On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:16:53 +0100, Charani <m...@privacy.net> wrote: >On Sun, 14 May 2006 03:44:41 GMT, Robert Melson wrote:
>> I think we need to let this thread/topic die a natural death - resurrecting it >> and rehashing it serves no useful purpose, it seems to me, alhtough I suspect >> there's a bit more we each might wish to say..
>You got that one right. This thread was dead and now someone who >hasn't posted with a name has resurrected it; someone who admits they >know nothing about this group or about ancestry. I'd venture to say >that all those who replied (a) know a lot about the group and the >members thereof, and (b) know a lot about ancestry.
>Thread killed.
><best Monty Python voice>
>It's dead, deceased. It is no more. It's shuffled off this mortal >coil.
></best Monty Python voice>
Since when has being disinterested (no axe to grind) disqualified someone from bringing objectivity and impartiality to bear, Indeed, it is required in some situations.
The thread should be killed but not if this is the logic that's used to kill it.
I am glad that subsequent posters gave an approach that was generally logical, sober, and civilised in the best traditions of US justice (I think many were from US). My opinions might well be described as strong but they rest on fairplay and evenhandedness as do both Magna Carta and the American Constitution. These standards have raised our two countries head and shoulders above third world states where lynch law obtains.
However, there is one thing which hasn't been covered very well. Wal-Mart has many millions of transactions daily and doesn't claim to be incapable of making a mistake - it's inevitable. Why then is Ancestry.com (whatever it does) supposed to be without blemish. In the absence of evidence why go overboard in claiming that it can do no wrong? Strange!
I respect the later postings but I do certainly condemn the first few. I would say that all John Wayne characters had the right approach - if you can't say it to their face, don't say it from a safe distance. I hope that the pinky sneer wasn't pointed at any of his characters.
Maybe Sharon inter alia will have given some thought to what happened and be more circumspect in future.
Good luck with your NG (not mine). I don't suppose you'll hear from me again. I can already hear those with bruised feelings saying "good riddance".
>> I will now return to lurk mode until the next time something stirs > me to the >> insanity of posting.
>> Slippery Ol' Bob
>> -- >> Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas >> ----- >> "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall > one by one, an unpitied >> sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ---Edmund Burke >> -----
> QUICKLY! Someone stir the pot to a roil so Sedentary_Ole_Bob will get > out of that mood and SAY something!
> Henry
<lurk off>
You just did, Henry!
<lurk on>
SOB
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ---Edmund Burke -----
On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:05:02 GMT, Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> wrote: > Good luck with your NG (not mine). I don't suppose you'll hear from > me again. I can already hear those with bruised feelings saying "good > riddance".
Sorry, Colin, but you vastly overestimate the importance attached to your comments. I'm sure the Magna Carta comment was well crafted and probably interesting or relevant or something, but from here, it just looks like you were trying to restart something.
> Why then is > Ancestry.com (whatever it does) supposed to be without blemish
Nobody has made that claim. In fact, the general gist - for those of us who read what is actually written in the group - is that they do make mistakes, and that all the regular posters to this group who have had that happen have had the problem resolved.
The only time we hear of Ancestry.com "ripping off" someone is from anonymous posters who appear suddenly and fire off a flaming and libelous rant, then disappear.
This is a forum for discussing genealogy, not for libeling a company who didn't refund our money quick enough or who forced us to honor an agreement that we made and later reneged on.
On 15 May 2006 17:28:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveH...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:05:02 GMT, Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Good luck with your NG (not mine). I don't suppose you'll hear from >> me again. I can already hear those with bruised feelings saying "good >> riddance".
>Sorry, Colin, but you vastly overestimate the importance attached to >your comments. I'm sure the Magna Carta comment was well crafted and >probably interesting or relevant or something, but from here, it just >looks like you were trying to restart something.
Wouldn't it be better for you if you took your own advice and actually read the thread. You seem to have little idea of what I said. My condemnatory remarks were clearly concerning the first few postings which were without consideration for the unknown facts. I respected the good sense and care taken in later postings.
I quote from my remarks:
"There were some who tried to help..."
"I should like you to take a look at some of the early postings when evidence was rally thin on the ground:"
"I respect the later postings but I do certainly condemn the first few."
On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:08:12 GMT, <m...@privacy.net> <m...@privacy.net> wrote: > On 15 May 2006 17:28:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveH...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>Sorry, Colin, but you vastly overestimate the importance attached to >>your comments. I'm sure the Magna Carta comment was well crafted and >>probably interesting or relevant or something, but from here, it just >>looks like you were trying to restart something.
> Wouldn't it be better for you if you took your own advice and actually > read the thread.
Post, you mean?
> You seem to have little idea of what I said.
True. By about the third paragraph I'd seen enough.
> Please don't say any more.
Please learn how to killfile. Here, I'll show you how it's done: <plonk>
>> Why then is >> Ancestry.com (whatever it does) supposed to be without blemish
>Nobody has made that claim. In fact, the general gist - for >those of us who read what is actually written in the group - is >that they do make mistakes, and that all the regular posters to >this group who have had that happen have had the problem >resolved.
>The only time we hear of Ancestry.com "ripping off" someone is >from anonymous posters who appear suddenly and fire off a flaming >and libelous rant, then disappear.
>This is a forum for discussing genealogy, not for libeling a >company who didn't refund our money quick enough or who forced us >to honor an agreement that we made and later reneged on.
If you keep on making mistakes I'll keep on putting you right.
To Christopher I say this: I dare you to check all of my posts to this thread . You will find that I have made it clear to even an oaf like you that the earlier postings were bad but that balance was restored in the later postings. I said it. I had respect for the later postings. You are wrong.
People have made it clear in this actual thread that it is inconceiveable that Ancestry.com could do this thing. You're wrong again.
This forum is for discussing genealogy, but it is people like you that offer distractions. Don't do it. You're wrong again.
Just a few years ago I had to study netiquette. I've forgotten most of the specifics but I can remember good advice. If someone posts a oneline complaint about a supplier - ignore it. You can't possibly know whether it's good or bad so, since you know nothing, say nothing. If someone does take it further by offering the same experience or saying that in 40 years of dealing with that firm everything has been perfect, then that's legitimate and it might become a distraction. But never launch into an attack, and especially without anything to back it up. This is good advice - if you don't want to be wrong again, follow it.
As for Dave: he admits that he hasn't read the entire thread and doesn't know what it says but still feels qualified to determine prcisely what it says and even tell us what it says. I think that he is likely to be deluding himself.
As for Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights etc these concepts form the cornerstones od democracy, justice, fairplay, and evenhandedness, Yet Dave, in his wisdom, doesn't see them as being important in daily life or something as mundane as an NG. Believe it or not there are some newsgroups that are even better than this one. There are some where people who have something to say only say it when they are sure that they understand the thread and have not missed great chunks of it. In those better news groups there are contributors who are prudent in what they say and don't put their foot into their mouth. There are some in this NG (though not the majority) who only open their mouths to change feet.
To riposte on what one said, from here it just looks like they are trying to be witty and clever, but making so many slips that they are looking foolish instead.
Now, I hope that this is the end and I shan't post again so long as what is said is to the point and true, otherwise I shall emphasise the mistakes that you make, and doing so will do you good. My thanks for the forebearance of all the other posters who did submit sensible if conflicting opinions.
In article <fksh6259l2r8jng3lggt27olqq4pahh...@4ax.com>, <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> wrote in >>news:ugbh6252dj7nv8bthljh2jj1vmvncl3vvh@4ax.com: <snip>> > Now, I hope that this is the end and I shan't post again so long as > what is said is to the point and true, otherwise I shall emphasise the > mistakes that you make, and doing so will do you good. My thanks for > the forebearance of all the other posters who did submit sensible if > conflicting opinions.
> Colin
Colin,
I'm sure you'll hear more from those you named, so I won't presume to speak for them. I will say, however, given the utterance above, that you are, as we say out here at the pointy tip o'Texas, pissin' into the wind. If you're truly serious about correcting us - the newsgroup as a whole - when we transgress whatever your notion of good and proper behavior is, you might as well hang it up right now because it'll get you absolutely nowhere and do nothing but get the legs of your levis wet. Nobody here, so far as I'm aware, is against heated discussions of any subject - we've all done it, we've all got bruises as a result. We do object to self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong pronouncing and denouncing on the basis of some assumed superiority of being. If you do want to participate in the group, your questions and opinions are certainly welcome; however, I'd suggest you forego the Comstockian smugness evident in your most recent postings as it serves only to alienate the local residents.
Bob Melson
-- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ---Edmund Burke -----
On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:56:36 GMT, mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert
Melson) wrote: >the basis of some assumed superiority
I don't want to be part of this NG but some of you keep inventing things I've said. You do let your self down in Texas (but there's nothing wrong with Texas). I come from Yorkshire myself and it's just a bit bigger than Texas and the stars at night are brighter. The basis of my concept of good behaviour is hardly assumed, or personal, or even an uncommon standard. I spoke of democracy, justice, fairplay, evenhandedness. I spoke of John Wayne's characters. Some of the world's greatest leaders (not least in the US) lived and died for those values and you hypocrit talk of smugness and assumed superiority. Was this true of Rhooseveldt, Martion Luther King, JFK, the Alamo heroes. They were never smug and their superiority over a few people who posted in this thread was real. How dare you compare those people (not yourself) with the salt of the earth aforementioned.
The rest of what you said was ok as far as opinion goes, but really, "assumed superiority" when talking in terms of democracy, justice, fairplay, and evenhandedness. I notice none of you had the courage to actually address the points I made in each posting. Is that a weakness that you betray> Is it a case of if you haven't an answer just lash out anyway? It looks like it.
You could leave it at this, or you could, if tou've got dry powder, go over the points that I've made and try answering them without making mistakes. It might help if you lost some hostility and kept your feet on the ground. There hasn't been any heat on my side.
Sorry that I called him an oaf but he did invent stuff that I hadn't said and he carefully avoided demolishing or even addressing the points. If he had kept his head it wouldn't have been necessary - in fact he wouldn't have left himself wideopen. All he had to do was check what I had actually said and shoot it down with the facts or shut up.
In article <j04k62ladr4b00msc1nq73j3r95ccui...@4ax.com>, Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:56:36 GMT, mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert > Melson) wrote:
>>the basis of some assumed superiority
> I don't want to be part of this NG but some of you keep inventing > things I've said. You do let your self down in Texas (but there's
So, _don't_ be a part of this newsgroup. It is nowhere written that participation is mandatory. Non-participation will mean we'll see no more threats to expose our "mistakes", no more condescension, no of you wrapping yourself in "democracy, justice, fairplay, evenhandedness" when it's clear you know the words but don't understand the concepts embodied in them. You have condemned yourself out of your own mouth as a narrow, bigoted and intolerant individual. I, for one, am unwilling to waste any more time with or on you.
I've snipped the remainder of your reply because it does no more than rehash what you've already said and adds nothing whatever to the now terminated discussion.
<plonk!>
Bob Melson
----- "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ---Edmund Burke -----
Melson) wrote: >In article <j04k62ladr4b00msc1nq73j3r95ccui...@4ax.com>, > Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> writes: >> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:56:36 GMT, mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net (Robert >> Melson) wrote:
>>>the basis of some assumed superiority
>> I don't want to be part of this NG but some of you keep inventing >> things I've said. You do let your self down in Texas (but there's
>So, _don't_ be a part of this newsgroup. It is nowhere written that >participation is mandatory. Non-participation will mean we'll see no more >threats to expose our "mistakes", no more condescension, no of you wrapping >yourself in "democracy, justice, fairplay, evenhandedness" when it's clear you >know the words but don't understand the concepts embodied in them. You have >condemned yourself out of your own mouth as a narrow, bigoted and intolerant >individual. I, for one, am unwilling to waste any more time with or on you.
>I've snipped the remainder of your reply because it does no more than rehash >what you've already said and adds nothing whatever to the now terminated >discussion.
><plonk!>
>Bob Melson
>----- >"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied >sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ---Edmund Burke >-----
Since you don't seem able to develop an argument let me help you. None of your messages have been coordinated, though that's not your fault. I only have to coordinate with myself. Now you simply lash out wildly, again not actually addressing the point. What on earth are you trying to achieve? You must surely realise that I'm not the type to be intimidated into running away.
What have your postings achieved so far? None have you have ventured to claim that Sharon inter alia were well behaved, you have simply tried to bully me but ineffectively.
Here's how you might have fared better.
Nothing you can say can undo what Sharon did. You can't unring a gong. You, therefore, should attack the words that I have used, but effectively, none of your blindly lashing out.
I based my platform on cornerstones so you need to either demonstrate that they are not appropriate to the issue, or discredit them. BTW don't be taken in by your own propaganda - these arguments are spurious. How about "democracy is all about voting slips and they have absolutely nothing to do with Sharon's opinion. I think Colin must be a little bit crazy, or worse." Better still "democracy is all about voting slips and that means Florida, and that means Bush, and that means Iraq". Suddenly, democracy doesn't seem so good after all.
Then you could undermine "justice". One way would be to remind the world and the group that the bigotry in the deep south of Justice Depts and Sheriff's Offices led to the world wide disgrace of young civil rights workers being murdered. Justice is not so wholesome after all.
These are not perfect arguments but the do make some headway and make more of an impression and do more damage than the earlier pathetic attempts based on inventing things that haven't been said and lashing out. There still isn't a scratch on me.
You're quite wrong when you say that I don't understand the concepts. I have spent over a quarter of a century countering bullies but I don't expect you to know that. The freedoms that you want for this group rely on those qualities which are universally respected as being wholesome and worthwhile. Places that don't have them are places where the rule of law counts for little: Haiti, Cambodia, Burma, Iraq. The fact is that you cannot allow Sharon the freedom to say what she likes and then make a new bloke in town to keep his lip buttoned. It's all the self same freedom. Either stop us both or none of us.
Honestly, I don't want to be part of your group, certainly not for genealogy. I saw what I wanted in the "getting started" thread. I was merely intrigued by the length of this thread. One day you should reflect on this thread and work out why you allowed some people to be very abusive with impunity but spent so much energy on being so hostile to a fresh mind that pointed out a few home truths.
Just before i leave for good: don't anybody buy any dahlias from Hall's of Heddon (near Hadrian's wall). I ordered some and one was DOA!
I've been reading the posts about Ancestry.com with great interest...and chuckling quite a bit. It seems that there are only 2 sides to this issue. Either you are rabidly FOR Ancestry.com or you are rabidly AGAINST Ancestry.com. But let me add my .02 worth (which many will probably dismiss), I had my problems with Ancestry.com/MyFamily.com. However, mine HAD to be resolved by my having to file a complaint with the Utah State Attorney General's Office. It was interesting that these problems were so "unfounded" that I had to have an investgator call me directly at home to get additional details. My complaint was only 1 of thousands that their office had received about Ancestgry.com's subscription process. :-) Have Ancestry.com/MyFamily.com improved? I hope so. But I'm not going to risk my money. I rely on the sources that still exist before Ancestry.com/MyFamily.com came along and gave people the idea that they can't do real genealogy research without using them. :-)
BTW, a person does not have to have a "tight budget" to keep others from stealing their money. :-) And, profiteering from my hard work. This last point is my biggest issue with all of the genealogy software companies with web services that solicite you to upload your family research data and then turn around either sell it outright or charge others to access it. I orignally uploaded it to share with others for FREE. Ancestry.com use to allow free access to the data/family free info people uploaded. Now they have a new service where you have to subscribe to view details. Ancestry.com DOES NOT equal real genealogy research. :-)
> I've been reading the posts about Ancestry.com with great > interest...and chuckling quite a bit. It seems that there are only 2 > sides to this issue. Either you are rabidly FOR Ancestry.com or you > are rabidly AGAINST Ancestry.com. But let me add my .02 worth (which > many will probably dismiss), I had my problems with > Ancestry.com/MyFamily.com. However, mine HAD to be resolved by my > having to file a complaint with the Utah State Attorney General's > Office. It was interesting that these problems were so "unfounded" > that I had to have an investgator call me directly at home to get > additional details. My complaint was only 1 of thousands that their > office had received about Ancestgry.com's subscription process. :-) > Have Ancestry.com/MyFamily.com improved? I hope so. But I'm not going > to risk my money. I rely on the sources that still exist before > Ancestry.com/MyFamily.com came along and gave people the idea that they > can't do real genealogy research without using them. :-)
> BTW, a person does not have to have a "tight budget" to keep others > from stealing their money. :-) And, profiteering from my hard work. > This last point is my biggest issue with all of the genealogy software > companies with web services that solicite you to upload your family > research data and then turn around either sell it outright or charge > others to access it. I orignally uploaded it to share with others for > FREE. Ancestry.com use to allow free access to the data/family free > info people uploaded. Now they have a new service where you have to > subscribe to view details. Ancestry.com DOES NOT equal real genealogy > research. :-)
> Not to mention some of the info they charge for is public > knowledge.
Which is not the same as being "free." You have to know where to find it, then you have to go to the record location, and then you often have to pay a fee for a copy of the record, or for the record to be accessed. This doesn't include travel costs and parking fees.
Can it all be done without Ancestry.com? Sure. Can it be done cheaper? Possibly.
But not all of us have the time or resources to go travelling around the country or the world to access all the records Ancestry.com has available.
And one thing that continues to hold true: everyone who claims they had to take extraordinary measures to get their account settled continue to be anonymous strangers to this group. Of those who are regulars in the group, a minority reports that they have had problems, but that all of those problems were dealt with within a time frame.
The majority on this group who use Ancestry.com have no complaints. And the large number here who don't use it obviously have the time and resources to use other approaches to finding the information, or rely on the Ancestry.com users to help them.
Thank you, Hugh, for reminding me why I don't generally post on here. And I'm sure that you have a very extensive library of books that you've read by just looking at the covers. :-) As for my being believed, I don't care. :-)
On 19 May 2006 18:34:07 -0700, Noname <te...@iwaniw.net> wrote:
> Thank you, Hugh, for reminding me why I don't generally post on here. > And I'm sure that you have a very extensive library of books that > you've read by just looking at the covers. :-) As for my being > believed, I don't care. :-)
Hugh seems to have experience in the matter he comments on. We have no way of knowing the validity of your claims.
Dave Hinz wrote: > On 19 May 2006 18:34:07 -0700, Noname <te...@iwaniw.net> wrote:
>>Thank you, Hugh, for reminding me why I don't generally post on here. >>And I'm sure that you have a very extensive library of books that >>you've read by just looking at the covers. :-) As for my being >>believed, I don't care. :-)
> Hugh seems to have experience in the matter he comments on. We have no > way of knowing the validity of your claims.
I am 10 years on usenet and archived and you can even see when I spilled red wine in a keyboard :-)
I joined in from a newspaper run board which does not allow handles or "nyms" as the young call them)
No decent newspaper allows anonymous letters
I recently met some of the ancestry.co.uk team in London at the SOG Family History Fair, and I was not uncritical, and have direct email access to 4 or 5 executives .
The firm is so large that it is becoming beaurocratic and in any large sales organisation there can be operatives who make errors . . . they know all about the problems and do their best to be fair
<--- It looks to me to be misrepresentation of the word "free" -->
Frankly it is. There is never anything free about giving up your credit card number. Eventually you're going to have to pay. That said I strongly encourage you to read the small print and anticipate a catch. If you're looking for freebies your best bet is to try free evaluations with no strings attached.
To offset this money sponging I have provided my site users with links to genealogy resources that feature free research tools. Keep in mind that at any time even these resources may resort to offering services for a fee.
There are some very hardcore responses to this site. Seems every board gets hit by one now and then. Rather than killing the string just have the good sense to ignore an undesirable response. As a professional event planner I find it's best be be completely up front about costs. Folks appreciate being able to stick to a budget and to anticipate and prepare for extra expenses. It's the only way to maintain clientel and get referals. Still Ancetry has great resources that many consider a primary research tool. Can't knock em.
On 20 May 2006 16:11:27 -0700, FamilyMatters <ibc...@bcpl.net> wrote:
><--- It looks to me > to be misrepresentation of the word "free" --> > Frankly it is. There is never anything free about giving up your credit > card number. Eventually you're going to have to pay.
No, you are not. With ancestry, it's a free trial and automatic subscription if you choose to not cancel. If you cancel, there is no charge to your credit card. It's really not a complicated concept, but if you don't want to pay, then you have to _tell them_.
> <--- It looks to me > to be misrepresentation of the word "free" -->
> Frankly it is. There is never anything free about giving up your credit > card number. Eventually you're going to have to pay. That said I > strongly encourage you to read the small print and anticipate a catch. > If you're looking for freebies your best bet is to try free evaluations > with no strings attached.
My first two experiences with Ancestry.com were indeed free. The first time, I told them I was unable to provide a credit card for a free trial, but was very interested in examining what they offered. They gave me a password to use for a month and as it turned out they never "de-activated" it until over six months later. The second time, I did give them a credit card number for their free trial and was able to harvest the information I needed the first week. I called them and cancelled before the trial period expired and had nothing charged to my card. There were no strings attached. I'm afraid you're too quick to use that word "never".
To make you happy though, this experience DID eventually cost me money. I later decided to subscribe to Ancestry-- using my credit card-- and have been a satisfied customer for several years now.
