Oct 16-22 2000

From merope@Radix.Net Mon Oct 16 15:25:39 2000

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:25:38 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1001015074003.6141A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

All smoke and mirrors...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Sunday 15 October 2000:

Tim Stowell announces the final result of the vote on Motion 00-31 [Board

secretary]. The motion fails with 2 yes votes and 10 no votes.

Noting that "it is of paramount importance to protect our name from being

privatized by any individual, whether they are within USGW or without it,

and since Linda Lewis has stated in private mail to the members of this

board that she would not withdraw the application she filed with the US

Patent and Trademark Office, attempting to privatize the term USGenWeb",

Ginger Hayes posts the following resolution:

"The term USGenWeb is this project's identifying mark. It has been used by

this project for about four and one half years. Furthermore the Bylaws

reserve the term USGenWeb for the exclusive use of the The USGenWeb

Project. Any website affiliated with The USGenWeb Project is using the

name under a license and is the lessee of the name as long as they comply

with the standards and guidelines of The USGenWeb Project. No individual

member or subproject has the right to privatize, or claim ownership of,

the name of The USGenWeb Project, or the exclusive term USGenWeb, without

the express permission of the volunteers of this project. Therefore be it

resolved that the Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project immediately

formulate a letter of protest, to be sent to the US Patent and Trademark

Office, in regard to Linda Lewis filing to acquire the

trademark/servicemark to the term USGenweb, as part of her filing, and

thereby attempting to privatize the term USGenWeb. The letter should cite

prior use and also state the fact that Ms. Lewis is using the name by

permission only and was given no ownership rights to the name. The letter

should also include, as signatories, the name and email address of every

member of The USGenWeb Advisory Board."

Richard Howland seconds her motion.

Joe Zsedeny fowards part of a message sent to the project mailing lists

regarding the Trademark Committee [see below] and states "Here apparently

was a committee appointed entirely by the NC with a gag order imposed.

Gagged from disclosing disscussions and conclusions from the Board and the

membership? Who does the NC and the Board represent?...Was this latter

more effort to protect someone from grievances?...The membership gets

bamboozled again...the majority decided in the last election that they

were satisfied with this kind of leadership. So we get the kind we

deserve."

===

Had It Up To Here Corner: Phyllis Rippee, a member of the Trademark

Committee, has publicly resigned from the committee, noting that it is

little more than a rubber stamp for an already made decision. She notes

"it had already been decided by the NC (if not by the AB) what will be

done and the appointment of a committee was nothing more than "smoke and

mirrors" to make the CCs of this Project think that they were being

listened to." Phyllis also notes that the TM has operated and continues

to operate under a gag rule, under which apparently even the Board is not

allowed to know what transpires in the committee.

Noting that she has resigned from the Trademark Committee and is no longer

under the gag rule, Phyllis did obtain permission from Linda Lewis to

share a message she sent to the TMC and has posted it. It reads in part:

"As several of you already know, the PTO sent a letter to me and

requested an amendment that would state a disclaimer: "No claim is made

to the exclusive right to use ARCHIVES apart from the mark as shown." I

will expand this to read: "No claim is made to the exclusive right to use

USGENWEB or ARCHIVES apart from the mark as shown." The other request from

the PTO is clarification of my name as an individual, with the entity type

listed as "volunteer group."..I highly recommend that the AB apply for the

singular "USGeneb" [sic] mark, without delay. If they apply for "The

USGenWeb Project"...they will have to provide disclaimers for THE and

PROJECT, apart from the mark...Also at this time, I will not withdraw my

application for USGENWEB ARCHIVES. There has been no assurance that the

Archives can be protected by The USGenWeb Project as it now exists, and

only the opposite has been revealed. The USGenWeb Advisory Board cannot

guarantee to me that the original intention and purpose of the Archives

will be continue."

So there you have it.

===

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one

by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."

---Edmund Burke

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Tue Oct 17 14:13:19 2000

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:13:18 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1001017083701.10179A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: RO

X-Status:

Thank goodness it was only a dream...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 17 October 2000:

Tim Stowell responds to Joe Zsedeny's concerns about the Trademark

Committee by noting that "things are not always as one might suppose them

to be." He notes that he did set up the committee, but then became an

ex-officio member of the committee and "Whatever else the committee did

after that was up to them."

Joe apologizes for his earlier intemperate post and says he let his

frustration get the better of him. He notes though "what the Board needs

more than anything else is solid information upon which to base decisions

on how to proceed with filing for the service mark. We need a committee

report with "Objective", "Body" (discussion), "Conclusions" and

"References". That way the Board can follow the line of thinking and check

for themselves (using the References) on questionable conclusions.

There should also be room for a minority report and gag orders do

not promote this."

[The DBS notes that our NC called a vote on Motion 00-32 4 days ago and

has yet to call the result. The motion has received no votes.]

===

Jumping Ship Corner: Regarding the Trademark Committee, Board members

Holly Timm and Tina Vickery have both made it clear that [in Holly's

words] "the AB decided nothing on this issue nor even discussed anything

about what the results would be. Nor has the board seen anything in the

way of a report from the TM Committee except for a VERY brief statement

titled preliminary report on October 2nd. If there are smoke and mirrors

around they are being used towards the Board as well."

Followup Corner: Phyllis Rippee, who lately resigned publicly from the

Trademark Committee, has forwarded this statement regarding her

resignation notice:

"Teresa of the DBS: The members of the TMC were all honorable people of

one mind and one accord; selected in secrecy; subbed to a private list and

given two rules, the first of which was not to post anything discussed by

the members on any of the public lists...not even by paraphrasing. Since

announcing my disgust and resignation yesterday I have been informed (not

by the TMC chair, nor the NC) that I am not released from the bonds of the

gag rule. While I would never betray the members of the committee by

posting any of their comments, I have always maintained my right to state

my own opinions wherever freedom reigns."

Hogging the Spotlight Corner: The NCGenWeb is once more in the news. A

few weeks ago NCGW SC Sharon Williamson notified her CCs that someone was

contacting people who posted queries with an offer to do research, for a

fee, for them in their areas of interest. She had received a forwarded

copy of a personal email that this researcher, Mr. Ted Lane, had sent to a

person who had posted a query on a GenConnect board offering his services.

Neither the original query or the response sent by Mr. Lane had anything

to do with the NCGenWeb. Nevertheless, Sharon posted the following to

her NCGW state list:

"I received a "heads up" message from a fellow SC out west. It seems she

had posted a message to one of our county query boards and received a

message from a "for hire" genealogist. The e-mail she received had been

sent to several addresses, so it is clear they are working hard at picking

up our researchers...I'm going to go through my GenConnect boards and

double check that he hasn't posted any messages with the same offer of

being for hire. If you get a chance, you might also want to check your

boards."

At the same time, Sharon apparently began sending some rather unpleasant

email messages to Mr. Lane [who is not a member of USGW], indicating that

he was "spamming" and that it was USGW's business to give away what he was

trying to sell. In one letter, she merely said "POOH" and in another she

stooped to spelling flames. Mr. Lane has also attempted to contact Tim

Stowell to resolve this issue, but has [of course] had no reply as of yet.

Now Mr. Lane has written an open letter, which states in part:

"This is the first time I have ever done anything like this...BUT,

please understand from the beginning that I DO genealogy research as a

business, for the same reasons most other people work, to pay the bills

and make some sort of an effort to eat at least once or twice a week.

NOW,,, I have been told by an attorney that I have been slandered. This

may or may not be a fact. BUT, it looks like I have about three years to

figure out if I want to take this to court. I am of the opinion that I am

legitemately and legally "answering" genealogy queries. This could easily

be a big benefit to any genealogy query or research page. Seems to me that

Sharon Williamson is actually depriveing some of you of some help, you may

need, by the very rude way she has treated me and this is not by any means

a very good advertisement for USGenWeb. For my part, when I post a

genealogy query in ANY area on the Internet, that in itself, is a

statement that I am asking for help. The way I answer these queries has

been refered to as spam, the reference has also been made by Sharon

Williamson of USGENWEB NCGENWEB SC that..."it is clear that they are

working hard at picking up our researchers." Folks, IF I did indeed "work

hard at picking up" ANY researchers, in ANY,,, ANY,,,, SPECIFIC areas, I

could at the very least understand (I guess.) why the above comment was

made, and why Sharon yelled at me, belittled and possibly even laughed at

me...My last e-mail to Sharon has not been answered and Sharon even said

and I quote "We make it our business to provide the sort of information

you (Me) are selling, free of charge.) THAT is a very broad statement and

makes no specific reference to any specific type of information, it

states, that they make it their business to provide "the sort of

information (I) you are selling, free of charge." The fact of the matter

is that they, could not possibly make it "their" business to provide the

information I am selling, free of charge. The e-mail to one of her

"bosses" has not been answered. I have been told that Tim Stowell is the

National Coordinator of USGENWEB. This is the other person I have not

recieved an answer from as yet....For those of you who think that the

USGENWEB area is one of the best genealogy areas on the Internet, I agree.

BUT, I am also wondering how many other people they have been rude to. At

the very least, I would like an apology from Sharon Williamson, and, a

comment from her highest boss, who I understand is supposed to be the

National Coordinator of USGENWEB,, that the above mentioned types of

comments would not ever be made again, and that if things like this ever

come up again every attempt will be made to handle the situation nicely

and entirely differently from the way this has been handled."

Now, I can't vouch for Mr. Lane's credentials or speak to his

effectiveness as a researcher, but a search of various search engines

and Usenet turn up nothing negative about him. As far as I can tell he

has done nothing wrong, under either USGW or RW rules. He visits query

boards, takes note of people he might be able to help, and contacts them

privately to offer his professional services. He is not posting

commercial messages to the query boards, nor is he "selling" material

freely available on USGW [a la FamilyDiscovery.com]. He was, to put it

mildy, surprised by the attack on him by someone he has never heard of and

by the apparent willingness of a public official in the NCGW to attack,

discredit, and belittle him and attempt to interfere with his livelihood

and to go out of her way to do it [since it has nothing to do with NCGW].

He is also dismayed by the apparent refusal of the National Coordinator to

address the issue or even to respond to his email.

I'm not writing this to defend Mr. Lane personally, although I think

the response to his actions was more than a little out of line. Nor am

I interested in advertising for him. But there is a larger point here and

that is that many people in this project do not, for some obscure reason,

like professional researchers. Some are outright antagonistic toward

them. Sharon's actions toward Mr. Lane were unaccountably rude [whether

it was libelous or constitutes restraint of trade is another matter] and

seems to have been occasioned solely by the fact that he charges for his

services and was trolling the GenConnect boards for potential clients.

Whatever you think of this behavior or of professional genealogists in

general, they do provide a service [I have used one, most of us probably

have], and they may be valuable resources for people who cannot travel to

locations to conduct their own research. It is hardly in USGW's interest

to keep our users from accessing these folks or to interfere in whatever

business arrangements they wish to make with them or to present an

intolerant and antagonistic face to them.

[Mr. Lane will be happy to accept your comments at his email address:

ITraseUrs@aol.com] He also has web pages at:

http://genealogypro.com/tlane.html

http://www.genswap.com/pro/TedLane.html

NCGenWeb is also in the news today in a sort of tangential way. Seems

that one of their CCs has found that an entire set of web pages that she

removed _months_ ago from RW has mysteriously found its way back onto RW.

According to the CC, the pages were removed originally to another server

because she wanted to use Front Page and RW doesn't support that. She

notified RW she was leaving and went on her way. About a month later, the

pages were back and the CC removed them again, leaving only a forwarding

page to her new location. Months later, her SC asked her about her

"apparently abandoned" web page and she found the files were all back.

She then decided to slowly remove files one or two at a time, and then RW

changed her password so she couldn't even do that. Lately, the CC was

contacted by a researcher whose work she had removed by request over two

years ago. The work is back online at RW, as are the old web pages. The

RW helpdesk is apparently not responding and the CC has asked Sharon if

there's a more direct way to handle this. Sharon has responded by

suggesting she contact Betsy Mills directly on the issue. [Original

messages on this topic can be read here:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCGENWEB-DISCUSS/2000-10/0971754269]

Those of you who have removed your web pages from RW in the last couple of

years might want to double check that they have not mysteriously returned.

===

"O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

---William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Wed Oct 18 13:41:45 2000

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:41:39 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1001018103902.4746A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

A tale told by an idiot...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Tuesday 17 October 2000:

Pam Reid lets the group know she is back and that she'll update the web

pages soon.

Tim Stowell agrees with Joe Zsedeny that minority opinions should be

included in reports to the Board. He also says that "while a committee is

in session that matters discussed within a committee should not be

discussed on the various lists by the participants of those committees

until after a report is issued." Once the committee is disbanded he

thinks its former members are "free to discuss whatever they want."

However, he also states that "it is asked that members not share private

deliberations even after off the committee they should abide by that." He

points out that to his knowledge no member of the Trademarks Committee has

discussed anything from the committee's discussions publicly.

Tim once again calls for a vote on Motion 00-32 [first called on Friday 13

Oct, no votes received thus far].

===

"We're lost, but we're making good time."

---Yogi Berra

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Fri Oct 20 13:51:27 2000

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:51:26 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1001020061448.10297A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Such stuff as dreams are made on...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Thursday 19 October 2000:

In regards to Motion 00-32, Holly Timm notes that she is still waiting for

the Trademark Committee's report on what they found, what they think about

applying, the difference between a trademark and a service mark, etc.

Teri Pettit says she is also waiting for such a report and notes it was

due October 15. She agrees that that the Board "should apply for the

Service Mark "The USGenWeb Project" as soon as possible, as long as we

also apply for "USGenWeb", and as long as the "Applicant" on both

applications is named as "The USGenWeb Project", an unincorporated

non-profit association, rather than any individual." She sees no reason

not to apply for "The USGenWeb Project" but notes that "it does little to

protect us against somebody else putting up "The USGenWeb Genealogy

Network" or "The NonProfit USGenWeb Site" or "The USGenWeb Digital

Library" or "The USGenWeb Transcription Database", etc., etc."

Ken Short, signing himself "Chairman, TM Committee" posts the following,

which is apparently the TM Committee's report:

"After due consideration, we recommend that the AB apply for the Service

Mark "The USGenWeb Project" , as soon as possible. Along those lines,

after reading reams of stuff about TM's, SM's etc, we should have Linda

Lewis write a letter stating she has no objection to us doing this. After

studying the information available on line in regard to the legalities

involved, the only way there would be a clash would be if Linda filed an

objection to the Project acquiring the SM's. There is not any reason to

ask Ms Lewis to write such a letter, the AB can file for the mark "The

USGenWeb Project" or "USGenWeb" however they decide is best for them.

Another recommendation is the following: I suggest that we recommend that

a disclaimer be filed with the application. This disclaimer would be to

the effect that exclusive use of the words "The" and "Project" were not

being requested EXCEPT in the context of the mark. This done in an attempt

to expedite things. Otherwise, that request will be made by the USTPO and

slow the approval of the mark down. I would also recommend that the

difference between a service mark and collective service mark be

ascertained, so that the Project acquires the one most applicable to the

situation. IMHO this would be a collective service mark. For information

purposes I have included the definitions of a Trademark, Service Mark and

a Collective Mark. I have also included the URL for folks to read a FAQ

for themselves. It is highly recommended that every board member read the

FAQ listed below." [URL provided:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmfaq.htm#DefineCollMark]

Friday 20 October 2000:

Voting procedes on Motion 00-32, with 3 Board members posting "no" votes

so far.

Holly notes that it appears that the TM Committee recommends applying for

a "collective service mark" rather than just a "service mark", but notes

also "What is not clear is whether or not there was any discussion or

information obtained as to whether and why the application should be The

USGenWeb Project, USGenWeb Project or USGenWeb. Certainly any facts

obtained in such a discussion have not been presented in the report." She

points out that neither the report nor Motion 00-32 indicate how the NC

should apply for the mark and says "directing "the NC to apply for the

Service Mark" could be construed as a direction for Tim Stowell to

personally own the mark."

Richard Howland posts a brief message from Ginger Hayes noting she is out

of town and leaving her votes on pending motions for him to cast on her

behalf.

Regarding the service mark application, Joe Zsedeny notes that several

things need to be considered, including "which mark to file for, how to

handle financing, whether to seek legal advice, etc."

===

Making Money Corner: FamilyTreemaker.com/Genealogy.com announced today

that their World Family Tree is now available online. That's right, the

stuff people submitted to them that was formerly available on overpriced

CDs is now available in a searchable online database. And its still

overpriced at a whopping $19.99 a month [or only $199.99 if you sign up

for a whole year]. If interested, you can check it out at:

http://www.familytreemaker.com/wftonline/index.html

===

"O, what a tangled web we weave,

When first we practise to deceive!

But when we've practised quite a while

How vastly we improve our style."

---J.R. Pope, [updating Sir Walter Scott]

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Oct 21 10:18:42 2000

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:18:41 -0400 (EDT)

From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>

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

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

Subject: DBS SPECIAL REPORT

Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001018115817.8863B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

Yet another formal grievance involving misappropriated files in the

Archives has been filed with the Board, and once again we bring the story

to you in a DBS SPECIAL REPORT!**

As always, this contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!

===

Stop Me If You've Heard This One Corner: Our tale today begins in the

lovely state of Georgia, where by coincidence our Esteemed National

Coordinator presides as State Coordinator. Two CCs, Carol Johnson and Lea

Dowd, between them ran four counties, Talbot, Marion, Muscogee and

Chattahoochee, and the Native American Resources page, until July of this

year, when both resigned because of concerns with the sale of Root$web to

MyFamily.com. Lea in particular made several attempts to contact Tim

Stowell and get clarification from him on the nonprofit status of

USGenWeb, but he apparently never bothered to reply to her. When they left

both took all the data they had submitted to their web pages, some 2500

printed pages. These files were never stored on Root$web, but were kept at

a private server for which Lea paid. Carol states that they removed their

data to protect it from being stolen; the data are now back online on the

Muscogee Genealogical Society's web pages

[http://www.muscogeegenealogy.com/; both Carol and Lea sit on the Board of

this organization].

Carol and Lea resigned their positions in the GAGW on July 7. Shortly

thereafter, Carol was contacted on July 12 by Virginia Crilley, her former

Regional Coordinator, who asked "Here's a list of some of the files I

happen to have on Talbot from when I was helping you load. Would you

consider allowing me to use them? This is entirely up to you....as you

did the hard job of typing them." Carol replied on July 13 and stated

bluntly, "I don't want anything I did back on Talbot's pages." Virginia

replied that she respected Carol's decision and Carol assumed that was the

end of it. Less than a week after this exchange, Virginia began uploading

data that appeared to be Carol's with her name removed to the Talbot

county GA Archives [http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/ga/talbot.htm].

Carol protested and some files were removed, but were later put back up.

Carol also asked that her transcriber's notes and comments be removed from

the files, as these constituted her original contribution and thus were

protected under copyright law. This request was apparently ignored, and

throughout July and August, Virginia continued to post files to the

Archives that Carol claims are her work.

On August 30, Carol and Lea had their lawyer write to Tim Stowell

requesting that the disputed files be removed within 10 days. Tim did not

respond to this correspondence. On September 26, Virginia uploaded a

large set of marriage records that Carol claims she compiled and

transcribed, although they are posted under the names of Jean McCullough

and Jean O'Neill.

Shortly thereafter, on October 13, Carol and Lea contacted David Morgan,

File Manager for the GA Archives, and Linda Lewis, Coordinator for the

USGenWeb Archives. David's response to Carol's email outlining the

situation was to essentially note that he could not remove files since it

was her word against Virginia's and he trusted Virginia [who states the

work is hers], even though Carol had included the correspondence in which

Virginia acknowledged the work was Carol's and requested permission to

post it. He also notified her that he would personally arrange to have

her removed from the state mailing list.

Linda Lewis, on the other hand, did indicate that she was trying to work

through what had happened and asked Carol for details on the work

involved. Carol assured Linda that she herself had done the

transcriptions, although in some cases the items she transcribed from

had been sent to her by someone else, and that Virginia was fully aware

of this. Carol told both Linda and David that the MGS lawyer had informed

them that to the extent their work consisted of transcriptions of public

domain works, it was not protected under copyright statutes. However, as

Carol explained, their work does not consist solely of straight

transcriptions of but in many cases is original compilations of various

sources. For example, Carol described the work on some of her files to

Linda:

"The info for what we now have as the CSA Muster Rolls includes not only a

short service stint for each soldier, but also includes his birth and

death dates where known, his parents names and where he was buried. The

info we have for Talbot Co Medicine and Drs was created only after I did

extensive research into early medical practices in the US, with special

emphasis on Civil War medicine. Then I pulled some of the Dr's off the

1850 Census, added a short summary on them, birthdates, deathdates,

marriages, etc where known (From the marriages, cemeteries, etc.) I pulled

out the names of ferries and roads notated in the early Inferior Court

minutes and then tried to locate them. Info was given in those Inferior

Court minutes as to charges for horses, steers, men on horseback, or a

foot, for wagons, etc. Added additional info on known Indian paths through

the county even before it was settled...We have something like 130 or so

pages on County Cemeteries, with GMD's notated, and locations and

directions as close as we could, to help people locate them. I sent a copy

of the document back to Talbot Co and several people there went chasing

round about, making sure the information was verified. We picked up more

cemeteries than what had already been notated in Morgan & Cook's

manuscript...I did tons of research on the Creek Indians in the area,

their customs, how they lived, how they farmed for the Creek War

background document..."

On Tuesday October 17, Carol filed a formal grievance with the USGenWeb

Advisory Board against Virginia Crilley for "infringement and unethical

behavior" involving "personal attacks and stealing of material from two

previous CCs, Lea Dowd and myself," under Section X, Articles 1, 3, and 4

of the bylaws [dealing with copyright]. In her message, she pays

particular note to the idea of plagiarism and quotes teacher and author

Drew Smith, ""While plagiarism may not be a federal offense, or even a

crime at any lesser level, it remains a violation of the ethics of all

professional disciplines involved with the communication of ideas,

including genealogy."

[http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/columns/digital/1969.asp]

She suggests that "A public acknowledgment of the actions and removal of

Virginia Crilley would be a very good start at settling this."

When questioned about the circumstances in the posting of these files,

Virgina Crilley says essentially that none of the work in question is

Carol's. She states, "I have numerous e-mails addressed to me personally

about various files that they either typed for Carol to put on the page or

that they personally obtained the original documents from the courthouse

in Talbotton. In these circumstances Carol did not give them any credit

when she had these materials on-line, nor did she forward their files to

me when they wrote personal notes to her about putting these back on-line.

If you visit the Talbot County Archives...you will see that the majority

of files are submitted to me (as file manager) by other individuals over a

period of time. Carol has accused the individuals submitting the marriage

records of using her materials. They have indicated that this is simply

not true. They assured me that they typed these files themselves. After

questioning them several times, I believe them. The files that I have

personally submitted are those dealing with the Confederate Rosters for

Talbot County from Henderson's volumes which are not copyrighted...In one

instance Co A - 4th Regiment there is a personal comment which [name

deleted] gave me permission to include. He told me that this was his

comment about this regiment. The files from the "Indian Wars" I typed up

from Dr. Jordan's book, which I think she took her original list from."

There are essentially two large sets of files that are disputed, the CSA

rosters and the Talbot county marriage records. Virginia says that she

typed up the Civil War rosters herself three years ago, but never posted

them to either the Talbot county page or to the Archives, since Carol had

copies of her own on the Talbot county page. However, Virginia's

currently uploaded files bear an uncanny resemblance to the files

originally on the Talbot county webiste. Lea Dowd was kind enough to

share the 1999 versions of the CSA rosters which she backed up when she

took over uploading data for Carol in March 1999. According to Carol

these files were transcribed by her. They are virtually duplicates of the

files currently on the Archives website, including typos and transcription

errors. The Archives versions appear to be merely text conversions from

the original .html files with a few minor cosmetic corrections [for

example, a name in all-caps in one version but not in the other]. If one

loads them into browsers and toggles back and forth between them, the only

thing that changes is the background color. Even the line breaks are

identical. For an example of this that includes both Carol's version and

Virginia's version, as well as a scanned version of the source document

for comparison, please go here:

http://www.gnat.net/~lea/Questioned%20Files.PDF

The Talbot county marriage records also have an interesting history.

Here's what Virginia says about how she came to post them on September 26,

2000:

"These files were sent to me. I never had Carol's files on this subject

at all...Jean O'Neill...wrote to me saying she was upset about the removal

of the marriage files which she had typed. When I explained the

circumstances, she said she'd send me the files.....which she did. I put

them on-line...shortly after that Carol wrote telling me these were "her"

files and demanding that they be removed...I removed them and wrote again

to Jean O'Neill about them, asking...to be sure that the files were her

own to contribute. She assured me they were, but that she didn't want to

upset Carol, so we mutually agreed that the removal was the best thing.

Later, Jean McCullough wrote to me upset that the marriage files were

removed. She vouched for the fact that Jean O'Neill had typed the

materials...Jean McCullough then sent me the files in two separate

sections... based on the dates of the actual marriage Books, I believe."

[Virginia may not know that Jean O'Neill and Jean McCullough are related,

and that one or both of them have a beef with Carol over an unrelated

issue.]

Here's Carol's version of how the files came to be transcribed:

"I did the marriage research in the microfilm 1828-1866 & transcribed

them. Kris Oleson then sent me those marriages 1867-1884 & since she did

not have a computer, snail-mailed them to me to merge with those I had

done...I emailed my marriage records 1828-1866 to Jean O'Neil which were

already on the page, and snail mailed Kris's, which she had done by

longhand. Jean, a volunteer, was to merge Kris' info with mine, into the

already existent groom's index. What she did do, instead, was to create a

bride's list in Excel, for the "new" marriages, 1867-1884...We carried

those 2 separate documents on the page for quite a while, until I finally

went in, deleted the Excel document, and sent Lea the newly merged

"complete" groom's index."

The marriage files online today at the Talbot county archives cover the

years 1828 through 1875, and apparently do not include all of the

1867-1886 records purportedly transcribed by Jean O'Neill. They also have

some cosmetic differences, such as Carol's version using "&" and Jean's

version using "married" [a simple copy/paste operation]. However, where

there are typos in the files, they are the same in both Carol's version

and the ones currently in the Archives.

Here's Carol's description of some of the "coincidental" similarities

between the two sets of files:

"One of the most telling evidences, was my penchant for filling in

blanks...I added names in parenthesis behind initials when I knew this was

their name. The first one I saw that I had done this with was

Emanuel, W. (William) D. & Mrs E.E. O'Neal 25 Mar 1867

[other examples:]

Freeman, E.G. (Emory Gaines) & L.A. Childs 4 Feb 1875

Hammock, Wilborn & E. (Eldorado M.) McFarland 20 Feb 1870

Jones, James (William T.) & Katie Hall 25 Apr 1871

Kellum, W. (Washington) A. & Mary A. Fleming 23 Aug 1873

Ligon, W. (William) J. & Eliza Ann Miller 14 Feb 1867

Martin, Wit (William) & Mattie C. Callier 14 Jan 1867

Noell, J.W. (James) & Carry J. Smith 16 Jan 1868

Terry, S. (Stephen) A. & Phillis (Phoebe) Ellison 29 Dec 1870

Thomas, James L. & S. (Sarah) D. Tell ** 19 Dec 1871

Trice, Z.(Zachariah) Benson & Julia N. Baldwin 18 Oct 1870

Trussell, H.C. (Christopher) & F. Eeyene Williams 22 Dec 1871

Walton, R. (Rosalius) J. & Helen M. Willis 29 Jan 1868

Places where I questioned the name, or initial or rendering Jean also did

see House, (?) Hiram & Elizabeth Hunter 29 Mar 1829

Caldwell/Cullwell, Benjamin & Nancy E. Gresham 16 Nov 1854

Cammack, (Carmack) Turner & Parmelia Welch 10 Jan 1831

Collier/Collin, James O. & Mrs Margaret Hawkings 7 Sept 1865

Cosby/Cook, H.H. & Miss M. Cooke 4 Jan 1859

Tisinger/Tysinger, E.T. & Josephine Pritchard 9 Oct 1859

Wills, Frances W. & Mary H. (or M.) Mathews 13 Sept 1829

When I accepted weird renderings, so did she:

Smallsuse, (?) James McDaniel & Laura MURCHERON 24 Dec 1869

Weldon, Ransy & Sarah Magarrar 26 Feb 1837

I included the notes into the material, as to other counties the marriages

took place as notated on the licenses. There was only one marriage that

took place in Talbot Co that I made note of. Can you believe this was the

only one Jean also made note of also??

Jean started out her 1828-1867 marriages by leaving in my notes per the

location of the marriage, as I started doing them much later, after Lea

took over the uploading. When she got to Boles, Henry H., she changed the

format. Then she must have skipped the Davis, James M. & Emma Elizabeth

Peters marriage, because thats in my format. Compare my entry for Duggin,

Thomas W. & Sophia Nunery to hers. And..not only did I neglect to finish

my entry for the marriage of Elder, Joseph J. & Martha...so did she."

Carol also describes her use of double asterisks [**] behind some of the

names in her files. If you visit the current version of the files at:

http://www.muscogeegenealogy.com/Talbot/TalbotMR.pdf

there is a description of what these asterisks mean. This description

also exists in the 1999 version of these files sent to me by Lea Dowd.

If you look at the files currently in the Archives, you will find that

some but not all of the marriages have the asterisks, but no description

of what they mean is appended to the files. In addition, some marriages

have the asterisks missing but are also missing the spaces where they

would have been, perhaps because someone deleted them out and forgot to

replace them with spaces [an example is the marriage record for Woodall,

Daniel A. married Mary C. Phillip4 Mar 1862]

As of today, none of the disputed files have been removed. They include

files at these addresses:

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/marriage/mar1828.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/marriage/mar1868.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/a-4.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/b-32.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/e-9.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/i-46.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/k-27.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/pet1836.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/souspies.txt

ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/ga/talbot/military/hussars.txt

Several of these files have a blank where the transcriber's name should

be; others have no submission information whatsoever on the file, although

there is a submitter listed [Virginia, Jean O, or Jean M.] on the table of

contents page.

So what happened here? Virginia Crilley claims her CSA roster files were

transcribed in 1997 from pages copied at the local library [pages which

she claims to have discarded only recently] and never left her computer,

yet they are identical, wart for wart, to the files that were transcribed

by Carol Johnson and posted in html form on the Talbot county web page

until March 1999. There are some 2000 or more marriage records spanning

over 50 years, which two different people claim to have transcribed

independently, yet which are also virtually identical as far as typos go.

Coincidence? I think not. This reminds one of the Pauline Leitner case,

especially since more than one person involved in this have taken pains to

point out that all the records in question are public domain and cannot be

copyrighted.

Unfortunately, it appears that this story will not have a happy ending.

New Talbot county GAGW CC Keith Giddeon has characterized Carol's efforts

to have her work removed as "whinings and exaggerations", and refused to

remove his links to her work on the MGS site even though he has been

asked to repeatedly to link to the MGS home page [as of Oct 19, the pages

have been moved and his links are dead]. He has also told Carol,

"Regardless of what you may think, Virginia and myself, have taken

outlandish steps in assuring ourselves that none of your TRANSCRIBED

material is stored on the Talbot areas. We have gone so far as to

interrogate persons who have re-submitted their work." Further, he has

publicly [on the GATALBOT] list accused them of taking their data down to

put it on a CD [a suggestion that came originally from Virginia Crilley

and which both have rejected], and insinuated that they removed data that

were not theirs, thus blackening their reputations among their peers.

After accusing Carol of "stabbing people in the back" and defending both

Virginia and Keith, GA Archives file manager David Morgan more or less

removed himself from the discussion after a few email exchanges. Linda

Lewis has informed the Board that she supports her file managers and

trusts them to follow the Archives Guidelines. So in general, its the

same old story: attack the messenger, ignore the message, and circle the

wagons.

I am given to understand that all materials that have been forwarded to me

have also been forwarded to the Advisory Board in support of the

grievance; fortunately, they have been forwarded to that small subset of

Board members who might actually take it seriously and address the issues.

However, since the Board currently has no formal grievance procedure in

place, what they will do this information is not known at this time.

===

**Carol Johnson, Lea Dowd, and Virginia Crilley contributed materials to

this article. Other information was obtained from mailing list archives.

Linda Lewis and David Morgan declined to comment for this report.

===

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------

From merope@Radix.Net Sat Oct 21 17:22:36 2000

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:22:35 -0400 (EDT)

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.SV4.3.96.1001021164213.24095A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>

MIME-Version: 1.0

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

Status: O

X-Status:

It just goes to show you...its Your Daily Board Show!

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

Friday 20 October 2000:

Tim Stowell notifies the Board that the domains have been changed as

requested.

Holly Timm notes "although the registrant name has been corrected on

usgenweb.net, it is still listed as Rootsweb for usgenweb.org." She asks

if there is a reason for this. [More on this below]

Saturday 21 October 2000:

Tim says he'll check on it. He thinks it is "probably just a clerical

error as both were sent with the same information."

===

Better Late Than Never Corner: We are pleased to report that some 20

months after it was first requested to do, Root$web has finally managed to

get the domain information changed. However, for some reason, they didn't

manage to actually turn over the usgenweb.org domain to the project. It

probably wasn't a "clerical error"; Megan's domain [usgenweb.net] has

shown USGenWeb as the registrant for at least a year and probably a lot

longer [it may have been originally registered that way]. What this

means of course is that Root$web still controls the lease on that domain,

and not the project. The same thing was done for WorldGenWeb's primary

domain; what a coincidence.

Conformity Corner: NCGenWEb dominatrix Sharon Williamson has decided that

dual pages should go. She's asked those folks who are both CCs in NCGW

and who also participate in other online genealogy projects to create

separate entry pages for each and to discontinue the practice of using the

same homepage for multiple projects.

Belated Birthday Corner: On October 17th the DBS turned two years old.

The newscube staff would like to take this opportunity to thank our loyal

readers [and lots of you have been around since the beginning]; there are

quite a lot of you these days and we appreciate you readership. Thanks

also to the reader who wrote to remind us of our birthday; we were too

busy muckraking to notice. <g>

===

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

---Alfred Lord Tennyson

This has been your Daily Board Show.

-Teresa Lindquist

merope@radix.net

-------