter how many people are allowed to vote

from a particular county, etc., then so be it." [*sigh* In civilized

countries they punish a crime _after_ it has occurred, not before.

Several of our Board members obsess about this possibility and yet I have

never seen any credible evidence that it has occurred.]

Holly replies to Pam "I think generally even when a society is the

*coordinator*, it is actually one or two people within the society that

are doing so and if a society is named as the coordinator than that would

be one *name* - one vote." She also notes "The committee did have

concerns about large numbers of coordinators *packing* an election but

discussions brought out that first, this was likely to be done by more

than one side of any particular issue, balancing itself out, and secondly

and more importantly, the bylaws have no such restriction...It was very

definitely the opinion of the committee that under the present bylaws

there can and should be no such restriction."

Maggie Stewart thinks the Board should address any sections of the ESC

report it has concerns about and then present the report for a vote to the

USGW project. She notes "This is something the effects all of the members

and should be decided by a majority of the entire membership."

Ken Short, backpedaling from his "hatrack" comment, says he directed that

comment solely at his colleagues on the Board [this is apparently supposed

to excuse it]. He also notes, "I think the committee did a masterful job

and I agree with the majority and can live with the rest even though I

don't necessarily agree with it." He affirms that he will not support

unlimited voting from a county and suggests a model similar to that of the

U.S. Senate. He suggests that it is past time to revise the bylaws to

reflect the increased size and expanded mission of the USGW and says "I do

NOT care for the recommendation of having an unlimited number of cc's per

county and they all vote. I also do not believe the AB has the authority

to limit the voting, although they do have the authority to accept all or

none of the ESC report or to reject parts of it." He recommends holding a

special election on Feb 1, 2001 and asking the project members to decide

this issue, noting "If it passes, then it will be an amendment to the

bylaws and will solve our problem." [Except that it will violate the

bylaws by not following the proper amendment procedures. If Ken is so very

concerned about vote-packing, he will move to have Maggie Stewart removed

from the Board post-haste.]

Tina Vickery takes exception to Ken's comment that the Board has been

ineffective and notes "There are many, many on the AB that are listening,

and trying very hard to work with the members of this project to come to a

consensus on the various issues that face the project. That means,

communication, discussion, respect and grace." She says the ESC is proof

that members can and will work together effectively for the good of the

project, and says "It struck me during the seven weeks that we worked,

that although there are disagreements and ideology differences among our

volunteers.. bottom line is the USGenWeb have many, many terrific

volunteers who truly believe in the mission and goals of the project

and want to work towards realizing the full potential of all that the

USGenWeb can be."

Ken responds "it is the truth, the AB from the very first one has done

little if anything to improve the project. The only reason we are where

we are today is thru the efforts of the cc's, transcribers and other

volunteers." He reiterates that he thinks the ESC did a fine job but that

he will not support unlimited voters from a county. He also reiterates

that "If we want to continue to grow, its time to refine and redefine some

of our bylaws to get rid of a lot of ambiguous wording." He also says "If

the AB and the membership wants to keep things the way they are, so be it.

I am just pointing out that the rules or lack thereof we currently operate

under are woefully lacking and need to be clarified and tweaked. If we

want to apply for the SM for the project, it needs to be done, NOW. All

it takes is a simple motion, but several want to put in something about

requireing Linda Lewis to withdraw her application etc...If we approve

applying for it, then the NC and the Rep at Large or whoever he picks to

help him, can work out the details on the how, we just have to give them

the authority to do it." He moves that "the Service Mark "USGenWeb" be

applied for."

Tim Stowell asks for clarification on his question regarding the national

voters lists: "Would these 2 members and the other members being

selected in this section be chosen by the AB or the EC chair?"

Sunday 5 November 2000:

Tim asks of the ESC: "In past elections, there have been members who quit

during the election process - ie between July 1 and July 31. This has

been a dilemma for SCs deciding which course to follow. IF, these folks

vote, is it permissible for the SC, SP or other list managers to inform

the EC that any votes from x person be disallowed? Or would their vote

count, if they voted before they left but not if they tried to vote after

resignation?"

Tina reminds Ken that all AB members are CCs, transcribers, or other kinds

of volunteers.

Maggie seconds Ken's motion to apply for the service mark.

Holly forwards a message to the Board from ESC member Carol Haagensen. It

reads in part: "We just spent seven weeks hashing over the things that you

are now discussing. The flaws you see in some of the sections, we have

already seen. When we said we agonized over that section, we meant that

we AGONIZED over that section!! My single motive for being on the

committee was to address the problem of vote-packing. I was hell-bent

that if nothing else were accomplished, we would deal with that one issue

and find a solution. We did. Read the report. Some say that they do not

believe in the basic goodness of members of the project. As Board members

of a volunteer organization, I would say that if you can't see the good

in people, you should resign immediately!...Do not dismiss our report

because you don't agree with parts of it...we came to our recommendations

after debating this single item MORE than any other topic, and spending

more time on this issue than any other. We finally realized that the only

alternative to vote packing was to recommend something in direct oppostion

to the Bylaws, and to penalize hardworking, innocent people in this

project. In the end, we ALL felt that the price for policing the "vote

packing" was a price we did not want to pay...When you get done slinging

insults at us, and use some of that common sense you seem so happy to talk

about, then maybe you will realize that the biggest problems we've had

in this project came as a result of someone NOT following the Bylaws.

Now, you suggest that we should have disregarded those same Bylaws when it

suits *your* purpose?...Remember that the ESC already discussed these

things. We chose to value EVERY member of the project and believe that

people were good and honest...Some of you are quick to find ways to

eliminate people out of your fear. Yet, do you not realize that this kind

of attitude is the very thing that creates distrust in the BOARD from

everyone else in the Project?...When does the distrust end?...we believed

it was going to end with our election recommendations...Our reommendations

were fair to everyone, even the Board! Some of you on this Board owes the

Election Special Committee an apology! Then, you can apologize to the

hard-working cc's who you are also insulting! You don't have to agree with

us on every point. But, I do demand that you respect us! And, I demand

that you recognize the hard work and thought that went into our report. A

simple "thank you for serving" would have been nice, even if you didn't

agree!

Holly forwards a message from ESC member Carol Carwile-Head. It reads in

part: "Ken, if you do not want to abide by the bylaws you were elected to

support, perhaps you will make haste in seeing that they are changed -

given that the existing bylaws are what dictated how our "hat racks"

had to recommend. Given the dedication of the members of this committee

for the past several weeks, I am appalled at having our effort denigrated

by a member of the AB."

===

Fame and Fortune Corner: Our own Glorious Leader appears as one of an

"unofficial panel of experts" on a new book on online genealogy, authored

by Pamela Rice Hahn. The books is titled "The Unofficial Guide to Online

Genealogy" and real online genealogists Matthew Helm and John Scroggins

also served as unofficial experts. The book is available at Amazon.com.

So far, reviews are mixed, with one reviewer praising it, and another

slamming it as "absolutely awful...without a doubt the worst book on the

subject of genealogy on the Internet that has yet to be published." The

author's website for the book is here: http://www.genealogytips.com/.

Interestingly enough, although there is a section on the Americal Local

History Network and Tim Stowell is an unofficial expert, USGenWeb is not

mentioned in the Table of Contents [This online TOC is outdated and

incomplete in many areas; we trust this oversight was corrected by the

time the book went to press.] A big picture of the cover is at:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0028638670.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

===

"It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."

---William Blackstone

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------