From merope@Radix.Net Wed Nov 1 12:59:40 2000
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 12:59:39 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001101075209.15526A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
A hair of the dog...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Tuesday 31 October 2000:
Voting proceeds on the amendment to Motion 00-30. Thus far, ten Board
members have voted no.
Voting proceeds on motion 00-33. Thus far, two Board members have voted
yes, six have voted no, and two have abstained.
[This is quorum on both these motions. The amendment to Motion 00-30 has
failed, and with six no votes already, Motion 00-33 has probably failed
also.]
Election Study Committee Chair Holly Timm announces the release of the
Election Study Committee Report. Full text is available at:
http://www.timmweb.pair.com/esc/report.html
Wednesday 1 November 2000:
Ginger Hayes thanks the ESC for its hard work and "for producing an
excellent report." She moves that "the report of the Election Study
Committee be accepted in it's entirety and that the recommendations of the
committee be accepted and implemented." Joe Zsedeny seconds Ginger's
motion and recommends "that the normal discussion period be extended so
that the full report can be thoroughly reviewed."
Maggie Stewart suggests to Tim that he should do the motions "in order and
in a timely manner we could make some sense out of this chaos." She also
suggests that he attach the motion they are voting on to the request for a
vote.
Joe Zsedeny also compliments Holly and the ESC for an excellent report.
Although he hasn't "digested" it all yet, he does "appreciate the effort
that went into producing this fine report."
===
"Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working
together is success."
---Henry Ford
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Thu Nov 2 13:25:38 2000
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:25:37 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001102131342.343B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
That'll show 'em...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Thursday 2 November 2000:
Holly Timm notifies her Board colleagues that "The Election Study
Committee is standing by for questions if the Board has any."
===
Bigger IS Better Corner: As reported in the San Francisco Chronical on
October 31, 2000, MyFamily.com has added another member to the "Family."
MyFamily.com bought ThirdAge Media in a stock swap, but did not disclose
the terms of the acquisition [sound familiar?]. Jim Barnett, the
president and CEO of ThirdAge, will become the president and Chief
Operating Officer of MyFamily [!]; he expects the combined companies will
begin to show a profit by the second quarter of next year. [Neither has
previously been profitable.] The full article is online here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/31/BU104202.DTL
===
Today's quote was sent in by a reader:
"All adverse and depressing influences can be overcome, not by fighting,
but by rising above them."
---Charles Caleb Colton
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Fri Nov 3 13:46:48 2000
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:46:47 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001103134615.28372B-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Taunting you a second time...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 3 November 2000:
Tim Stowell announces the results of the vote on the amendment to Motion
00-30: 10 Board members voted no, and the amendment fails.
Tim tells the Board that he'd do the motions in order "if one didn't amend
them and/or folks didn't keep making one motion after another until the
others go cleared." He notes that "Perhaps with a Secretary, this wouldn't
be a problem." He points out that the motions were attached to the
original calls to vote, which went out on Oct 22 [yep, nearly two weeks
ago].
Tim gives the motion to accept the ESC report in its entirety number 00-36
and opens the floor for discussion. He reminds the Board that the ESC is
still available to answer questions about the report.
Tim announces the results of the vote on Motion 00-33: 2 yes votes, 6 no
votes, 2 abstentions. The motion fails.
Tim calls for a vote on Motion 00-35, to appoint Roger Swafford as Board
Secretary. [He seems to have forgotten the other motion 00-35 regarding
sending a letter to USPTO protesting Linda Lewis' service mark
application, which was submitted on 16 Oct, erroneously given number
00-33, then erroneously given Motion 00-35, and now apparently being
ignored.] Thus far, one Board members has voted yes, and five Board
members have voted "no".
Tim asks a series of questions about the ESC report: "Under formation of
the subCommittee - paragraph 3 - 'This list of volunteers shall be
submitted to the AB for approval or disapproval.' Question: So this is a
straight up or down vote on the whole committee? If one member of this
subCommittee is not approved of, the whole committee has to be selected
again until the ESC [sic] Chair gets it to the liking of the AB? Should
the AB let the ESC [sic] chair know who or why the list is being rejected,
if it is? Under Duties of the subCommittee - paragraph 1 - where the ESC
[sic] is charged with handling all national elections. Question:
Would/could the ESC [sic] hold/host an election for an individual state or
project at that entity's request? paragraph 5e - where the national voter
list and communications are handled by two members chosen by the NC and At
Large Rep. Question: Is this selection to take place from the member pool
of the ESC [sic]? Under Section C - Eligibility of voters - paragraph 1 -
the 30 day rule for eligibility to vote. Question: For our July elections
- is this date to be set as June 1? paragraph 2 - challenges to a
member's eligibility to vote Questions: 1. Will people who leave the
Project before the election starts be allowed to vote anyway? 2. Is there
to be a cutoff when challenges must be made by? In other words, if voting
starts July 1 and someone challenges June 30, the chances of someone
getting address it before July 1 are rather slim. [Presumably our
Esteemed National Coordinator is talking about the EC in the above and not
the ESC.]
Holly Timm informs the Board that the ESC will discuss Tim's questions and
get back to the Board tonight or tomorrow.
Joe Zsedeny says that "while the Bylaws do allow unlimited voting that is
the one of the most important issues that needs to be addressed in a
Bylaws amendment and I feel that the committee was remiss in not
discussing and recommending as much."
Shari Handley points out there was one section of the ESC report in which
the committee members were evenly divided, that of allowing Board members
to serve on the EC. Shari is in favor of allowing them to serve, noting
"AB members have up to now been allowed to serve on election committees.
I don't feel there would be any conflict of interest if the AB member is
not running for office. We strive very hard to be inclusive in this
project, and so I don't see any compelling reason to EXclude *this* group.
AB members, obviously, are also CCs, SCs, Special Project
volunteers...members of The USGenWeb Project."
===
Pat On The Back Corner: The November 1 edition of Everton's Family
History Newsline highlights the "Missouri In the Civil War" webpage,
founded by USGenWeb's own Kathy Heidel and now managed by Yvonne
James-Henderson. Everton's notes "If your own ancestors were involved in
that terrible national (and state) struggle, you will definitely want to
visit the "Missouri in the Civil War" website created by Kathy Welch
Heidel as part of the USGenWeb Project. This single website is the key to
dozens of resources with information on Missouri's role in the War Between
the States. Among those resources are discussion lists on the war, burial
records of Missourians who died during the conflict, regimental lists,
battlefield data, information on Missouri veterans, photographs, and links
to dozens of other Internet sites on Missouri and the Civil War. If you
are just beginning your research on a Civil War ancestor in Missouri, this
website is a must-see." The Missouri In The Civil War webpage is at:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~mocivwar/mocwindex.html. Kathy also maintains a
similar page for Kansas at:
http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/civilwar/index.html. Congrats to Kathy
and Yvonne! [We dimly remember when the high mucky-mucks in USGW told
Kathy her civil war webpage would never amount to a hill of beans. <g>]
===
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give
them the power to pull ours.
---Aldous Huxley
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sat Nov 4 13:12:33 2000
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 13:12:32 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001104121852.12965A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
Like lambs to the slaughter...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Friday 3 November 2000:
Richard Howland also commends the ESC on their report, but notes that it
might be premature to "accept the report in its entirety." He notes "I'm
not sure it is finished enough to warrant a motion to implement it in its
entirety? It is a wonderful start. Perhaps we should split it into
sections and have committees work on each section till it is shaped to
something workable? To accept this as is in it's entirety with both
Majority and Minority Opinions, might be a bit confusing."
Teri Pettit also thanks the ESC, noting their report " is worthy of being
an example for future study committees on other issues to aspire to."
[*blush*] Regarding the issue of excluding sitting Board members from the
EC, Teri notes that its her impression that "despite the even vote split
the "no-exclusion" policy was nevertheless given "majority recommendation"
status, perhaps due to past precedent." She agrees with Shari that AB
members should not be excluded, as it would deprive the committee of
willing and able members. She notes that "standing Board members not
running for re-election are no more likely to be biased towards one
particular candidate than are other project members, some of whom while
not running for office themselves act as de-facto campaign managers for
someone else."
Richard Howland reminds the Board of his petition
[http://www.wf.net/~richpump/petition1b.html] and notes that thus far only
31 people have signed it. He asks "Should I (we) assume that this is a
matter of little importance to the membership? Or that it has not reached
them. Or like the elections that draw so little participation, that it is
just to much trouble to voice an opinion?"
Teri says she hasn't signed it because the wording is too confusing. She
says she intended to sign it, but once she read it, decided "it was so
fuzzy I couldn't tell whether I agreed with it or not."
Ken Short forwards a post by John Schunk regarding a portion of the ESC
report with which he disagrees [Section C, the one that says all project
members can vote, per the bylaws]. Ken agrees with John's sentiments and
notes "The was the ESC report reads, I could appoint a dozen assistant
cc's if I wanted to and we could all vote, how ludicrous. Come on
folks, use your heads for something besides a hat rack." [Yes, well, we
all saw what a bang-up job Ken's Trademark Committee did.] John's message
reads in part: "My concern is with the possibility of vote-packing. The
vote-packing issue is addressed in the Overview section of the ESC Report
which notes that "there is no realistic means of controlling this practice
in every conceivable situation without adversely and unfairly affecting
members who are not vote-packing."...it appears to me that allowing an
unlimited number of co-coordinators per town, county, state, or
state-level project is an open invitation to vote-packing. This problem
seems to me most likely to occur at the local level...I would favor
imposing a maximum of 3 votes per local site." [He then engages in some
of the convoluted bylaws interpreting that is a parlor game to some people
in this project in order to justify denying the vote to eligible project
members.]
Saturday 4 November 2000:
Shari disagrees with Rich that reworking the ESC's report is a good idea,
and notes "To have committees tear apart and rework the work of the
committee we put together to do the job in the first place seems
ridiculous." She suggests working on the section of the report that was
ambiguous [excluding AB members], and then amend Ginger's motion.
Holly Timm forwards a series of replies to Tim and Joe's earlier questions
about the ESC report. They are summarized as follows:
Number of CCs per county [Joe's question]: The ESC discussed this
extensively and as stated in our report, we wanted to 1) stay within the
current bylaws; 2) avoid limiting member participation in the project; and
3) avoid forcing an SC or SPC [or the Board] from choosing among equally
hard-working CCs, file managers, etc. This was one of our toughest topics,
lots of opinions were expressed, and we did come to the conclusion, after
much thought, that following the bylaws in this area was the best
approach...Limiting the number of CC's per county is definitely an area of
potential bylaws revision, but that was beyond the scope of this
committee...Truly, the only reason for _not_ allowing as many LCs or file
managers as do the work to vote is because of the fear of vote-packing. We
agonized over this one, and if we were "remiss" at all, it was because we
chose to believe in the basic honesty and goodness of people rather than
figure out ways to eliminate them! Part of the discussion also added
thoughts that...the EC has no business deciding who or how many can manage
a county. That's the SC's job! It was the final consensus that per the
bylaws there is no restriction on number and thus not an area in which the
election subCommittee could set limits. In the final round, 16 of 19
members voted on this section and none disagreed with it. We were
certainly not "remiss" in this area."
Board approval of EC members: "Yes, a straight approve or disapprove.
Feelings were and still are mixed on whether the Board should include why
it is disapproved thus reasons for disapproval are not required of the
board but neither are they forbidden. The main reasoning of the ESC on
this was that it prohibits handpicking of election committee members by
the Board."
Will the EC hold state elections upon request: "The issue was not
previously addressed to any significant degree. Some on the committee
presently feel that it should not assist states with their elections so as
not to imply any interference in state level business but others believe
that IF a state requests such assistance with an election, it is a matter
to be decided between the state and the election committee."
Voter lists: "...in the adjustments between the choice of two sections
earlier in the report, this sentence was not caught and adjusted to
comply with the final majority opinion although it complies with the
minority opinion. It should read: "...where the national voter list and
communications are handled by two members selected for the NC and At
Large Rep region." This would accommodate the choice of either the
majority or minority opinion."
"30 days equal June 1?": "The ESC finds the reply rather obvious, 30 days
is 30 days. For an election period beginning July 1, this would be June
30 [sic, she probably means June 1]. For any special elections at other
times of the year, 30 days might be on the 2nd of the previous month, or
in the case of a February 1st election date, back into the very end of
December depending on whether it is leap year or not. It is even
conceivable that an election might start at any day of the month..."
Challenges to eligibility: "The consensus of the ESC is that once they
have left they are no longer members and do not vote...The opinion of the
ESC is that 30 days is an administrative cutoff date, not a punitive or
preventative date and should therefore not be selectively enforced.
Challenges may be addressed once an election is underway certainly but it
is a valid point that perhaps there should be a cutoff date and the
committee suggest perhaps 7 or 10 days before the end of the election...to
permit time for assessment/challenges of the challenge. If the person has
voted and the challenge upheld, their vote can be discarded at any time up
until the final results."
Joe Zsedeny responds that "Federal, state and local officials of this
country are certainly wary of relying on the basic honesty of our
citizens, a cross section of which are represented in this Project...we
can't rely on the basic honesty and goodness of people because their are
always enough who are not honest and good to screw up this assumption. As
for how many people a SC chooses to manage a county, that is certainly
their choice. But as for how many can vote, well, that is a choice for all
members to decide...we need a Bylaws amendment to decide this...I stand by
my previous statements...The ESC did a wonderful job but were remiss in
this touchy area...I can support the ESC Report because the area I have
concern about is covered by a Bylaw...I hope the Board will tackle this so
that an emergency Bylaw amendment can be ready before the next election."
[and there you have it...its is better to punish the innocent than let the
guilty get away with something.]
[There were no futher votes on Motion 00-35]
===
"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's
contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a
suspect."
---Edwin Meese, former Attorney General
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.
From merope@Radix.Net Sun Nov 5 13:21:36 2000
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:21:31 -0500 (EST)
From: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
Reply-To: merope <merope@Radix.Net>
To: Daily Board Show <usgw_all@listbot.com>
Subject: Daily Board Show
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.96.1001105070135.3558A-100000@saltmine.radix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status:
Using our heads as hatracks...its Your Daily Board Show!
*warning* contains editorial content. Read at your own risk!
Saturday 4 November 2000:
Voting on Motion 00-35 proceeds. Thus far, 4 Board members have voted yes,
5 have voted no, and one has abstained.
Holly Timm posts the following correction for one of the ESC responses she
posted previously: "The ESC finds the reply rather obvious, 30 days is 30
days. For an election period beginning July 1, this would be June 1.
(not 30th)"
Pam Reid brings up the issue of genealogicial societies that have adopted
counties and asks "Does this mean that every member of the Society would
be allowed to vote?" She is concerned that this might lead to
vote-packing. She notes "So few members actually vote in our elections
that the elections have been decided in most cases by a small number of
votes. I do have a concern that we are opening the door for trouble if we
leave the bylaws as they currently stand...we do need, IMO, to consider a
bylaws change that would eliminate the possibilty of vote packing...If the
majority feels that it doesn't matter how many people are allowed to vote
from a particular county, etc., then so be it." [*sigh* In civilized
countries they punish a crime _after_ it has occurred, not before.
Several of our Board members obsess about this possibility and yet I have
never seen any credible evidence that it has occurred.]
Holly replies to Pam "I think generally even when a society is the
*coordinator*, it is actually one or two people within the society that
are doing so and if a society is named as the coordinator than that would
be one *name* - one vote." She also notes "The committee did have
concerns about large numbers of coordinators *packing* an election but
discussions brought out that first, this was likely to be done by more
than one side of any particular issue, balancing itself out, and secondly
and more importantly, the bylaws have no such restriction...It was very
definitely the opinion of the committee that under the present bylaws
there can and should be no such restriction."
Maggie Stewart thinks the Board should address any sections of the ESC
report it has concerns about and then present the report for a vote to the
USGW project. She notes "This is something the effects all of the members
and should be decided by a majority of the entire membership."
Ken Short, backpedaling from his "hatrack" comment, says he directed that
comment solely at his colleagues on the Board [this is apparently supposed
to excuse it]. He also notes, "I think the committee did a masterful job
and I agree with the majority and can live with the rest even though I
don't necessarily agree with it." He affirms that he will not support
unlimited voting from a county and suggests a model similar to that of the
U.S. Senate. He suggests that it is past time to revise the bylaws to
reflect the increased size and expanded mission of the USGW and says "I do
NOT care for the recommendation of having an unlimited number of cc's per
county and they all vote. I also do not believe the AB has the authority
to limit the voting, although they do have the authority to accept all or
none of the ESC report or to reject parts of it." He recommends holding a
special election on Feb 1, 2001 and asking the project members to decide
this issue, noting "If it passes, then it will be an amendment to the
bylaws and will solve our problem." [Except that it will violate the
bylaws by not following the proper amendment procedures. If Ken is so very
concerned about vote-packing, he will move to have Maggie Stewart removed
from the Board post-haste.]
Tina Vickery takes exception to Ken's comment that the Board has been
ineffective and notes "There are many, many on the AB that are listening,
and trying very hard to work with the members of this project to come to a
consensus on the various issues that face the project. That means,
communication, discussion, respect and grace." She says the ESC is proof
that members can and will work together effectively for the good of the
project, and says "It struck me during the seven weeks that we worked,
that although there are disagreements and ideology differences among our
volunteers.. bottom line is the USGenWeb have many, many terrific
volunteers who truly believe in the mission and goals of the project
and want to work towards realizing the full potential of all that the
USGenWeb can be."
Ken responds "it is the truth, the AB from the very first one has done
little if anything to improve the project. The only reason we are where
we are today is thru the efforts of the cc's, transcribers and other
volunteers." He reiterates that he thinks the ESC did a fine job but that
he will not support unlimited voters from a county. He also reiterates
that "If we want to continue to grow, its time to refine and redefine some
of our bylaws to get rid of a lot of ambiguous wording." He also says "If
the AB and the membership wants to keep things the way they are, so be it.
I am just pointing out that the rules or lack thereof we currently operate
under are woefully lacking and need to be clarified and tweaked. If we
want to apply for the SM for the project, it needs to be done, NOW. All
it takes is a simple motion, but several want to put in something about
requireing Linda Lewis to withdraw her application etc...If we approve
applying for it, then the NC and the Rep at Large or whoever he picks to
help him, can work out the details on the how, we just have to give them
the authority to do it." He moves that "the Service Mark "USGenWeb" be
applied for."
Tim Stowell asks for clarification on his question regarding the national
voters lists: "Would these 2 members and the other members being
selected in this section be chosen by the AB or the EC chair?"
Sunday 5 November 2000:
Tim asks of the ESC: "In past elections, there have been members who quit
during the election process - ie between July 1 and July 31. This has
been a dilemma for SCs deciding which course to follow. IF, these folks
vote, is it permissible for the SC, SP or other list managers to inform
the EC that any votes from x person be disallowed? Or would their vote
count, if they voted before they left but not if they tried to vote after
resignation?"
Tina reminds Ken that all AB members are CCs, transcribers, or other kinds
of volunteers.
Maggie seconds Ken's motion to apply for the service mark.
Holly forwards a message to the Board from ESC member Carol Haagensen. It
reads in part: "We just spent seven weeks hashing over the things that you
are now discussing. The flaws you see in some of the sections, we have
already seen. When we said we agonized over that section, we meant that
we AGONIZED over that section!! My single motive for being on the
committee was to address the problem of vote-packing. I was hell-bent
that if nothing else were accomplished, we would deal with that one issue
and find a solution. We did. Read the report. Some say that they do not
believe in the basic goodness of members of the project. As Board members
of a volunteer organization, I would say that if you can't see the good
in people, you should resign immediately!...Do not dismiss our report
because you don't agree with parts of it...we came to our recommendations
after debating this single item MORE than any other topic, and spending
more time on this issue than any other. We finally realized that the only
alternative to vote packing was to recommend something in direct oppostion
to the Bylaws, and to penalize hardworking, innocent people in this
project. In the end, we ALL felt that the price for policing the "vote
packing" was a price we did not want to pay...When you get done slinging
insults at us, and use some of that common sense you seem so happy to talk
about, then maybe you will realize that the biggest problems we've had
in this project came as a result of someone NOT following the Bylaws.
Now, you suggest that we should have disregarded those same Bylaws when it
suits *your* purpose?...Remember that the ESC already discussed these
things. We chose to value EVERY member of the project and believe that
people were good and honest...Some of you are quick to find ways to
eliminate people out of your fear. Yet, do you not realize that this kind
of attitude is the very thing that creates distrust in the BOARD from
everyone else in the Project?...When does the distrust end?...we believed
it was going to end with our election recommendations...Our reommendations
were fair to everyone, even the Board! Some of you on this Board owes the
Election Special Committee an apology! Then, you can apologize to the
hard-working cc's who you are also insulting! You don't have to agree with
us on every point. But, I do demand that you respect us! And, I demand
that you recognize the hard work and thought that went into our report. A
simple "thank you for serving" would have been nice, even if you didn't
agree!
Holly forwards a message from ESC member Carol Carwile-Head. It reads in
part: "Ken, if you do not want to abide by the bylaws you were elected to
support, perhaps you will make haste in seeing that they are changed -
given that the existing bylaws are what dictated how our "hat racks"
had to recommend. Given the dedication of the members of this committee
for the past several weeks, I am appalled at having our effort denigrated
by a member of the AB."
===
Fame and Fortune Corner: Our own Glorious Leader appears as one of an
"unofficial panel of experts" on a new book on online genealogy, authored
by Pamela Rice Hahn. The books is titled "The Unofficial Guide to Online
Genealogy" and real online genealogists Matthew Helm and John Scroggins
also served as unofficial experts. The book is available at Amazon.com.
So far, reviews are mixed, with one reviewer praising it, and another
slamming it as "absolutely awful...without a doubt the worst book on the
subject of genealogy on the Internet that has yet to be published." The
author's website for the book is here: http://www.genealogytips.com/.
Interestingly enough, although there is a section on the Americal Local
History Network and Tim Stowell is an unofficial expert, USGenWeb is not
mentioned in the Table of Contents [This online TOC is outdated and
incomplete in many areas; we trust this oversight was corrected by the
time the book went to press.] A big picture of the cover is at:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0028638670.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
===
"It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."
---William Blackstone
This has been your Daily Board Show.
-Teresa Lindquist
merope@radix.net
-------
Daily Board Show, (c) 2000 by Teresa Lindquist, all rights reserved.