September 2008

This symbol "±" means the end of a subject discussed.

Editorial:

Sweeping out August

Friday is trash-day. My trashcan is on the curb. Everyday is trash-day on the U$GeNNet faux CC list. That trashy list has 98 members. Some of those are respectable who subscribed merely to monitor the trash heap. Today, a poster in his second childhood said several people --including this webmaster, were liars, but he did not provide details. That diaper-dependant 'man' has been posting character assassination for years, passing from his first childhood to his second with no adulthood between.

The U$GeNNet faux CC list serves one function; it's a secluded home for senile has-beens providing some peace to the civilized genealogy community. But even there, Diaper-man's cohorts distance themselves from his senility and malodorous derrière.±

Quack, where do I stick this?

image credit cartoonresearch.com

29 Aug 2008 12:31 PM

Deja vu ~~ Ancestry.com goes to war. I told you so. I said this would happen sooner or later. Ancestry.com announced today that it's seeking volunteers to input data into their system. Like Find-A-Grave (that is often accused of stealing data from private web sites) Ancestry is asking for your data too. Go here for details: World Archives Project Beta You read it here first. What does this mean to USGenWeb? It's a blow to the Imperial SC/AB combine. If the organization does not climb down off its anti-LC high horse, soon there be will be no horse to ride. The clock is ticking. Meanwhile, AHGP, ALHN, Genealogy Trails, Find-A-Grave and FamilySearch.org continue to outgrow us. Add Ancestry.com to that list. ±

The following National Coordinators served in the dates after their names. Who do you love most? Rank them 1 --most loved, 2-next most loved to 12--loved a lot but last. (Please send your vote today.)

clipart courtesy Clip Art.com

Results to follow in descending order.

Note: This election is not sectioned by the AB nor will the EC conduct such election. Voting does not reflect the majority opinion of USGenWeb volunteers, just like in an official election. NMGenWeb LCs may not vote, as they are offended by honest elections.±

Members revolt: The membership spoke loudly regarding the formation of another useless committee by the AB. They demanded that the AB do its own work. How sweet it is. But wait, they already switched from RW as their server. Are they admitting they acted recklessly with that decision and now must correct it? Fact is, there was some hanky-panky going on behind the scenes giving control over the server space to an Archives member who actually owned the space. What's new pussy cat? About the no votes. Were they actually voting against forming a new committee, or against finding new server space?

From: "Tina S. Vickery"

To: <board@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 10:06 PM

Subject: [BOARD] RESULTS: Motion 2007/08-17: 'Fact Finding Cmte. - HostingNatl. Website.'

With 12 members voting Motion 2007/08-17: 'Fact Finding Cmte. - Hosting Natl. Website.' fails. The votes not yet received will

not change the outcome of this motion.

Those voting "Yes": Greta Thompson, Larry Flesher.

Those voting "No": Mike St. Clair, Scott Burow, Bettie Wood, Sherri Bradley, Jan Cortez, Alice Allen, Cyndie Endfinger,

Concetta Franco Phillips, Gail Meyer Kilgore, Suzanne Shepard.

Those not voting: Jason Mendenhall, Denise Wells.

Website maintenance / website host issues will be included under 'Old Business' on the September 2008 agenda for

discussion.

Tina Vickery

National Coordinator

USGenWeb Project ±

Unlikely News:

Football Score: University of Arizona 70, Idaho 0. --30 Aug 2008

Loony Tunes: McCain picks Gov. Palin as VP. --29 Aug 2008

Stocks: FNM closed at $6.84 down from its $70 high. --29 Aug 2008

~~With these impossible things becoming facts, is it possible USGenWeb will return LCs to being Kings and Queens instead of footmen and doormen? Answer: No. Not today, not tomorrow. For everything there is a season, and it has since passed for our LCs. ±

Now we begin September.

This week Worth Quoting: Board member,

"Naw - once you lay your head on the chopping block in public, you never want to move it - it will splatter terribly. Larry" (end)

It's unknown what he was talking about, perhaps he was in a far-away universe. It's even unknown what that sentence means, but it sounds great for an ABer. The ABers shall hence fourth be called, Splatter-heads.± 1 Sept 2008

Past quote: The AB goes about their business like drunkards. Yet when an issue rises to a grievance, they insist the petitioner do so in such exacting detail and proper terminology that a team of Philadelphia lawyers is required. Then the AB finds a comma out of place and rules for the SC. (end) The Splatter-heads wonder why 700 volunteers have departed USGenWeb!±

oh my god: secrecy nonsense from the chief Splatter-head.

From: "Tina S. Vickery"

To: <board@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 9:17 AM

Subject: [BOARD] Board Exec: Agreement of Confidentiality

Board Exec: Agreement of Confidentiality

All board members have been subscribed to Board-Exec, Board and AB-Chat.

The Board-Exec list is a confidential list. All postings to Board-Exec are required to remain confidential. It will be a list that we use for personnel issues. If you agree that you will honor the confidentiality of Board-Exec please signify by saying "Agree". If you do not feel you can honor the confidentiality of Board-Exec please signify by saying "Disagree". Thank you, Tina Vicker (end)

This is the continuing saga of secrecy in USGenWeb. The post stated to its fellow Splatter-heads that it was for "personnel" issues. Well at first glance I thought that was an error, and she really meant personal issues. The latter and former are probably both true. That list is used to screen out and to exclude certain "personnel" (volunteers) from joining committees and other assignments. Selection is not based on their qualifications, but on non-objective items Like: 1--Is the candidate like us? 2--Does the candidate exhibit any independent qualities that may offend us? 3--Will the candidate bring up those silly LC rights?

The Board-Exec email list is a confidential list whose purpose is to rootout and deny qualified prospects in secret discussions based on issues other than ability. We have no room for closed door discussions and decisions. The Bylaws do not prescribe that candidates for a committee shall be chosen according to how many Splatter-heads they have offended. USGW is not an anti-terrorist agency of the U.S. Government. This is a volunteer organization that has lost its way and reason. Stop the secrecy, stop it, stop it, stop it. ±

News: Google Chrome: www.google.com/chrome . Chrome lists two pages for Genwebstalkers.com. Add a secret link to your web site to help promote this site. Mention Genwebstalkers on message boards. Google will find it.±

Great to be wealthy:

From: "Tina S. Vickery"

To: <board@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 10:37 AM

Subject: [BOARD] Designation of Acting Presiding Officer.

Designation of Acting Presiding Officer.

I am leaving later today to attend the FGS [Federation of Genealogical Societies] conference in Philadelphia, PA where the USGenWeb Project is once again sponsoring a booth. I will be away until September 7, 2008. (snip) I enjoy going each year to this conference to promote the USGenWeb Project. All the days are filled with both acquainting new researchers with the wonderful resources of the USGenWeb Project has to offer, coupled with those visitors who stop by to tell us how the USGenWeb Project has assisted them with their research inquiring how they can help! I come back each year exhausted but refreshed and energized to do more! (snip) Tina (end)

I do hope the Chief Splatter-head tells the nice folks at the FGS about this web site. ±

Tuesday: Good news: I've been married 43 years today.

Wednesday: Ask your Representative these questions: 1--Why are Splatter-heads called "representatives" when they represent no one? 2--What have the Splatter-heads done in the past ten years to enhance or protect the rights of LCs? 3--Why should the membership approve new Bylaws that contain no provisions for protecting LCs?±

Grievance update ! I've heard nothing from the GC. They must be hearing their first grievance by now. It would be a wonderful surprise if they actually held a fair hearing for once. It would be better if they reviewed some of the past kangaroo hearings the Splatter-heads held over the years, and then issued a truly fair, just, reasonable and impartial ruling in those cases.

An unfair finding by the Splatter-heads is one reason this web site was born and why it will be here for the rest of my life--or until their malfeasance is rectified. The fascists among the elite would never agree to a fair re-hearing. It would go against every thing they believe in: Control, dominate, malign, exclude. How the mind wanders and wonders. ±

Garden Party: It was a nice day in Reno. A researcher from New Mexico visited me today. I've had three researchers from NM visit me since I started NM ALHN. Today, we walked my cactus garden. I grew it over the last fifteen years with cactus from NM and other western states.

I found myself in the possession of four Blaines Fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus spinosior ssp. blainei). They were rescue cactus from a housing project in Utah. Two died last year. Turns out that I may have owned two of only a few Blaines Fishhook cactus left on earth. I boxed them up and sent them to a professional grower in NM so he can watch over them in his green house for seed production. This may be the last chance for survival of that variety. Don't get me wrong, there are other varieties of Sclerocactus. See this link.±

Splatter-head Borow nutty as ever: Burow, the RAL, took over for Tina while she is gallivanting at FGS conference. If you know him, he has an authority thing. The vision I have of him is an overly educated, semi-successful, professional, about 5 foot 4 inches tall, with thick glasses. His first act as acting Chief Splatter-head was to exercise his authority over a sub-Splatter-head. Thus:

From: "Scott Burow"

To: <board@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:15 PM

Subject: Re: [BOARD] Board Secretary Appointment

> Thank you Jason, by your reply I make the assumption that you are "Present".

> Would you please indicate your agreement or disagreement with the Agreement of Confidentiality as requested by the NC? You are the last outstanding member of the board on the issue, and with that all completed we can take a look at the agenda and get down to business. Scott

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Jason Mendenhall"

> To: <board@rootsweb.com>

> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 4:10 PM

> Subject: Re: [BOARD] Board Secretary Appointment

>

> No Objection

> Jason. snip (end)

If you read the post carefully you will see Burows has lost it. He mixed up Confidentially (secrecy) with Appointment of secretary. Jason, is one of the more rational members in the Splatter-house. Maybe that fact has Borow rattled. Maybe Burow is trying to symbolically undue all that sand kicked in his face as a teenager. Maybe he just wants to show Jason who's boss. If Jason refuses to comply with the secrecy agreement, he would be the first. It would be a breakthrough at Splatter-house. ±

One Big happy family? A member asked me why we could not have one big happy genealogy community with AHGP, Genealogy Trails, ALHN and USGW. To start with: USGW already is becoming diluted with AHGP and ALHN joint sites. Someone counted 400 county sites that have dual affiliation or dual disloyalty to one or both Projects. Stay the course and USGW will be non-distinguishable from AHGP or ALHN. That would thrill the U$GeNNet ilk who are trying to take over the world. Do not look for Genealogy Trails (GT) to join the love-in. At least they are honest in the way they do business. There is no begging for money like U$GeNNet. Members pay $10 per year for their space at GT. Getting a truly free and independent site with RW is the best answer for many fed up with the restrictive aspects of the Projects.

I prefer to change USGW into a better Project than to dilute it. The first step is to free it from Splatter-house. The members voted to create Splatter-heads and they can vote to eliminate them. The Splatter-house serves no useful function. It helps no one, it does nothing constructive, it accomplishes nothing. They worry about whether their members signed the secrecy pledge. It's a phony esteem factory. ~Mark 9:47: If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out.±

Can't get sillier:

The most dangerous people in the world are those with limited knowledge who believe they know it all.

From: "Jeff "

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 10:02 AM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] 3rd-party file contributions?

> Everette Carr wrote:

>> I must be confused! I jump up and down with joy whenever someone submits material for posting on one of my county sites, For me, it happens all the time, nothing weird about it at all. Since you request submittals, why would it shock you that some kind, generous soul is willing to share? Everette

> Because as in a lot of cases, the submitter may not OWN the rights to the information. USGenWeb has a policy (actually several;) that mandate that if a "submitter" submits, then ONLY the submitter can direct its removal, but this is really an illegal policy issue in the national bylaws, because under copyright laws, ONLY the copyright holder or licensee may say where and by who copyrighted information may be published.

(Shall we have submitters fill out forms stating they are the rightful owner? Jeff implied that Submitters to USGenWeb are thieves--Guilty until proven innocent. One person might submit material innocently or otherwise that is not their own, but that situation is addressed when discovered.

Painting all Submitters with the same brush for the acts of one or two is boneheaded. )

> The bylaws issue is significant because if followed, the USGenWeb project is directing you to break the law (ignore a copyright holder's rights) in favor of a third party "submitter", and essentially assigning the copyrights to a party who has no right to them (the 'submitter'). (Blaa, blaa, blaa, data is not copyrightable. )

> Most of what is put up is in the public domain, facts and content that is not 'creative'. However sometimes people in the spirit of sharing, copy and send in works copied from copyrighted materials, photos, books, articles, etc, and it gets published on our sites. (Some creative work is not very "creative" at all.)

> The ultimate LEGAL responsibility falls on the person who "publishes", the site manager, NOT the submitter. (Is Jeff an attorney too?) > A correlation would be someone taking your car, and then giving it to a third party. If the third party has the stolen car, it makes no difference that the car was given to them, they still are in possession of stolen property, and will be jailed. (Give us a break, when did that happen?)

> In copyright cases, it is a FEDERAL magistrate, so cases are pretty rare, but logic says a little checking will keep you out of legalities that can be avoided. Fines and penalties can be VERY stiff, and enormous. (end)

(So are the sun and the moon, enormous. State one case when a USGenWeb volunteer faced a Federal Judge. BTW, a person must prove financial loss in order to collect on a copyright complaint. If I run a non-profit web site, that I do not charge to visit, then I have no financial loss if someone steals my data. There are no penalties and stiff fines, neither enormous ones nor tiny ones.)

The Truth:

ARTICLE X. COPYRIGHT

Section 1. In The USGenWeb Project, copyright of websites resides solely with the creator of the web page(s). Their inclusion as part of The USGenWeb Project does not give any irrevocable right, implied or otherwise, to The USGenWeb Project to permanently use the material.

Section 2. In The USGenWeb Project, copyright to queries and any other data submitted to any state or local websites resides with the submitter. The submission of queries and other data to The USGenWeb Project implies that The USGenWeb Project may continue to post the material until/if such time the submitter requests removal.

Section 3. In The USGenWeb Project, copyright to data contributed to any special projects resides with the contributor, who agrees that The USGenWeb Project, as a not-for-profit group, has permanent use of the data. The permanent use agreement is conditional upon the non-profit nature of The USGenWeb Project and will become null and void if The USGenWeb Project should ever cease to be non-profit.

Section 4. All members of The USGenWeb Project shall be responsible for adhering to The USGenWeb Project's Official Copyright Policy which may be found, along with further information about copyright, at The USGenWeb Project national website, http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html On that site is stated this:

What is Not Copyrightable

Tombstone information -- wording found on a tombstone itself cannot be copyrighted.

Public records

Public information is not copyrightable, however, a compilation of that information can be copyrighted.

Dates of birth, marriage, and death, along with the names are ordinarily not copyrightable.

Census data

It is a "legal fact" that "facts" are not copyrightable, although their arrangement in a manner other than alphabetical may be copyrightable. "Facts" are not copyrightable -- that is, they are unprotectable elements -- and the bulk of genealogical CD data is factual vital-statistics data that reside in the public domain from the beginning. They are not taken out of the public domain by being included in a copyrighted work.

Public Domain Materials

Public Domain Materials - Materials where Copyright Protection has Expired

Public domain material includes but is not limited to the following:

Material where the copyright has expired.

All public records

Materials published using public funds cannot be copyrighted.

Works consisting entirely of information that is common property containing no original material, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources.

Reprints and Facsimile Copies

Once material enters Public Domain it may be republished or copied in part or in total by anyone.

A reprint of Public Domain material can be copyrighted. However the copyright only applies to any new material (introduction, summary, tables, index, etc.) which was added to the original. The original material is still in Public Domain and can be used freely. (snip) (end)

So having said that --if the above is true, it does not make any difference who submitted the data. Data is Not Copyrightable. Let's steal some cars. A man steals a car. He gives it to his son as a gift. The police notice the license plate and stops him. The son states, "Dad gave me the car." The police then arrest the son because it is a copyright violation. Of course, I am being as facetious as Jeff is silly. The police are not going to arrest the son for his father's deeds. They will arrest the father; but, car theft has nothing to do with copyright. To use it as an example of copyright violation is ridiculous. The law uses "intent" to decide if a person is guilty. Did the webmaster intend to violate copyright when he innocently published data? No. He relied on the submitter. But then, what webmaster would publish a book without checking for copyright? No sane webmaster publishes stories or books without determining if they are under copyright. Data is a different situation. Data is Not Copyrightable. So, again the webmaster is not going to jail for publishing data. State ONE case in the United States where a person had to pay a judgment for publishing DATA. I say it has never happened. ±

Milking the system: A lady came to our neighborhood several years ago. She is single, living with her boyfriend in a Section 8 rental house. Her adult son also lives with her. She is on Medicaid, and receives subsistence money from the county. Her teen daughter gets financial help for school supplies and meals. ("Section 8" means welfare. We call it that to be politically correct.)

In this case, the welfare recipient has no medical problems, is not crippled, nor in a wheel chair, is not insane; she graduated from high school, and she smokes marijuana each night. Police have come to her house and told her not to smoke marijuana (the smell offends the neighbors). The property is stacked with garbage, junk cars and other debris. On the web site that administers Section 8 payments, no instructions appear to report welfare fraud. Having other people live in the house (that our taxes pay), is a violation of the welfare provisions, as is violating the drug laws, as is fraudulently claiming disability. That is bad enough, but she is but one of many in our County milking the system dry.

As we enter a recession, with the federal Government taking over two of the largest companies in America this morning--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which suffered 12 Billion Dollars in losses, few people care about welfare fraud. This situation was reported to the newspaper, the city council, the police and to Section 8. No results.

Welcome to Sparks, Nevada. How does your community compare?

Milking the system: I wondered if a person could sit at the computer for hours, re-write an entire set of Bylaws for a national organization, run for office in a national organization, be elected and serve in more than one elected office, waste away on the message boards, and still collect disability checks from the system? Could that happen? If a person could do all of that, can they not find a job as a night watchman, or view a security monitor at a local business, or fill holes with pegs? That hypothetical question is intended to entertain. Have a good Sunday evening.±

Week two begins.

This is the week to remember the terrorist attack on 9/11, and to forget my birthday which is also on 9/11.

Quote worth repeating: (Shall we have submitters fill out forms stating they are the rightful owner? Jeff implied that Submitters to USGenWeb are thieves--Guilty until proven innocent. One person might submit material innocently or otherwise that is not their own, but that situation is addressed when discovered. Painting all Submitters with the same brush for the acts of one or two is boneheaded.)

Disappointing Quote: I am in agreement with the agrement (sic) of confidentiality. Jason (Splatter-head)

Meaningless Quote: Fines and penalties can be VERY stiff, and enormous. --end

(Is there a difference between very stiff and medium stiff or just plain stiff? Is there a difference between stiff and enormous? How big is enormous? How big is stiff? $5? $2,500? $25,000? $25M? Is it enormously stiff?)

A Better Quote: "The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with." -- U.S. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C., 9th term) (end) by Sandy. ±

And they want to change the Bylaws? No one understands the ones we have. Tiny returned from FGS and is back in the saddle. Current Problem: Five states, count them, have sponsored or co-sponsored the revised Bylaw proposal. Our Chief Splatter-head says that a co-sponsor is different than a sponsor. Maybe she is right, I don't know. But even so, another state co-sponsored the proposal. Hawaii DID THAT SOME TIME AGO.

The Splatter-head 'representing' Southwest/South Central Region (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah) will not announce that fact to the AB because it did not come from the SC who is away on personal business. One hundred percent of the LCs in Hawaii voted to co-sponsor the proposal. Where do the Bylaws state that the SC MUST announce the decision to the AB? While Tina was on her trip, the RAL took charge. Can not a lowly LC also take charge in a state for making announcements where there is 100% agreement? No, because LCs don't count for anything.

From: "Tina S. Vickery"

To: <board@rootsweb.com>

Cc: <usgenweb-all@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 11:53 AM

Subject: [ABChat] Proposed amendment to the Bylaws

> ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS

>

> Section 3. The proposed amendment, with the sponsor's name and date of posting, shall remain posted for a period of at least thirty (30) days prior to the annual voting period of July 1-July 31. Any proposed amendment shall require a minimum of five (5) states as co-sponsors to command that it be placed on the ballot. State projects wishing to co-sponsor the amendment shall notify the Advisory Board and make an announcement on the USGenWeb-All Mailing List.

> -----

> We currently have a sponsor for this amendment and four co-sponsors. The above requires "a minimum of five (5) states as

co-sponsors to command that it be placed on the ballot." Sponsored by INGenWeb, August 18, 2008

>

> Co-sponsored by MSGenWeb, August 18, 2008

> Co-sponsored by GAGenWeb, August 23, 2008

> Co-sponsored by WAGenWeb, September 7, 2008

> Co-sponsored by NDGenWeb, September 7, 2008

>

> As National Coordinator, I am posting to the USGENWEB-ALL list acknowledging the sponsor and co-sponsors to date. Placement of this amendment on the ballot with the appropriate sponsor and minimum co-sponsors does not require a motion from the board. The EC will be directed to include it should it attain the required co-sponsorship.

>

> I have updated the National pages to reflect the sponsor and co-sponsors.

>

> Tina Vickery

> National Coordinator

> USGenWeb Project ±

Who do you love? How to destroy a great American experiment.

Photos below indicate affection, love and fondness.

* Mr. Stowell's crime is comparable to other SCs in power. They use similar tactics, but those others are on the good side of Splatter-house politicians. NMgw and NCgw, for instance, have a ruling gang that allots power to a few individuals indefinitely. In NMgw, friends and relatives have been appointed to LC positions. Some do not know how to build websites and their pages have no data, but they know how to vote. Other SCs have used the email lists to badger and bully LCs. Those who resist intimidation are eventually railed out of town. Mr. Stowell's punishment is not disturbing; but others who are in the good graces of the elite wearing counterfeit badges still roam the open range. That odor of hypocrisy permeates USGenWeb. The clock is ticking. ±

ALHN news: A new webmaster was assigned for National ALHN home pages. Long time waiting for this. The new Chief is fixing bad links that have been on the national site for years. The new Chief actually sends emails to members too. Glad to see someone finally taking charge of that site. Now, if we could only get ALHN to stop promoting USGeNNet! A former President and webmaster left ALHN in a huff because he did not have time to administer the home page and other reasons. He claimed he had a life outside of genealogy--he is now happy over at USGenWeb. The guy after him had a heart attack. The USGeNNet folks stepped in and are in firm control.

U$GeNNet is like a noxious weed. It sticks like goat heads (Tribulus terrestris). ±

Small states don't count. Over on the Trashy list, two former Splatter-heads are indicating small states do not count. So, if a state with a small number of LCs vote 100% to co-sponsor a proposed Bylaw they do not count according to folks on the Trashy list. Those buffoons are sickening. They represent what is wrong with USGenWeb; a snobbish, elitist, attitude; we are better, attitude; other members don't count, attitude. Here is some input for them: Go to hell. Stay on the trashy U$GeNNet list where you belong.

States in USGenWeb that don't count according to the Trashy-list standards:

AK, OR, WA, WY, DE, DC, MD, NJ, MD, AZ, HI, NV, NM, UT, CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT.

These states have over 100 million citizens, but they have few LCs due to having fewer counties. They're as important as the States with large numbers of LCs.

I know why Teresa Lindquist gave up on USgw. She was sick of the snobbish fools who destroyed it. ±

Jeff agrees with Genwebstalkers.com. Our idea at the core of Open-letter to The Advisory Board:

From: "Jeff"

To: (AB) Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 9:41 PM

Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification (POINT OF ORDER)

Open letter to the Board and the membership.

Recently the National Coordinator made an announcement that the pending Amendment has not qualified for the next voting period due to insufficient co-sponsorship. I challenge that conclusion. (snip & end)

Yes, Jeff, we knew that first, -see above: "Tiny returned from FGS and is back in the saddle. Current Problem: Five states, count them, have sponsored or co-sponsored the revised Bylaw proposal. Our Chief Splatter-head says that a co-sponsor is different than a sponsor. Maybe she is right, I don't know. But even so, another state co-sponsored the proposal. Hawaii DID THAT SOME TIME AGO."

Not only did we know it first, but our readers reported that fact to a LC Representatives which was ignored.

So Jeff, you are a day late and a dollar short. The fact is, our Southwest/South Central Region 'Representative' was informed about this (before you spoke up) but she ignored the LC. Fact is, LCs are lowly and ignored in USGenWeb unless they are part of the elite. Fact is, Jeff is a former Splatter-head, and they stick together. His open letter was recognized by the Chief Splatter-head. Speaking for the LCs, we followed proper procedures by reporting to our LC Representative who ignored us. Jeff went the "Open letter" route and got glowing attention. ±

Sums it up and down

From: "Daryl"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 7:51 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] HIGenweb

TinaV wrote:

"Until an appropriate SWSC Regional Representative receives a note from the SC of HIGenWeb Project that HIGenWeb Project has voted to co-sponsor this amendment, HI will not be added to the list of co-sponsors."

Daryl answered:

That's no problem ... over the years many of us CCs have come to expect the NC / AB to follow the bylaws only when it suites them, and to interpret the bylaws as suite them. Nothing new there ... it's been causing problems in the USGenWeb for years, and in my opinion is shameful of "leadership" voted into place to uphold the bylaws. So, you and the ABees are on the record as refusing to acknowledge the vote of HIGenWeb, we're not being accorded our bylaw right to vote to co-sponsor an amendment. Daryl (end)

and ...

From: "Daryl"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 4:33 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] HIGenweb

JanC wrote:

Isn't that why we elect an SC? To be our spokeperson (sic) and see to the day to day needs of the individual state projects in an orderly manner?

Daryl answered:

Isn't that why we elect the AB? To "perform the duties prescribed by these

Bylaws" ... please follow the bylaws as written.

It would be nice if we all could depend on the ABs common sense, but the informed members know that at times some ABees let their personal grudges and agendas be their guides. This is a reason society has rules, and a reason the USGenWeb has rules for the membership AND the AB to follow. My grievance certainly isn't being handled by common sense ... I've been waiting 25 months for my bylaw right to a timely resolution, because the process is following the written rules. The co-sponsoring of an amendment also needs to follow the written rules.

I don't like being told my statement that HIGebWeb has voted to co-sponsor the amendment, it not to believed unless our SC says it. And if that isn't the issue, and the AB does believe me, then as per the bylaws add us to the list of co-sponsored dated Aug 28th as the 4th state to do so. Daryl (end)

Speaking in general, not specific to any particular state:

LCs decide procedure. If they ALL voted to sponsor an amendment, and the SC decided against, then one member would be stopping the will of the state, which is the LCs' will.

If the LCs voted to assign a person to make announcements for their state who was not the SC, the Advisory Board would not permit it. That would go against their policy of keeping LCs in their place of subservience.

It should be the LCs of a state that determine policy, but that reasonable idea has been cast aside in USGenWeb. Only SCs and the Advisory Board are Blessed enough to decide for LCs.

The Bylaws and the Advisory Board have been a plague on this organization since the day they were created.

Go file a grievance, it will only take two years before they rule against you.

Fast and loose, snipped from Reuters.

By Emily Chasan

Sept 12 - The accounting shenanigans that helped spur the U.S. government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have left investors wondering if other firms are also playing fast and loose with accounting rules. (like the Advisory Board of USgw?) Reports of overly optimistic techniques employed to account for their cash reserves, have revived concerns on Wall Street that some companies may still be less-than-forthcoming about the risks on or off their books.

It's pretty clear that some of the accounting practices were really not up to snuff. We're at a stage where its absolutely critical that there be transparency on the accounting issues and what the risks and liabilities are. Many of the current problems stem from accounting rules that have been "stretched beyond recognition." (Like the AB stretching the Bylaws to suit their own visions of glory and self adornment?)±

HIGenWeb LCs slapped down: We'll show you. Stay in your appointed place!

From: "Tina S. Vickery"

To: <board@rootsweb.com>

Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:33 AM

Subject: Re: [BOARD] At the request of the Florida State Coordinator

Thank you Denise, I will have the web master add this co-sponsorship to the Announcements page.

http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml

Tina Vickery, National Coordinator, USGenWeb Project

----- Original Message -----

From: "Denise Wells" <semaccrep@gmail.com>

To: "board" <board@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 6:55 PM

Subject: [BOARD] At the request of the Florida State Coordinator

Sponsorship of the Bylaws Amendment:

The FLGenWeb Project, Inc. has voted to co-sponsor the bylaws amendment. Amendment Proposal to Change Method of Amending USGenWeb Bylaws from a 2/3 Vote to a Majority Vote for Passage.

(SNIP)

Respectfully submitted, Darrel R Bell, President/State Coordinator, FLGenWeb Project, Inc. (end)

There is more than one way to skin a cat. The issue has been slapped down by the announcement above. It's now dead. ±

Week Three begins:

Burow's refusal to acknowledge member's concerns.

This is a bit hard to follow due to the emails flying about in every direction.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Laverne"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 6:53 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] HI Sponsorship of Amendment to the Bylaws

> Scott,

>

> It is blatantly apparent that WE are trying now and have tried in the past; HOWEVER we keep getting stomped on by the NC/AB each and every step of the way. It is no wonder we have hemorrhaged over 500 members in the past 2-3 years. USGW is stagnant and if the NC/AB does not wake up and smell the burned coffee soon, it will all conflate and there wont be any members to hold the dictators whip over. We are finding there is a joyous freedom in being an incorporated entity and heartily suggest each state incorporate.

snip

> Laverne

----- Original Message -----

From: "Laverne Tornow" <laverne11@wildblue.net>

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 7:33 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] e: HI Sponsorship of Amendment to the Bylaws

> The NC already ruled that 5 states wasn't enough, though the bylaws state that is all that is required. Will she now declare 6 is not enough?

> Since when does ANY ONE Person have the authority to overrule what is established in the bylaws. If our NC did indeed have the best interests of USGW "at heart" she herself would adhere to the bylaws. All I see coming from the NC/AB is "I" "I" "I", when it should be the membership. It doesn't matter what any one or all of the ABs and the NC want, it is WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT. You say do something to us< why should we, every time we do we get shut down by the AB or NC.

> I say it is past time for the NC/AB to do their job, the job we the people elected them to do. If they don't then we will just get new people.

> Laverne

----- Original Message -----

> From: Scott

> To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com

> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 10:03 PM

> Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] e: HI Sponsorship of Amendment to the Bylaws

>

> Laverne, it's very simple.

> The situation swings both ways. We've seen what happens when the AB tries

> to change things. It's not pretty, and it rarely has anything to more to do

> with the issue than the mere fact that the AB is the one making the changes.

> If the members want changes to the by-laws, they need to propose them, get

> the sponsorships needed, and then it's entirely out of the NC/AB's hands.

> It goes to a vote by the members. That is the process outlined in the

> by-laws for change.

> Yes, there is an effort going on and I don't see any stomping going on. I

> do see a difference of opinion on sponsorship interpretation, which makes no

> difference at this point since there are enough states to sponsor it. I'm

> not sure what stomping you're talking about.

> That being said, what I do see is folks waiting for the NC/AB to act on it

> ... which we can't.

> Scott

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Laverne"

> To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:53 PM

> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] HI Sponsorship of Amendment to the Bylaws

>

> > Scott,

> >

> > It is blatantly apparent that WE are trying now and have tried in the

> > past; HOWEVER we keep getting stomped on by the NC/AB each and every step

> > of the way. It is no wonder we have hemorrhaged over 500 members in the

> > past 2-3 years. USGW is stagnant and if the NC/AB does not wake up and

> > smell the burned coffee soon, it will all conflate and there wont be any

> > members to hold the dictators whip over. We are finding there is a joyous

> > freedom in being an incorporated entity and heartily suggest each state

> > incorporate.

snip

> >

> > Laverne

----- Original Message -----

From: "Charles"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 4:10 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification

> Scott said:

> "For me this raises the question as to what the real goal was for raising

> the issue in the first place. I think the members are tired of having the

> by-laws nit-picked to death when the stated issue has no consequence on what

> is happening in the project today." (end)

> Why don't you merely address the issue as a Board member instead of

> bad-mouthing others? I take offense to your constant put-downs of members.

> I do not agree that it is 'by-laws nit-picking'.

> I do not agree that the issue has no consequence to the project.

> I do not agree that there is some clandestine reason for raising the issue.

> I do not agree with Jan that, "we defined every little tiny piece of

> information to make it *CLEAR* that we would have a set of bylaws resembling

> the Encyclopedia Brittanica (sic) in a 20 volume set and need to have our

> own server on which to house it?" (end)

> Two logical, reasonable, educated and rational people can read that provision and come to different conclusions. That does not make one an evil conniver and one a saint.

>

> Charles

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Scott"

> To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 2:39 PM

> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification

>

>

>> There isn't a problem Don, that's the whole issue.

>>

>> There are folks who simply want to raise issues that don't matter to

>> enhance their personal interests.

>>

>> Precedent wouldn't be set on the sponsorship issue until one of two things

>> happened. Either an amendment did not appear on the ballot with a sponsor

>> and four co-sponsors, setting the precedent that it takes five co-sponsors

>> AND a sponsor; or an amendment did appear on the ballot with a sponsor and

>> four co-sponsors, setting the precedent that it takes five total state

>> projects, a sponsor and four co-sponsors.

>>

>> Never has this occurred and it's not an issue this time, so it's subject

>> to interpretation.

>>

>> With Daryl's issue of notification, this isn't the first time it's come

>> up. Every other time that anyone except the SC has advised of a state

>> sponsorship of an amendment, the NC simply asked that the SC, as the

>> elected representative of the state, to formally notify the AB reps for the region

>> that their state has co-sponsored an amendment. And every other time the

>> SC has done that ... until this time.

>>

>> While the by-laws are not perfect by any means, and no set of by-laws ever

>> can cover everything, I put it to you that it's not the by-laws that

>> create the problem, it's often those who create division by exploiting those

>> inconsistencies and incongruencies (sic) in the by-laws for their own purposes.

>>

>> The stated goal for both these issues was to make sure that the amendment

>> was placed on the ballot. There is enough sponsors for that to occur, yet

>> we hear the same issue raised over and over.

>>

>> For me this raises the question as to what the real goal was for raising

>> the issue in the first place. I think the members are tired of having the

>> by-laws nit-picked to death when the stated issue has no consequence on

>> what is happening in the project today.

>>

>> Scott

----- Original Message -----

From: "Charles"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 4:33 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification

> Scott said:

"As I've repeatedly said, neither one of these are an issue that relates to the amendment in question, since there are adequate sponsors and I see no need to beat the dead horse incessantly. The continuous flagellation of that poor equine does make me wonder on the motives of those who do." and ... Since no public vote was taken in HIGenWeb there is no method of verification, ... (end)

> Then why are you still beating the dead horse if there is no reason to beat the dead horse? NO way to verify? Why not have a Representative of the Board ask the LCs how they voted. The answer will be 100% affirmative to support the proposal.

You say it does not matter. Well, my esteemed RAL, you are the Representative at Large. It should matter to you if 100% of a state voted "Yes" and they were not heard by your esteemed Board. Instead of finding what the LCs desire, you chose to belittle and question the integrity of members based on no facts whatsoever--only on what you "wonder". With your temperament I question if you deserve to be on the Advisory Board.

Further, How a state votes is their business. It does not have to be in public. Your continuous flagellation of that poor equine does make me wonder about your motives. What are your motives? Why are you belittling members of this Project when you should be representing them?

> Charles Barnum

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Scott Burow" <sburow@swbell.net>

> To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 3:37 PM

> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification

>

>> No offense intended Jeff, just a simple statement of facts.

>>

>> Precedent is set when the object of the rule in question comes into

>> effect. The rule in question here is the placement of an amendment on the ballot.

>> Precedent will NOT be set until at some point there is a 'sponsor' and

>> only for 'co-sponsors' and a determination is made whether it appears on the

>> ballot or not.

>>

>> Until that time, no precedent is set by any statement by anyone - be it

>> the NC, AB member, or Project member. It is not what is said that matters,

>> but what occurs which sets the precedent. Should the AB take a vote today to

>> say "THIS IS WHAT THAT SECTION MEANS" would have no permanent effect, as

>> any action by the AB can be changed by a subsequent vote of a later AB.

>>

>> There is no proactive solution to the issue at the AB level. The only

>> solution to permanently make that determination would be to amend the

>> by-laws to define it, or wait until the issue is before the AB to set that

>> precedent and determine it at that time.

>>

>> As Jan and Don have both said, the SC is the spokesman and elected

>> representative of a State Project and speaks for the state. Since no

>> public vote was taken in HIGenWeb there is no method of verification, the AB

>> relies on the elected representative to make that announcement. The issue could

>> be turned around to say that there's no provision for an LC to make an

>> announcement of sponsorship just as well. This is why there's a chain of

>> command in every organization. The NC and the AB are simply following it.

>>

>> As I've repeatedly said, neither one of these are an issue that relates to

>> the amendment in question, since there are adequate sponsors and I see no

>> need to beat the dead horse incessantly. The continuous flagellation of

>> that poor equine does make me wonder on the motives of those who do.

>>

>> Scott (end) (Makes me wonder about your motives, Scott.)

Final words:

From: "Everette"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 6:55 AM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification

Scott,

With the sixth state coming on board to co-sponsor the bylaws amendment, the question of how many states must co-sponsor an bylaws amendment in this instance is a mute point.

But, it is not a mute point going forward. This article is badly worded and needs clarification. I can assure you that a proposed change and clarification to this particular article will be forthcoming in the near future.

I am concerned and disturbed that you as a member of the AB frequently joins discussions, not with helpful input, but with innuendo, sarcasm and comments that question the motives and the integrity of other members of the

project. This is a disturbing trend and one that you, in my humble opinion, as a member of the AB should try to curb. Everette (end)

It goes on and on with no solutions, just as always. Scott said this,

"There are folks who simply want to raise issues that don't matter to enhance their personal interests."

That's an old swift boat trick. Scott and his comrades paint people who request solutions as people merely promoting their own interests, like evil beings needing a wooden stake driven into their hearts. The AB's problem in a nutshell is this: They think that as elected figures, that they should come under no scrutiny. They badger, belittle, demean and brow-beat when voters ask questions. Once they become elected, they become Rulers, Kings, Overlords and Overseers, not elected representatives. We're now hearing echoes from the past by some to rid the organization of those who want to destroy it. That's code-speak for those who want to improve USGenWeb by holding the AB accountable. The membership is tired of their self-elevation.

From: "Everette"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 7:18 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification

Hi Scott,

You know that I have high regard for your opinions and that I admire your forthright ways. Calling them "as you see them" is fine with me, but I do believe that you and Ellen Pack are quick to play the "you must have an agenda card". Frankly, it is getting tiresome. For the most part, I have no disagreement with your positions or your manner until you decide that anyone with an opinion that differs from yours must have an ulterior motive.

In a prior message you stated: "No offense intended Jeff, just a simple statement of facts."

Suggesting that some one has an ulterior motive for taking a position is a cop out and is not "simply stating facts" as you would want us to believe. Facts are not involved, it is mere speculation on your part and more often than not, you are wrong! And, from where I sit, it certainly seems like you intended to offend.

And when you say that no harm was intended,; well that is just in genuine.

For example:

"There are folks who simply want to raise issues that don't matter to enhance their personal interests."

This may be true of some well recognized individuals, but this does not describe the vast majority of the posters. Granted, when Daryl and Charles chimed in on a totally different issue, it changed the tone of every one's responses. But it should not have. You can not color everyone with an opinion with the same paint brush.

Again, I would like to see you participate openly and honestly in the discussions that take place and I am all for speaking openly and honestly, but lets leave the unnecessary accusations and characterizations out of the

comments. They serve no purpose but to embroil the situation which ultimately leads to name calling and chaos. You should be above such tactics as a representative of the AB.

Everette ±

Alice waives censorship hammer. Back to the jack-booted, storm troopers mentality.

What happened to freedom of expression?

From: "Alice"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:10 PM

Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Request for formal ruling and clarification

Yes, this was a rather rude comment, but what about the comments from those who are constantly bad-mouthing the AB. Perhaps we should moderate them as well? I believe one or two of the complainers would be off the list for good if we did so.

Alice Allen

Co-Moderator, Discuss List ±

Laden with politics: from http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/notice.shtml

Notice the sponsors: HIGenWeb also sponsored this on 28 Aug., but they apparently don't count.

Important Announcements - News

Amendment Proposal to Change Method of Amending USGenWeb Bylaws from a 2/3 Vote to a Majority Vote for Passage.

Proposed Amendments to the USGenWeb Bylaws

Sponsored by INGenWeb, August 18, 2008

Co-sponsored by MSGenWeb, August 18, 2008

Co-sponsored by GAGenWeb, August 23, 2008

Co-sponsored by WAGenWeb, September 7, 2008

Co-sponsored by NDGenWeb, September 7, 2008

Co-sponsored by FLGenWeb, September 12, 2008

ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS

OLD:

Section 1. These Bylaws may be amended by the membership of The USGenWeb Project through a two-thirds (2/3) majority of those members participating during the voting period.

To be replaced by:

NEW:

Section 1. These Bylaws may be changed by a majority of votes cast in the affirmative on a proposed amendment.

And concurrently:

OLD:

Section 4. Voting on any proposed amendment to the bylaws shall be during the annual voting period of July 1-July 31 and a two- thirds (2/3) majority, of the members voting within that time frame, is required for the amendment to pass.

To be replaced by:

NEW:

Section 4. Voting on a proposed amendment to the Bylaws shall be during the annual voting period of July 1-July 31.

And Concurrently:

OLD:

Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well- being of The USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment and disseminate it to the membership without the required co-sponsorship. In this case, the proposed amendment shall be posted to the national website and disseminated to the membership within two (2) business days. The proposed amendment shall remain posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special ballot shall be prepared and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. A two-thirds (2/3) majority, of The USGenWeb Project membership, voting within that time frame, shall be required for the amendment to pass.

To Be replaced by:

NEW:

Section 5. In the case of an urgent matter affecting the well- being of The USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board may propose an amendment without the required co-sponsorship. The Advisory Board's proposed amendment shall be posted to the national website. Notification to all membership shall be within two (2) business days of posting on the national website. The proposed amendment shall remain posted for a minimum of three (3) business days. A special ballot shall be prepared and voting shall be for a period of five (5) business days. ±

I have the list!

On the Discuss list for the past month--at least, several self-appointed judges have proposed that some members should be evicted from USGenWeb for the betterment of the project. They have spoken in code: "They know who they are," and "We know who they are." Problem is, no one knows who the hell they are. Your webmaster issued a public challenge to reveal the names! I now have that list. ±

Another list: Your webmaster has long wanted to Excel-ise the names of LCs by state. This is a massive job. It may never be finished, but it will be started. Would you like to help by doing a state or more? Probably not, but if so, email me.

HIGenWeb's vote is recognized, finally. This post from Daryl Litton.

From: "Daryl Lytton"

To: <usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Subject: [USGENWEB-DISCUSS] Thank Yous -- Co-Sponsoring Amendment

AB Rep Bettie Wood deserves a gold medal of honor, for going above and beyond the call of duty in support of the CCs, under fire of opposition by some other ABees.

ABees Alice Allen and Concetta Phillipps deserve silver medals, for publicly trying to come up with solutions in support of the CCs, rather than making excuses for the AB to not take action.

Honorable Mention bronze medals go to Jeffery G Scism, Mike Peterson, and the other CCs who supported the USGenWeb Bylaws and the Rights of Members. Daryl (end)

This proves the AB can do the right thing when it wishes. Too bad they refused to do the right thing on Monday, April 23, 2007 10:35 PM to wit:

----Original Message-----

From: Scott Burow [mailto:sburow@swbell.net]

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:35 PM

To: jcnreno@charter.net; km1109@ghvalley.net; detict@cox.net

Subject: Ruling of the USGenWeb Advisory Board - Barnum v. Mitchell

In the matter of the grievance filed by Charles Barnum against Karen Mitchell as State Coordinator of the NMGenWeb Project the USGenWeb Advisory Board has reviewed the information provided by both parties and makes the following findings:

1] that over a period of time previous to delinking, Charles Barnum's communications within the NMGenWeb Project were of an adversarial nature;

2] that instead of giving warning to Charles Barnum and providing a period of time to stop his unacceptable actions, and not restart them, Karen Mitchell delinked Charles Barnum's county website without providing reasons;

3] that Charles Barnum filed a grievance under the USGenWeb Bylaws as a former member indicating he was improperly delinked and that since NMGenWeb and USGenWeb lacked bylaws addressing delinking, he was using Sturgis as his authority seeking resolution;

4] that the Advisory Board finds that both parties contributed negatively to the issue and further finds no legal foundation for ruling in favor of either party; and

5] that the Advisory Board encourages the NMGenWeb State Coordinator to reconsider the drastic action providing both parties can arrive at a compromise position and can mitigate their mutual hostility whereby the purposes of the NMGenWeb project would be better served.

Further, as a result of this and similar issues brought before this Advisory Board, it is recommended as strongly as possible that each XXGenWeb develop or amend XXGenWeb Bylaws which cover, at a minimum, the rules and processes for removing/delinking members and for mailing list behavior.

Agreed and Signed:

Linda Blum-Barton

Karen De Groote-Johnson

Bettie Wood

Freddie Spradlin

Greta Thompson

Cyndie Enfinger

Suzanne Shephard

Larry Flesher

Mike Peterson

Sundee Maynez

Jan Cortez

Alice Allen

George Waller

Member Recused:

Phyllis Rippee

Submitted to the parties this 24th day of April, 2007

Scott Burow

National Coordinator

USGenWeb Project (end)

Actually, the finding in 1) is faulty: Adversarial communication between myself and other members of NMGenWeb existed but to a limited extent. I never instigated them. I did respond, however. It was my responses that irritated the few who run that state. They could not fight like a man or woman. They devised a plan to get rid of me. The majority of researchers in NM know this, and that gives me satisfaction. The AB members listed above know it too. They should hide their faces in disgrace. I hold my head high.±

News: A NM Citizen promises to deliver a hundred Cemetery surveys to NM ALHN over the next two years. NM ALHN continues to receive exhibits from the public. NMGenWeb receives none. NMGenWeb is a broken project. Broken in no small degree by the support of the SC from the AB in 2007. That SC is now replaced. Half of the LCs resigned. How did that support profit the USGenWeb Project? It did not. It cost them dearly in goodwill among NM Citizens and researchers. ±

Flash Back: http://gensuck.blogspot.com/2004_06_06_archive.html

Sunday, June 06, 2004

NOLA Duffy

Will the real NOLA please stand up.

From the fly on the wall.

Seems many think NOLA is really an operative of the National Coordinator for the USGENWEB project.

Her like it or lump it attitude toward members of the usgenweb project reminds one of the Castro Regime.

If you don't like the beatings then you can leave but don't talk about the underhanded, dirty politics treatment of the membership.

NOLA wants to push under the rug the ill treatment of the general membership. Rumor has it the archives sponsored by USGENWEB will start their own county sites to be used for the archives.

The Fly wonders why NOLA wants to silence members that have been suspended, discharged, delinked without a hearing.

The house that Jeff Murphy built USGENWEB has the same members using the same dirty politics against members now that was used to oust the very founder of USGENWEB.

The Fly received this in his fly trap today.

I can understand personality clashes. I can understand differing opinions between groups that make it difficult for groups to work together. What I do not understand that seems to be a common thread among those who decide to leave the USGenWeb Project is their need to spend an inordinate amount of their time doing nothing but trashing the USGenWeb Project instead of simply moving on with their lives and doing their own thing.

I also do not understand why anyone would even allow their name to be associated with an organization that they seem to despise to the core, with or without valid reasons. Why persist in remaining part of a group while at the same time applauding everyone who leaves to join another organization.

Why not simply move on to a place that conforms to your own idea of the correct way to do things instead of feeling that you must stick around until the entire house crumbles around your head after pounding it with a sledge hammer for years.

I respect those in other groups that have simply found they are not comfortable working within certain constraints and thus decided to move on.

I have threatened to do the same thing on occasion.

At some point in the future, there may be some reason that is sufficient in my own mind to persuade me to go private. However, if I am so unhappy and disgruntled with USGenWeb that I do not want to continue, I will not waste my precious time simply trashing GenWeb but use the time for more productive endeavors.

I can't help but wonder at times if those who are most unhappy with GenWeb are not saying that they really are not happy with anything they can not control, dominate and imprint with their own image. With that in mind, it seems to be nothing more than a personal power struggle for many. How often have we seen those who spend the most time talking about all the ills of the project immediately struggle to get to the front of the line when there is an appointment to be made or an election for a position, any position.

Perhaps the reason I can not see their point of view is simply because I do not want a position beyond that of a CC in my own corner of the globe.

Nola ±

Most Outrageous quote: Re: Saturday, September 20, 2008 3:02 PM, Subject: Re: [ABChat]

A Splatter-head said: "I mean, good grief, I don't know of any SCs that just fire (sic) a CC without a reason, & those I know of, give the CC a chance to make amends."

See this: DBS 7 July 7, 2007:

"SECONDHAND SMOKE: In a diverting sideshow, Karen Mitchell, the Hanging Judge of NMGenWeb, has become increasingly hysterical in her attempts to convince everyone that if they only knew the True Story they would see that all her actions against Charles Barnum were True and Righteous. As it happens, when she was presented with the true story, her head exploded.

Stripped of all the rhetoric, and all the intimations of secret discussions with Board members, and all the claims of "just doing what my CCs wanted," the true story is pretty simple. The Board, after seeing all the evidence available, determined that she is at much at fault as Charles for what happened in NMGW. They also encouraged her to reconsider her "drastic action" [their words] and work things out with Charles, a suggestion she chose to ignore, apparently to the point of claiming it doesn't exist." ±