On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:13:55 +0000 (UTC), "T Lewis" wrote:
8>< snipped common sense comments
> Good hunting everybody and who knows I may need your help or advice in the > future to come,or perhaps even I might be able to help someone.
If your research is in American and/or Canada, then you'll get a lot of help here. If your research is in the British Isles, then, whilst you'll get a lot of help here, GenBrit is the place to be even though it can get to be a bit like a bear pit on occasion and there are a few very blunt folk there who will tell it like it is regardless :)) -- http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
In message <4459abd7$0$14760$892e7...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Charani <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2006 08:13:55 +0000 (UTC), "T Lewis" wrote:
> 8>< snipped common sense comments > > Good hunting everybody and who knows I may need your help or advice in > > the future to come,or perhaps even I might be able to help someone.
> If your research is in American and/or Canada, then you'll get a lot > of help here. If your research is in the British Isles, then, whilst > you'll get a lot of help here, GenBrit is the place to be even though > it can get to be a bit like a bear pit on occasion and there are a few > very blunt folk there who will tell it like it is regardless :))
Oi! I resemble that remark :-)
If you are subscribing via newsgroups you want soc.genealogy.britain which the GenBrit list is gatewayed to. For Irish ancestors try soc.genealogy.ireland although that one can get a bit political on occasion.
On Thu, 04 May 2006 10:31:32 +0100, Graeme Wall wrote: > Oi! I resemble that remark :-)
<BG>
> If you are subscribing via newsgroups you want soc.genealogy.britain which > the GenBrit list is gatewayed to. For Irish ancestors try > soc.genealogy.ireland although that one can get a bit political on occasion.
I had a look at the headers on Tricia's post and noticed she was subscribed via Rootsweb, hence the reference to GenBrit rather than soc.gen.brit :)) Yes, the Irish group is good but can get political, as you say :)) -- http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
>"jklpods" <jklp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >news:DPx4g.5366$mu2.908@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... >> Ancestry.com is a highly unethical company. I called to cancel, and they >> still charged my twice. Make sure if you cancel they do it then and there. >> Better yet don't even deal with them. A quality company would never steal >> from their own customers.
>One solution that I have for any of these "auto-renewal" services is to use >the "Virtual Credit Card" feature of my CitiCard Visa. When shopping online, >this feature generates a new Visa account number that is good for a one-time >use, with a short expiration period, and an optional credit limit. So if the >service tries to renew, they are unable to do so since the number has long >since expired. In fact, I use this feature for all my online purchases since >it is also good theft insurance.
> DG
I'd like to say from the outset that I have no axe to grind in this issue. I don't know jklpod, the victim, and I have no knowledge whatsoever of ancestry.com, and I don't think I have seen this NG before today. As with any good jury I have an open mind with no preconceptions.
As a juror I am horrified at the opinions of such feral creatures as Sharon, inter alia, who on very scant evidence would pronounce a guilty verdict. With so little evidence either way it would be thrown out of court. Serve Sharon right if one day she has to face a jury that will decide not on the basis of evidence but on simple bigotry and prejudice. She didn't even have the common sense to issue a caveat such as IMHO. The victim might be a black and she a member of the Ku Klux Klan for all the impartiality she brought to what was after all only her opinion.
I might need help here one day and I hope to get it but I shall never pay to the bigots here what amounts to their own membership fee - supine subservience.
IMHO it is cowardice that speaks; would they dare to speak that way if the victim were a large muscular young man with a baseball bat standing well within earshot? I think that several thousand miles has made them rather braver than they really are!
>>"jklpods" <jklp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>news:DPx4g.5366$mu2.908@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... >>> Ancestry.com is a highly unethical company. I called to cancel, and they >>> still charged my twice. Make sure if you cancel they do it then and there. >>> Better yet don't even deal with them. A quality company would never steal >>> from their own customers.
>>One solution that I have for any of these "auto-renewal" services is to use >>the "Virtual Credit Card" feature of my CitiCard Visa. When shopping online, >>this feature generates a new Visa account number that is good for a one-time >>use, with a short expiration period, and an optional credit limit. So if the >>service tries to renew, they are unable to do so since the number has long >>since expired. In fact, I use this feature for all my online purchases since >>it is also good theft insurance.
>> DG
> I'd like to say from the outset that I have no axe to grind in this > issue. I don't know jklpod, the victim, and I have no knowledge > whatsoever of ancestry.com, and I don't think I have seen this NG > before today. As with any good jury I have an open mind with no > preconceptions.
> As a juror I am horrified at the opinions of such feral creatures as > Sharon, inter alia, who on very scant evidence would pronounce a > guilty verdict. With so little evidence either way it would be thrown > out of court. Serve Sharon right if one day she has to face a jury > that will decide not on the basis of evidence but on simple bigotry > and prejudice. She didn't even have the common sense to issue a caveat > such as IMHO. The victim might be a black and she a member of the Ku > Klux Klan for all the impartiality she brought to what was after all > only her opinion.
> I might need help here one day and I hope to get it but I shall never > pay to the bigots here what amounts to their own membership fee - > supine subservience.
> IMHO it is cowardice that speaks; would they dare to speak that way if > the victim were a large muscular young man with a baseball bat > standing well within earshot? I think that several thousand miles has > made them rather braver than they really are!
Eh? Seems to me you're reading something into the thread that wasn't there.
Yes, there are people here with strong opinions. Yes, there are those who are, shall we say, somewhat less than diplomatic at times ( I'm one of'em, I have to admit ). And, yes, there are probably as many opinions on any given topic as there are regular participants in the newsgroup.
But bias amounting to prejudice? I think not. Cowardice? Spinelessness? C'mon .. y'gotta be joking OR trolling.
Without going back over the thread, ISTR that the OP first came to the group with a complaint - some'd call it a rant - about ancestry.com, but provided few, if any details. Many of the responses thereafter were requests for more details and suggestions about what he might do or have done to resolve the problem, which he tap-danced around while continuing his rant. The thread finally petered out when it became evident that nothing said here would satisfy the OP and that he wasn't really interested in points of view contrary to his own. This is not the stuff of a Perry Mason episode.
In my case, I have no dog in this fight as I refuse to subscribe to Ancestry so long as they continue to demand credit card information as a precondition to their trial subscriptions and to rely on the same behaviors the book and music "clubs" do when it comes time for renewal. It isn't dishonest, exactly, but it does, in my opinion, come close. I've said as much in this thread and at other times in this group and elsewhere.
All that said, what I think you need to do is to go back over the thread and review _all_ the responses to the OP's complaint - his, as well as those from folks who were attempting to help him and became frustrated with his lack of responsiveness in the course of doing so.
Short answer, Counselor: case dismissed with prejudice.
Suspicious 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 -----
>>>"jklpods" <jklp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>news:DPx4g.5366$mu2.908@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net... >>>> Ancestry.com is a highly unethical company. I called to cancel, and they >>>> still charged my twice. Make sure if you cancel they do it then and there. >>>> Better yet don't even deal with them. A quality company would never steal >>>> from their own customers.
>>>One solution that I have for any of these "auto-renewal" services is to use >>>the "Virtual Credit Card" feature of my CitiCard Visa. When shopping online, >>>this feature generates a new Visa account number that is good for a one-time >>>use, with a short expiration period, and an optional credit limit. So if the >>>service tries to renew, they are unable to do so since the number has long >>>since expired. In fact, I use this feature for all my online purchases since >>>it is also good theft insurance.
>>> DG
>> I'd like to say from the outset that I have no axe to grind in this >> issue. I don't know jklpod, the victim, and I have no knowledge >> whatsoever of ancestry.com, and I don't think I have seen this NG >> before today. As with any good jury I have an open mind with no >> preconceptions.
>> As a juror I am horrified at the opinions of such feral creatures as >> Sharon, inter alia, who on very scant evidence would pronounce a >> guilty verdict. With so little evidence either way it would be thrown >> out of court. Serve Sharon right if one day she has to face a jury >> that will decide not on the basis of evidence but on simple bigotry >> and prejudice. She didn't even have the common sense to issue a caveat >> such as IMHO. The victim might be a black and she a member of the Ku >> Klux Klan for all the impartiality she brought to what was after all >> only her opinion.
>> I might need help here one day and I hope to get it but I shall never >> pay to the bigots here what amounts to their own membership fee - >> supine subservience.
>> IMHO it is cowardice that speaks; would they dare to speak that way if >> the victim were a large muscular young man with a baseball bat >> standing well within earshot? I think that several thousand miles has >> made them rather braver than they really are!
>Eh? Seems to me you're reading something into the thread that wasn't there.
>Yes, there are people here with strong opinions. Yes, there are those who are, >shall we say, somewhat less than diplomatic at times ( I'm one of'em, I have to >admit ). And, yes, there are probably as many opinions on any given topic as >there are regular participants in the newsgroup.
>But bias amounting to prejudice? I think not. Cowardice? Spinelessness? >C'mon .. y'gotta be joking OR trolling.
>Without going back over the thread, ISTR that the OP first came to the group >with a complaint - some'd call it a rant - about ancestry.com, but provided >few, if any details. Many of the responses thereafter were requests for more >details and suggestions about what he might do or have done to resolve the >problem, which he tap-danced around while continuing his rant. The thread >finally petered out when it became evident that nothing said here would satisfy >the OP and that he wasn't really interested in points of view contrary to his >own. This is not the stuff of a Perry Mason episode.
>In my case, I have no dog in this fight as I refuse to subscribe to Ancestry >so long as they continue to demand credit card information as a precondition to >their trial subscriptions and to rely on the same behaviors the book and music >"clubs" do when it comes time for renewal. It isn't dishonest, exactly, but >it does, in my opinion, come close. I've said as much in this thread and at >other times in this group and elsewhere.
>All that said, what I think you need to do is to go back over the thread and >review _all_ the responses to the OP's complaint - his, as well as those from >folks who were attempting to help him and became frustrated with his lack of >responsiveness in the course of doing so.
>Short answer, Counselor: case dismissed with prejudice.
>Suspicious Ol' Bob
I am glad that you posted a sensible and, I think honest, reply. There were some who tried to help but the main thrust of the posting in my view was from feral creatures who behaved without either compassion or courtesy. maybe they don't understand what either of those two things mean. Or, maybe, in their normal life they are pleasant enough people. Maybe, as I suggested, the ability to be nasty without cause is their attraction to a news group ; and this is what i meant by their cowardice. IMHO they wouldn't dare say that to the face of someone who might retaliate by beating them up. Now that would take real courage.
So there you go - I believe that they showed how nasty they were and without knowing any good reason from what appeared in this NG. We do know that the victim has changed circumstances. These feral creatures don't know what the changes were, but they express no doubt at all, they just treat it as a statement of fact
I won't speculate further but I should like you to take a look at some of the early postings when evidence was rally thin on the ground:
"Oh, poop. If your budget is that tight, then you shouldn't be throwing your money away on this hobby.
Hey, you're the one who contracted their services and changed your mind, not them. No one should do business with YOU under any circumstances. Apparently you don't analyze your finances before entering a contract, and blame other when you renege on your word.
You need to get a life, you clueless loser.
Talk to your lawyers then. Whining on the various newsgroups isn't going to help you - as you've already discovered."
In article <05rc629ao54n0jdmrb3nrlgvcocrnmo...@4ax.com>, <m...@privacy.net> writes: <snip>>
> I am glad that you posted a sensible and, I think honest, reply. There
Thank you, I think - my response was honest and, I hope, reasonable.
<snip>
> So there you go - I believe that they showed how nasty they were and > without knowing any good reason from what appeared in this NG. We do
<snip>
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..
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 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.
On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:10:52 GMT, <m...@privacy.net> wrote: >As a juror I am horrified at the opinions of such feral creatures as >Sharon, inter alia, who on very scant evidence would pronounce a >guilty verdict. With so little evidence either way it would be thrown >out of court. Serve Sharon right if one day she has to face a jury >that will decide not on the basis of evidence but on simple bigotry >and prejudice. She didn't even have the common sense to issue a caveat >such as IMHO. The victim might be a black and she a member of the Ku >Klux Klan for all the impartiality she brought to what was after all >only her opinion.
>I might need help here one day and I hope to get it but I shall never >pay to the bigots here what amounts to their own membership fee - >supine subservience.
>IMHO it is cowardice that speaks; would they dare to speak that way if >the victim were a large muscular young man with a baseball bat >standing well within earshot? I think that several thousand miles has >made them rather braver than they really are!
While not being new to genealogy, I am a recent reader of this group. Twice I posted requesting help. The responses I received were not helpful and not something I would say to someone to their face. If you cant be helpful then please be quiet.
There seems to be a very pro Ancestery.com bias in the group. I have used it free at the local Mormon church and I think it is OK. They widely advertise on the net a "14 day free trail" After looking at their site I can't find how to do a "free trail". It looks to me to be misrepresentation of the word "free"
ray wrote: > On Sat, 13 May 2006 19:10:52 GMT, <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>As a juror I am horrified at the opinions of such feral creatures as >>Sharon, inter alia, who on very scant evidence would pronounce a >>guilty verdict. With so little evidence either way it would be thrown >>out of court. Serve Sharon right if one day she has to face a jury >>that will decide not on the basis of evidence but on simple bigotry >>and prejudice. She didn't even have the common sense to issue a caveat >>such as IMHO. The victim might be a black and she a member of the Ku >>Klux Klan for all the impartiality she brought to what was after all >>only her opinion.
>>I might need help here one day and I hope to get it but I shall never >>pay to the bigots here what amounts to their own membership fee - >>supine subservience.
>>IMHO it is cowardice that speaks; would they dare to speak that way if >>the victim were a large muscular young man with a baseball bat >>standing well within earshot? I think that several thousand miles has >>made them rather braver than they really are!
> While not being new to genealogy, I am a recent reader of this group. > Twice I posted requesting help. The responses I received were > not helpful and not something I would say to someone to their face. > If you cant be helpful then please be quiet.
> There seems to be a very pro Ancestery.com bias in the group. > I have used it free at the local Mormon church and I think it is OK. > They widely advertise on the net a "14 day free trail" After looking > at their site I can't find how to do a "free trail". It looks to me > to be misrepresentation of the word "free"
you have to subscribe, sign an agreement - a legally binding contaract - and give a credit card number
and they *will* charge you for one year if you mess up by cancelling too late
the unhappy souls who complain on usenet nearly all have not red the agreement before clicking OK or kept a note of how to cancel
Terms and Conditions - Revision as of September 21, 2005
Before using or subscribing to Ancestry.com, please review the following terms and conditions (the Agreement) which define your rights, responsibilities and benefits as a user of Ancestry.com.
Ancestry.com License and Terms and Conditions of Use Ancestry.com is an Internet service (the “Service”) owned and operated by MyFamily.com, Inc. ("we", "our" or "us"). "You" or "your" means an adult user of the Service for itself and you as parent or guardian for any minor who you allow to access the Service, for whom you will be held strictly responsible. Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this Agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this Agreement at our discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, discontinue use of the Service.
Ancestry.com contains graphics, information, data, editorial and other content accessible by any registered Internet user and similar content which is accessible only to our subscribing members “(the Content)”. Whether in the free section or in the subscription section of the Service, all Content is owned and/or copyrighted by MyFamily.com, Inc., or third party providers and may be used only in accordance with this limited use license. Ancestry.com is protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to U.S. copyright laws, international conventions, and other copyright laws.
Limited Use LICENSE You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional family history research, and may download Content only as search results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. Online or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or both. You may use access software provided on the Service only while on line and may not download, copy, reuse or distribute that software, except where it is clearly stated in connection with software that it is made available for offline use and a license for that use is provided in connection with that software.
User provided content Portions of the Service will contain user provided content, to which you may contribute appropriate content. For this content, Ancestry is a distributor only. By submitting content to Ancestry, you grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a license to the content to use, host, distribute that Content and allow hosting and distribution of that Content, to the extent and in that form or context we deem appropriate. Should you contribute content to the site, you understand that it will be seen and used by others under the license described herein. You should submit only content which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to the copyright of others. For more concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. We will not edit or monitor user provided content, with the exception that, to promote privacy, an automated filtering tool will be used to suppress, and omit from display, information submitted to the tree areas of the site which appears to pertain to a living person. We also reserves the right to remove any user provided content that comes to our attention and that we believe, in our sole discretion, is illegal, obscene, indecent, defamatory, incites racial or ethnic hatred or violates the rights of others, or is in any other way objectionable.
LIABILITY DISCLAIMER The information, products, and services included on this Web Service may include inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically made to the information herein. We and our third party suppliers provide all Content in this Service "AS IS", and without any warranty of any kind.
MyFamily.com, Inc., and its third party suppliers make no representations concerning the suitability, reliability or accuracy of the Content or the service provided on the Service for any purpose. We and our third party suppliers disclaim all warranties, expressed or implied, in connection with the Content and the services provided on the Service, including conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no case will we or our third party providers be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, special or other damages including, without limitation, lost or delay of use, lost profits, loss of data or any other damage in contract, tort, equity or any other legal theory, even if advised of the possibility thereof.
MyFamily.com, Inc. may, from time to time, provide opportunities to users of the Service to link to or buy services from third parties. Sites of those third parties will be subject to terms and conditions different from those found here. MyFamily.com, Inc. makes no warranty concerning third party provided goods or services, and you agree that any recourse for dissatisfaction or problems with those goods or services will be sought from the third party provider and not from MyFamily.com, Inc.
Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow exclusions as broad as those stated above or limitations of liability for consequential or incidental damages, the above limitations may, in whole or in part, not apply to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS SERVICE.
Additional Guest or Subscribing Member Terms
1. REGISTRATION AND SECURITY
1.1 As part of the registration process, you will select a username and password. You must provide MyFamily.com, Inc. with accurate, complete, and up-to-date registration information. Failure to do so will constitute a breach of this Agreement. You understand that you may not (i) select or use a name of another person with the intent to impersonate that person; (ii) use the rights of any person other than yourself without authorization; or (iii) use a name that we, in our sole discretion, deem inappropriate. As you submit information, you understand that the network of Internet Sites including Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, Ancestry.co.uk, MyFamily.com, RootsWeb.com, and FamilyHistory.com are owned and operated by MyFamily.com, Inc., incorporated in Delaware, USA. The Sites are operated in the United States of America and operated to be in compliance with the laws of the United States. Access is governed by these terms and conditions under the laws of the State of Utah and the United States. Registration as a user of or subscriber to any of the Sites or services provided on them results in your customer information being stored and processed in the United States, and you, in registering or subscribing, specifically consent to that storage and processing. You may access that information at any time to confirm its correctness and to keep it current in connection with your registration or subscription. If you are subscribing or registering for use of this site from outside of the United States of America, you consent to the storage and processing in the United States of the
...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:56:46 +0000, Robert Melson wrote: > so long as they continue to demand credit card information as a > precondition to their trial subscriptions and to rely on the same > behaviors the book and music
This is standard business practise.
> "clubs" do when it comes time for renewal. It isn't dishonest, exactly, > but it does, in my opinion, come close. I've said as much in this > thread and at other times in this group and elsewhere.
Over here (UK) Ancestry send out a reminder that your subscription is due for renewal. One has the opportunity to cancel, or not. In fact, for some reason, my renewal notice didn't arrive until late, so when I tried to cancel, I was informed by the automated system it was too late. One quick email achieved the cancel, because Ancestry hadn't got the renewal notice to me in a timely fashion.
It seems that legislation differences on either side of the Atlantic might be a contributory factor.
-- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"
Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:56:46 +0000, Robert Melson wrote: >> so long as they continue to demand credit card information as a >> precondition to their trial subscriptions and to rely on the same >> behaviors the book and music
> This is standard business practise.
Only in recent years, since AOL was able to get away with it. Speaking for myself, if I'm not buying anything and someone wants my credit card number, that entity's purposes are very suspect to me.
-- All relevant people are pertinent. All rude people are impertinent. Therefore, no rude people are relevant. -- Solomon W. Golomb
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:56:46 +0000, Robert Melson wrote:
>> so long as they continue to demand credit card information as a >> precondition to their trial subscriptions and to rely on the same >> behaviors the book and music
> This is standard business practise.
>> "clubs" do when it comes time for renewal. It isn't dishonest, exactly, >> but it does, in my opinion, come close. I've said as much in this >> thread and at other times in this group and elsewhere.
> Over here (UK) Ancestry send out a reminder that your subscription is due > for renewal. One has the opportunity to cancel, or not. In fact, for > some reason, my renewal notice didn't arrive until late, so when I tried > to cancel, I was informed by the automated system it was too late. One > quick email achieved the cancel, because Ancestry hadn't got the renewal > notice to me in a timely fashion.
> It seems that legislation differences on either side of the Atlantic might > be a contributory factor.
Believe it or not, I do understand that Ancestry's practice of demanding CC info in order to sign up for their trial subscriptions is "standard business practice", just as is their reliance on the forgetfulness or inattention of folks caught by that practice in not cancelling in a timely fashion. This latter practice is exactly what the book and record "clubs" rely on to sell their products - many just send out the current month's selection and rely on the fact that folks will not send'em back but will, instead, pay for the damn things. As I said, I recognize that this is not dishonest, but it does, in my opinion, skirt the thin edge of business ethics. When given the option of patronizing such a business or not, I generally choose not to do so, regardless of the product, its quality, or any other consideration. My choice, not subject to debate - just as your choice is yours alone and not arguable by me or anybody else.
You will pardon me, I hope, when I say - again - that any more discussion of this or other topics arising from the original complaint is wasted bandwidth. The OP had a, perhaps, legitimate complaint, but was unwilling or unable to provide additional information in response to reasonable requests and seemed unwilling to "hear" any viewpoint at odds with his own. Whether the poster who opened this new "episode" was right in characterizing some of the folks responding to the OP as feral, rude, nasty or just plain insensitive, the matter should now be allowed to die again.
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 Sun, 14 May 2006 09:09:29 -0700, ray <nojunkem...@aol.com> wrote: > While not being new to genealogy, I am a recent reader of this group. > Twice I posted requesting help. The responses I received were > not helpful and not something I would say to someone to their face.
Maybe it's how you asked the questions? Often it pays to lurk for a while to understand what does and doesn't work.
> There seems to be a very pro Ancestery.com bias in the group.
I wouldn't say there's a pro-ancestry.com bias, but I for one don't like a good company being bashed, especially when the person doing the bashing refuses to give any details with which to evaluate the legitimacy of their claim.
> I have used it free at the local Mormon church and I think it is OK. > They widely advertise on the net a "14 day free trail" After looking > at their site I can't find how to do a "free trail". It looks to me > to be misrepresentation of the word "free"
From what I understand, you give them our credit card details, and use the service for a couple weeks. If you don't like it, you cancel before your two weeks is up and owe nothing. I don't subscribe, so I can't say I've gone through the process myself. However, the common thread in people complaining about ancestry seems to be those who don't understand the concept of "you have to do something if you don't want to pay/renew". I don't know why it's surprising to them - newspapers, magazines, pretty much any subscription _I_ have auto-renews.
I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew.
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:09:29 -0700, ray <nojunkem...@aol.com> wrote:
>> While not being new to genealogy, I am a recent reader of this group. >> Twice I posted requesting help. The responses I received were >> not helpful and not something I would say to someone to their face.
> Maybe it's how you asked the questions? Often it pays to lurk for a > while to understand what does and doesn't work.
>> There seems to be a very pro Ancestery.com bias in the group.
> I wouldn't say there's a pro-ancestry.com bias, but I for one don't like > a good company being bashed, especially when the person doing the > bashing refuses to give any details with which to evaluate the > legitimacy of their claim.
>> I have used it free at the local Mormon church and I think it is OK. >> They widely advertise on the net a "14 day free trail" After looking >> at their site I can't find how to do a "free trail". It looks to me >> to be misrepresentation of the word "free"
> From what I understand, you give them our credit card details, and use > the service for a couple weeks. If you don't like it, you cancel before > your two weeks is up and owe nothing. I don't subscribe, so I can't say > I've gone through the process myself. However, the common thread in > people complaining about ancestry seems to be those who don't understand > the concept of "you have to do something if you don't want to > pay/renew". I don't know why it's surprising to them - newspapers, > magazines, pretty much any subscription _I_ have auto-renews.
> I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping > about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had > the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew.
You're correct there. Not only magazines and newspapers, but now your monthly gas, electric, phone, cable and many other services also can be auto-renewed. They keep sending the juice and charging you until you tell them to stop. It's something we've become used to. Using a credit card or bank account for automatic payment actually gives you more leverage than simply writing a check each month. Somehow I feel more comfortable giving Ancestry my credit card number than I do handing the card to some strange waiter who disappears with it for several minutes.
I have subscribed to a couple of Ancestry's services for about five years and they have always phoned me about a month before my annual subscription is due to expire. They ask for my comments, if I wish to continue, and of course they try to interest me in some of their other options. Ancestry happens to be very cost-effective for me. I can see where it wouldn't be for many others with a narrow focus to their research. Better they post their specific questions here. I swear it seems that some people are just sitting out there waiting for the challenge of solving other people's posted genealogy problems. Can't beat that, and the price is right, too.
In article <4cpoq0F171hr...@individual.net>, Dave Hinz <DaveH...@spamcop.net> writes: <snip>
> From what I understand, you give them our credit card details, and use > the service for a couple weeks. If you don't like it, you cancel before > your two weeks is up and owe nothing. I don't subscribe, so I can't say > I've gone through the process myself. However, the common thread in > people complaining about ancestry seems to be those who don't understand > the concept of "you have to do something if you don't want to > pay/renew". I don't know why it's surprising to them - newspapers, > magazines, pretty much any subscription _I_ have auto-renews.
> I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping > about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had > the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew.
Hey! I resemble those incinerations!
Dunno, Dave. I've never met a magazine that continues your subscription after the date of the final issue without first having you pay for the privilege of the continued service. Never met a magazine that required that I give'em my credit card info in order to get the N free issues, for that matter.
That said, I really have nothing against Ancestry - don't subscribe for the reason(s) given, so don't have a problem with auto renewal. The few things I've found I can only get from Ancestry, others with subscriptions have been kind enough to provide when I've "made nice". Short answer, for me, is that Ancestry is not cost-effective and provides very little value add in my particular case. There are those who love it, wouldn't want to do without it, and I wish'em every happiness with the service. I also realize that Ancestry sponsors RootsWeb and USGenWeb, at the price to you'n'me of a bit of advertising - and for that I'm deeply appreciative.
Stingy 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 -----
Dave Hinz wrote: > I don't know why it's surprising to them - newspapers, > magazines, pretty much any subscription _I_ have auto-renews.
Funny, I've never ever had either a newspaper or a magazine auto-renew, and I've had enough magazine subscriptions that the sight of one drives my wife into conniptions. Even the free magazine subscriptions to trade rags never auto-renewed, in fact one publisher I tracked wanted me to renew every three months despite saying my application was for a year's subscription.
> I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping > about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had > the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew.
Now, I would be mad if they didn't send me a reminder (as did every single magazine or newspaper I ever subscribed to) and that resulted in my subscription lapsing.
The ones who want my business ask for it. The ones who arrogate unto themselves the power to force my purchases can go sit on a tin tack.
-- All relevant people are pertinent. All rude people are impertinent. Therefore, no rude people are relevant. -- Solomon W. Golomb
On Sun, 14 May 2006 09:09:29 -0700, ray wrote: > There seems to be a very pro Ancestery.com bias in the group.
I'm not pro Ancestry.com or .co.uk. I don't use either for the simple reason that I can't access the site *but* I know that there's a lot of useful information on the site for those who can access it. Therefore, if some comes along asking where they can find information, I will give them any and all sites that I think may be relevant to them - and that includes Ancestry if appropriate.
I also happen to know there is information on the site which I'd like to check out, but it will wait until either I can access the site or I can find a library or such like that has access to the .com site which is where the info is. Since I'm in the UK, the chances of that are slim. -- http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:35:26 +0000, Robert Melson wrote: > You will pardon me, I hope, when I say - again - that any more discussion of > this or other topics arising from the original complaint is wasted bandwidth.
Okay, 'nuff said. EOT, yes?
-- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent"
On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:01:24 -0400, Bruce Remick <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveH...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:4cpoq0F171hr5U1@individual.net... >> I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping >> about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had >> the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew.
> You're correct there. Not only magazines and newspapers, but now your monthly > gas, electric, phone, cable and many other services also can be auto-renewed. > They keep sending the juice and charging you until you tell them to stop.
I can't help but think that it's a good way to do things. And as you point out, something we get so used to in other subscriptions & services that we stop noticing it.
>>> I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping >>> about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had >>> the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew.
>> You're correct there. Not only magazines and newspapers, but now your >> monthly >> gas, electric, phone, cable and many other services also can be auto-renewed. >> They keep sending the juice and charging you until you tell them to stop.
> I can't help but think that it's a good way to do things. And as you > point out, something we get so used to in other subscriptions & services > that we stop noticing it.
I admit that I would probably prefer to pay for my annual Ancestry subscription the traditional way, but I have never had a problem with the way they handle it now, especially since they always contact me first rather than automatically locking me in for another year. The only concerns seem to be voiced by folks who sign up for the free trial and, for whatever reasons, are unable to cancel the trial before an annual subscription kicks in. Maybe not the way most would have it work, but it should not be that difficult to comply with, considering many can harvest whatever they're looking for in the first week of searching.
On Mon, 15 May 2006 02:25:32 GMT, Robert Melson <mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote: > In article <4cpoq0F171hr...@individual.net>, > Dave Hinz <DaveH...@spamcop.net> writes: >> I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping >> about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had >> the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew. > Dunno, Dave. I've never met a magazine that continues your subscription after > the date of the final issue without first having you pay for the privilege of > the continued service. Never met a magazine that required that I give'em my > credit card info in order to get the N free issues, for that matter.
Hm. For me it's always been "you're in your new year, here's your bill". Been a while since I had time for magazines that I had to actually pay for, though, so maybe that's changed? (How long ago was InfoWorld a subscription, for instance?)
> That said, I really have nothing against Ancestry - don't subscribe for the > reason(s) given, so don't have a problem with auto renewal. The few things > I've found I can only get from Ancestry, others with subscriptions have been > kind enough to provide when I've "made nice".
My parents subscribe. And since their research and my research has a great deal of overlap (all things considered), on occasion I'll have them look something up for me/us. We're all working in different countries and centuries, though.
I guess my big problem with people badmouthing Ancestry and, well, anyone else who makes a living providing information to us, is that it's rarely if ever stated in such a way that we can make our own conclusions from the facts provided. Just a "They suck, take my word for it". I just don't find that sort of argument to be compelling, which is why I ask a lot of questions when someone wanders in with a plank on their shoulder.
>> Dunno, Dave. I've never met a magazine that continues your >> subscription after the date of the final issue without first >> having you pay for the privilege of the continued service. >> Never met a magazine that required that I give'em my credit >> card info in order to get the N free issues, for that matter.
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 02:25:32 GMT, Robert Melson <mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote: >> In article <4cpoq0F171hr...@individual.net>, >> Dave Hinz <DaveH...@spamcop.net> writes:
>>> I can't help but think that the same people who come in here carping >>> about auto-renewal, would also be in here carping that ancestry.com had >>> the gall to cut off their access if it _didn't_ auto-renew. <snip>> > I guess my big problem with people badmouthing Ancestry and, well, > anyone else who makes a living providing information to us, is that it's > rarely if ever stated in such a way that we can make our own conclusions > from the facts provided. Just a "They suck, take my word for it". I > just don't find that sort of argument to be compelling, which is why I > ask a lot of questions when someone wanders in with a plank on their > shoulder.
Actually, sounds to me like we're on the same sheet of music, for the most part. My comment, which started off this particular sub-thread, really was that I don't much care for how Ancestry handles the sign-up for their trial subscriptions, not that I hate Ancestry (I don't) and think they should be driven from the world of the civilized (again, I don't). Because I don't subscribe, I have no reason to complain about their auto renewal; I don't subscribe because .... The comment was made more to establish my neutrality in the original affray than for any other reason.
I agree with you, and others, who take esception to folks like the OP on this particular thread, folks who come in yelling, stomping, finger-pointing, demanding we all (1) unquestioningly accept their complaint/point-of-view and (2) immediately cease doing business with that horrendous, rapacious monster XYZ Corp because it done them dirt. I, too, take exception to that sort of behavior, particularly when it's accompanied by a total absence of detail or when the poster tap-dances the issue and fails to answer reasonable questions about what he's done to help himself or refuses to accept any viewpoint at odds with his own preconceptions. Since I believe you can't argue with folks who've made their minds up in advance, I generally just read with amusement, tsk-tsk-tsking my way through the thread. THIS time, though, I hadda get involved because I believed - and still believe - the follow-on poster was a bit extreme in his condemnation of the folks on the group, especialy if he expected any USENET dialog to be something on the order of a garden party at the old-folks home. Dunno about you, but the next lifted pinky I see in a USENET newsgroup will be the first (I used to subscribe to alt.flame until it became too sophomoric).
Bottom line on all this is that the original thread died out through lack of interest and this'n should, too. It contributes little to genealogy and only serves as a soapbox for those with strong opinions about something completely apart from the real purpose of the group - the good and bad of Ancestry and MyFamily, Inc.
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 -----
On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:48:46 GMT, Robert Melson <mels...@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote: > (I used to subscribe to alt.flame until it > became too sophomoric).
So, 1990 or so then? It was iffy then, and really took a dive in 92 or 93.
> I will now return to lurk mode until the next time something stirs me to the > insanity of posting.
