Ancestry.com Watch Out!
jklpods
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.
Sharon
Sharon
jklpods <jkl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 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.
---------------------------------
Make Yahoo! Canada your Homepage Yahoo! Canada Homepage
Dani
"jklpods" <jkl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:DPx4g.5366$mu2...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
They canceled mine - no problems with them at all.
Maybe you just had an unexperienced person that day.
I've not had any problems with them.
Dani
jklpods
finances. If you find that ethical and sour grapes then we will just have
to agree to disagree.
"Sharon" <ssu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2006042900170...@web60918.mail.yahoo.com...
Sharon
Bye bye!
Sharon
jklpods <jkl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I cancelled. The $200 they took from me is my money. It also messed up my
finances. If you find that ethical and sour grapes then we will just have
to agree to disagree.
jklpods
Ancestry.com should never take other people's money under any circumstances.
Bye Bye!news:2006042902160...@web60913.mail.yahoo.com...
Christopher Jahn
news:DPx4g.5366$mu2...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:
They didn't steal from me, and in fact they found a way to
increase my access and reduce the fees I was paying - all on
their own.
So they made a mistake - and corrected it, according to your own
statements. I think it's YOU who are unethical.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Snow and adolescence are the only problems that go away if
ignored long enough.
Christopher Jahn
news:p5A4g.26747$NS6....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:
> My finances changed, so that is one of the reasons I
> cancelled. Ancestry.com should never take other people's money
> under any circumstances.
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.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence,
and then success is sure." - Mark Twain
jklpods
want. As time goes on circumstances change that require other changes. One
was finances, but not only finances. I said it was one of the reasons not
the only reason. If you don't mind companies charging you after you cancel
don't blame me if I do. Ancestry.com needs to stop charging cancelled
accounts.
"Christopher Jahn" <xj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97B3EE9...@216.196.97.136...
Wrock Bay
@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:
> Ancestry.com needs to stop charging cancelled
> accounts.
>
You need to get a life, you clueless loser.
Charani
> Ancestry.com needs to stop charging cancelled
> accounts.
Talk to your lawyers then. Whining on the various newsgroups isn't
going to help you - as you've already discovered.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
John Nichols
> Just because you have sour grapes does not make this company unethical.
>
> Sharon
>
> jklpods <jkl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: 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 glitch, because of an overlap, they mistakenly billed me an extra $100.
HOWEVER, when I discovered it, the rep I talked to checked and found that
Ancestry had discovered this BEFORE I had, and had ALREADY told my bank to
refund it. My bank was simply a day behind.
Pretty darned ethical, I'd say.
singhals
> Ancestry.com should never take other people's money under any circumstances.
And where's the logic in their taking their own money?
Cheryl
jklpods
"singhals" <sing...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:xe-dnXTm4KYo7M7Z...@rcn.net...
Sharon
Sharon
Charani <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
Talk to your lawyers then. Whining on the various newsgroups isn't
going to help you - as you've already discovered.
---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice
Doug Chadduck
jkipods
Just curious. Did I miss whether you said if you tryed to cancel in the
middle of the contract period or at the end of the contract period just
prior to renewal time?
jklpods
called too late to stop the next quarterly payment from going through I
would be ok with that. Then I would expect no further charges after that.
"Doug Chadduck" <dcha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:X_2dneHcGqCkAs7Z...@comcast.com...
Dave Hinz
> I cancelled. The $200 they took from me is my money. It also messed up my
> finances. If you find that ethical and sour grapes then we will just have
> to agree to disagree.
You're not giving anyone enough information to make an informed
evaluation of your claims. For instance, was this a credit card? If
so, there's no problem - your credit card company will fix the problem.
You _have_ called them, right? What'd they say?
You know, it's funny. We get people wandering in here every few months,
who we've never heard from before, making vague complaints about
ancestry.com - it's almost like clockwork. A jaded and cynical person,
such as myself, might wonder why it's never anyone we've heard of before
who has problems.
Doug Chadduck
The world needs more cynics. Not sure who said that but I agree.
Been there done that know what to do next time.
Christopher Jahn
news:4bii92F...@individual.net:
> A jaded and cynical person,
> such as myself, might wonder why it's never anyone we've heard
> of before who has problems.
You said it. There are lots of people here, and many of us use
the service, but none of us seem to have the problems that these
random and anonymous trolls do.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Maybe I'm here to start the unisex revolution.
Charani
> Considering the circumstances, he probably doesn't have sufficient
> funds for a lawyer's fees!
Since the subscription is annual (AIUI), then I can't see the point of
cancelling something that's already paid for. If the subscription
ended but was not correctly cancelled, then that's down to the
subscriber.
S/He is posting using a GMT time sig which suggests s/he's in the UK
so therefore s/he has the option of going either to the Citizens
Advice Bureau for free advice or having a free half hour session with
a lawyer. I'm sure other countries have similar set ups.
As Dave says, these anonymous trolls appear at regular intervals, and
on their first appearance whinge and whine about Ancestry which
hundreds, nay, thousands, of people around the world use perfectly
happily *and* manage to cancel with no problems.
Hugh Watkins
myfamilyinc employs twice as many people as google
if you have paid a subscription by mistake
make use of it
Hugh W
Dave Hinz
> I called in time to stop anymore charges to my quarterly subscribtion.
Odd, I'm not aware of a quarterly subscription. Perhaps you could post
a link to their site describing this?
Are you perhaps confusing a payment/billing plan, with a subscription
duration?
DougG
news:DPx4g.5366$mu2...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
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
Andy Kowaluk
regulars. The guy had a problem and instead of trying to help him you write
back with rude and abusive comments. That is against the spirit of internet
genealogy in my opinion. Maybe he was ripped off and for most of us $200 is
a lot of money. Personally I have been caught with Internet fraud. Why do we
dismiss it so lightly.
"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:4bii92F...@individual.net...
Christopher Jahn
news:4454c650$0$16979$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
:
> I have never read so many rude comments. Most of them seem to
> come from you regulars. The guy had a problem and instead of
> trying to help him you write back with rude and abusive
> comments. That is against the spirit of internet genealogy in
> my opinion. Maybe he was ripped off and for most of us $200 is
> a lot of money. Personally I have been caught with Internet
> fraud. Why do we dismiss it so lightly
1. He didn't come in here for help. He came here to libel
Ancestry.com. Go back and read his post.
2. Libel does not have anything to do with internet genealogy.
3. Many of us, if not most of us, use or have used Ancestry.com,
and most of us, if not all of us, have not been ripped off by
Ancestry.com. There have been complaints about failed cancelations
in the past; they have all been resolved. There is no reason to
doubt that his case will be resolved if he acts like an adult.
4. His story has many fundamental flaws in it. Either he is lying,
or he doesn't understand the agreements he made. Either way, it
does not excuse libel.
5. Bringing up internet fraud is a strawman argument - shame on
you. Signing up for a service, and then canceling it, and having a
bookkeeping error occur does not in any way, shape or form
constitute internet fraud.
Yes, the responses have ALL been from regulars. Many of whom are
usually very helpful in all areas of genealogy. Everyone of whom
has chastised this person.
A wiser person might conclude that there may be a reason that a
bunch of long time participants in this group jump on someone who
comes in here telling a story that doesn't bear up under a cursory
inspection. And a wiser person might have noted that the original
poster not only didn't ASK for help, but rather started telling
tales in a very strident tone.
Think what you like, Andy. This poster got only what he deserved.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Save the whales! Collect the whole set!
Sharon
Sharon
Christopher Jahn <xj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Think what you like, Andy. This poster got only what he deserved.
---------------------------------
Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
Christopher Jahn
news:2006043015212...@web60923.mail.yahoo.com:
> So, who's Andy? He posts as frequently as the Ancestry
> complainer does. I worry about these drive-by posters.
>
He posted here about his own genealogy web site awhile back; a
total of three posts.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
My favorite food is squirrel, but I want to fight with glory.
Hugh Watkins
don't read what they sign
I subscribed by accident earlier this year
realised I could not afford it *just now*
and unsubscribed without problems
he was not ripped off - he just messed up
Hugh W
Christopher Jahn
news:4bkiu2F...@individual.net:
> we are sick and tired of these bozos wasting bandwidth because
> they don't read what they sign
>
> I subscribed by accident earlier this year
> realised I could not afford it *just now*
>
> and unsubscribed without problems
>
> he was not ripped off - he just messed up
>
> Hugh W
And this is the most compelling response yet.
I had subscribed to a couple of individual features that was
reasonably lower than the all-inclusive at the time. But they've
lowered that fee, and when the first subscription was up, the
customer service rep pointed out that the new all-inclusive was
actually lower. He could change me to the new rate and refund the
balance of the other subscription. I'm now saving more than
before, and I got back the balance of the prior account.
So they let Hugh off the hook with no fuss, and they volunteered
to save me $85 bucks this year.
Yeah, watch out for that.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Like many of the finer things in life, sex often comes with a
side of fries.
jklpods
http://www.ancestry.com/legal/Terms.aspx
"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:4bjrloF...@individual.net...
Andy Kowaluk
narrow minded and abusive bunch of people in my 46 years on this earth. The
guy had a complaint and you all jumped down his throat without even
considering that maybe it was legitimate. Do you have shares in
genealogy.com is the question I am asking myself.
Most genealogy people I know are good people. You have shaken my faith.
Andy
"Christopher Jahn" <xj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97B57DC...@216.196.97.136...
CLV3
> Oh, poop. If your budget is that tight, then you shouldn't be throwing
your money away on this hobby.
>
> Bye bye!
>
> Sharon
>
Hey. People have a right to complain. And if I lost $200 I think I would be
bitching too. Personally, I don't use any pay sites for genealogy. I think
most of the pay sites are probably a scam anyways.
jklpods
"Andy Kowaluk" <ak_...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:4455ef00$0$16935$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
T Flynn
> Oh, poop. If your budget is that tight, then you shouldn't be throwing your money away on this hobby.
Snarky comments on peoples' discretionary income levels make you look
elitist.
If you have an extra $200/month that you feel like throwing out, I'll send
you my snailmail address; I'm sure I could put it to good use.
OBgenealogy:
This morning I finally FINALLY found documentation on my great-uncle's
death. After years of hearing about how legendary Uncle Maurice jumped out
of a tilting car and then got crushed under it, I found it in the 5/5/47
Brainerd Daily Dispatch, via NewspaperArchive.com Elite -- using the
library's subscription. YAY!
Oh, and that James Francis, Jr. thing? the library's subscription to
Ancestry.com gleaned me a death notice for his dad in St. Louis, MO when
he was four years old, so I've written in to the St Louis Post Dispatch
for the obit.
Dave Hinz
> Here is the link. It is under fees and payments
> http://www.ancestry.com/legal/Terms.aspx
Did you know that when you top-post, you screw up the context and flow
of the message?
From your link, I see the following:
"you will be notified by e-mail 15 days before your subscription will
end, asked to correct any information which has changed and reminded of
the opportunity to "opt out" of your renewal. From the United States,
you may only cancel by phone and must call Ancestry at 1-800-262-3787 at
least two days before the renewal date for the cancellation to be
effective."
Did you cancel with this mechanism in the timeframe given? If not, you
have nothing to complain about other than yourself. If so, and they
charged your credit card anyway, what did your credit card say about
this when you called them? Your claim just isn't holding water at this
point, sorry.
Dave Hinz
>
> "Sharon" <ssu...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:2006042902160...@web60913.mail.yahoo.com...
>> Oh, poop. If your budget is that tight, then you shouldn't be throwing
> your money away on this hobby.
>>
>> Bye bye!
>>
>> Sharon
>>
> Hey. People have a right to complain. And if I lost $200 I think I would be
> bitching too.
It's impossible that this person is out 200 bucks. Period. If a charge
was made to their card that isn't authorized, the credit card company
will get it back for them. If the CC company doesn't, it's because
there's more to the story than we're being told.
Dave Hinz
> I have never read so many rude comments. Most of them seem to come from you
> regulars.
Did you know that when you top-post, it makes quoting and context flow
poorly. So anyway, I wrote:
>> You're not giving anyone enough information to make an informed
>> evaluation of your claims. For instance, was this a credit card? If
>> so, there's no problem - your credit card company will fix the
>> problem.
>> You _have_ called them, right? What'd they say?
The guy had a problem and instead of trying to help him you write
> back with rude and abusive comments.
Sorry, but which of these above are rude, and which are abusive? He's
asking us to believe what appears, given the information he's provided,
to be incredible. As in, not credible. These clarifying questions are
intended first to help us understand the situation, and also to provide
hints to him on how he can get his money back if in fact he's not the
one in error.
> That is against the spirit of internet
> genealogy in my opinion. Maybe he was ripped off and for most of us $200 is
> a lot of money. Personally I have been caught with Internet fraud. Why do we
> dismiss it so lightly.
I don't have any reason to suspect that fraud is going on here. Just
some vague claims from someone saying something that doesn't add up.
A simple call to the credit card company to have the charge reversed,
for instance, would make that 200 dollars not be "stolen from him".
Dave Hinz
> Andy won't be posting to this forum again. I have never come across a more
> narrow minded and abusive bunch of people in my 46 years on this earth. The
> guy had a complaint and you all jumped down his throat without even
> considering that maybe it was legitimate.
Asking for details is hardly calling him a liar.
> Do you have shares in
> genealogy.com is the question I am asking myself.
Well, _that_ was certainly predictable. "You disagree with me therefore
you must have a financial reason for doing so"? That shows that you
can't imagine anyone who doesn't like an honorable organization being
badmouthed.
CLV3
complaining about some pay service. I mean while I DO agree that their post
here is not going to do them any good, I like to hear of people's bad
experiences as well as good ones.
Christopher Jahn
news:dow5g.5970$W36.458@trndny08:
And you get more mileage by being calm about it, rather than to
start off by accusing the largest genealogical service outside of
the Mormons of being nothing more than a pack of scam artists
while offering no substantive evidence.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
"That's why they call it Show Biz and not Show Artz."
David Jensen
CLV3
> "CLV3" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in
> news:dow5g.5970$W36.458@trndny08:
>
> > Hey Andy...no need to run off. We are not ALL about jumping
> > on someone for complaining about some pay service. I mean
> > while I DO agree that their post here is not going to do them
> > any good, I like to hear of people's bad experiences as well
> > as good ones.
> >
> >
>
> And you get more mileage by being calm about it, rather than to
> start off by accusing the largest genealogical service outside of
> the Mormons of being nothing more than a pack of scam artists
> while offering no substantive evidence.
>
pay sites. Honestly, I have never used any of the pay sites so I do not
know. For that I apologize. I just remember when I got a trial there and
they had hardly anything regarding families I was looking for. So I didn't
see what was so great about it. Maybe if I ever get another trial chance I
will give them another try. I do think that if people do have issues
regarding any sites they should be given the oppurtunity to voice them,
WITHOUT being torn apart by people just because the service works for them.
I use Family Tree Maker....I don't get all aggressive when people badmouth
FTM.
geothermal
It is not impossible. One of many possibilities is that this person's
spouse does the credit card bills with his money. Now he has recently
lost his job or was injured or something and he is busy with getting a
new one and in the process he cancels ancestry.com since his finances
have changed. His wife knows about ancestry.com but does not know he
has canceled it, so goes ahead and pays the credit card bill. Now
maybe a few months pass and this guy has time to look at his old
credit card statements and noticed 200 bucks from ancestry.com has
charged him after he canceled. Then he is angry and does not know
that the majority of regulars on this usenet group have had ok
experiences with ancestry.com and he posts his complaint in hopes to
let people know about what might happen to you or me. But don't worry
because territorial people in this usenet group have been very rude to
him and he has actually replied back calmer than the regulars have.
If you have taken any psychology classes, his first post was venting
frustration and he was not a troll or flamer at all. Anyway, he is
gone now and my point is not all credit cards are equal and most will
not go to bat for you after a certain time has past. Your saying that
his losing 200 bucks is impossible is rude. Period.
Jonathan
--
"Blind charity sees only the need, not the cause."
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.cafepress.com/jonmelusky7
Dave Hinz
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> It's impossible that this person is out 200 bucks. Period. If a charge
>> was made to their card that isn't authorized, the credit card company
>> will get it back for them. If the CC company doesn't, it's because
>> there's more to the story than we're being told.
> It is not impossible. One of many possibilities is that this person's
> spouse does the credit card bills with his money. Now he has recently
> lost his job or was injured or something and he is busy with getting a
> new one and in the process he cancels ancestry.com since his finances
> have changed. His wife knows about ancestry.com but does not know he
> has canceled it, so goes ahead and pays the credit card bill.
I'm sure we could come up with a dozen similar reasons why it's
someone's fault, but your scenio describes bad communication in the
household, not Ancestry ripping someone off.
> But don't worry
> because territorial people in this usenet group have been very rude to
> him and he has actually replied back calmer than the regulars have.
I've asked questions to have him describe the details of the situation,
he has failed to provide same. I suggested possible recourse (calling
the credit card company to contest the charges), he has ignored that.
All we have from him is vague handwaving and a statement that isn't
logical. I'm sorry, but that's hard to take seriously.
> Your saying that
> his losing 200 bucks is impossible is rude. Period.
Given the absence of information, you have no basis to state what you
have. If you choose to find my statements of fact to be rude, feel
free.
I'll repeat one of my earlier questions: Why is it, that we only see
vague, poorly described complaints about Ancestry, from people we've
never seen before? Plenty of folks here subscribe, why do we never see
something from a poster we actually know who has problems?
jklpods
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 12:06:16 -0700, geothermal
> <jj...@remoooooovethisdrizzle.com> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz wrote:
> I've asked questions to have him describe the details of the situation,
> he has failed to provide same. I suggested possible recourse (calling
> the credit card company to contest the charges), he has ignored that.
It is time to move on. That is why I haven't responded. I have taken
action with my bank and the BBB. I didn't just come here, and did nothing
about it. This is my last post. I hope everyone else will follow along.
Christopher Jahn
news:_fK5g.7003$Mn6.5124@trndny06:
While people may or may not have nice things to say about FTM, no
one has claimed that the FTM people are scam artists out to steal
your money.
The poster could have made his complaints known without getting
slammed; instead, they chose to be inflammatory. And flames is
what they got.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Grumplicious Grumplicious Grumplicious!!!
Robert Melson
Y'know, it's a shame you're taking the attitude you have with regard both to
ancestry.com and this group. I don't have a helluva high opinion of any outfit
that offers a free trial but demands credit card information to do so. _I_
think they're relying on the same facets of human nature that the book and
record clubs do - the tendency, if you will, to let slide that which doesn't
demand our attention. That's my opinion - agree, disagree, yell, scream, shout,
don' make me no nevermind.
As far as the group is concerned, you can't be thin skinned around here. As
you've discovered, there's somebody - not always the same person or group, and
not in every case - who'll jump on you with both feed. Some few things, in my
opinion, deserve such jumping upon - top posting, postings without attribution,
vaguely worded or unfounded or ad hominem attacks on persons or companies. In
the case of your complaint, I think Dave Hinz was right on the mark - you
yelled "stop thief" without providing any real information about the
circumstances or about what you had to done to resolve the problem, and bridled
when asked to do so. Only after you'd been jumped on by Dave and others did
you provide any information that others might use to help or advise or ...
My advice is to lurk on this group for a while, see who's helpful, who's a PITA,
who you'd have a beer with and whose beer you'd want to poison. Once you've
lurked a while and gotten a feel for the dynamics of the group, jump back in
and enjoy the give'n'take.
My long-winded $0.02.
Sanctimonious Ol' Bob
(sheesh! He's _still_ and 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
-----
Charani
> It is time to move on. That is why I haven't responded. I have taken
> action with my bank and the BBB. I didn't just come here, and did nothing
> about it. This is my last post. I hope everyone else will follow along.
I'm not following you, stranger. This is a great group full of a lot
of very helpful people. I guess it all depends on one's ability to
communicate.
T Lewis
I am new to this list, at present who knows if the list will prove fruitful
or not. If it isn't then I will quietly unsubscribe. But I have read with
amusement the many comments regarding the problems some have with Ancestry.
I am on several mailing lists and at some time, someone has made a comment
about Ancestry. If it be the 14 day trial and the prospect of handing over
credit card details or that it doesn't come up to scratch, several comments
recently have been that some of the service has changed and it now costs
more money. I live in England, and it has tended to be Ancestry.co.uk, but
nevertheless the comments are still the same as for the Ancestry.com. I use
the S&N Genealogy subscription and that changed part way during my
subscription, they changed the credit system and one now pays more credits
for accessing different parts. I asked the question as to why and they
explained. I can cancel at the end of my year subscription or continue, but
as I queried the pricing structure they have informed me they will contact
me nearer to my renewal just to confirm I wish to continue prior to their
taking from my credit card, as it was they who had changed the terms of my
original subscription.
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.
Tricia
from England
Sir Creep
Charani wrote:
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 21:21:29 GMT, jklpods wrote:
>
> > It is time to move on. That is why I haven't responded. I have taken
> > action with my bank and the BBB. I didn't just come here, and did nothing
> > about it. This is my last post. I hope everyone else will follow along.
>
> I'm not following you, stranger. This is a great group full of a lot
> of very helpful people. I guess it all depends on one's ability to
> communicate.
Agreed. And you'll notice that the 'last post-master' didn't give the
information we all were hoping to read, which was something on the
order of:
"I called the 1-800 number on [date] and they said it was cancelled.
On [date] it was apparently renewed, starting a new quarter, and
according to the bolded language in paragraph #[_] you can see why I am
upset."
Had he done so, he may have garnered some support and/or sympathy (not
that this is the proper ng forum, but that's another matter). But that
didn't happen, even when a couple of you fine folks asked. He
concludes by saying "i've taken care of it". Indeed. He moved on, I
suppose, because his problem was ill-made and weakly supported.
As Charani said, BYE fella.
Sir Creep
Charani
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/
Graeme Wall
Charani <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
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.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Charani
> 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/
m...@privacy.net
wrote:
>"jklpods" <jkl...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:DPx4g.5366$mu2...@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!
Robert Melson
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
m...@privacy.net
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."
Robert Melson
<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
Charani
> 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>
--
http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/
ray
>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
Hugh Watkins
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
click on "subscribe" up in the top right hand corner
http://ancestry.com/
http://landing.ancestry.com/freetrial/discover.aspx?html=pt10&o_iid=24225
Get Ancestry.com Free for 2 weeks. or phone them
View our TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
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 personal data you submit, within the scope of
the PRIVACY STATEMENT of MyFamily.com, Inc. You may and should review
and correct this information regularly.
1.2 You shall notify us by regular mail or by e-mail at
sup...@ancestry.com of any known or suspected unauthorized use(s) of
your account, or any known or suspected breach of security, including
loss, theft, or unauthorized disclosure of your password or billing
information. You will be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality
of your password. You will never be required to reveal your password to
any representative or agent of Ancestry, its owners or agents.
1.3 You must be 18 years or older to subscribe.
1.4 You are responsible for all usage or activity on Ancestry via your
password account. Distribution of your password to others for access to
Ancestry is expressly prohibited and shall constitute a breach of this
Agreement. Any fraudulent, abusive, or otherwise illegal activity may be
grounds for termination of your account, at our sole discretion, and you
may be referred to appropriate law enforcement agencies.
2. FEES AND PAYMENTS
2.1 Continuous Service Membership. Subscription membership in the
Service is on a continuous service basis. This means that once you have
become a subscribing member, your subscription will be automatically
renewed and your billing choice will be charged based on the
subscription program (annual, quarterly, monthly, etc.) you have chosen.
Billing charges will be processed within 24 hours your order is taken
and products included in memberships will be shipped shortly thereafter
with a separate billing unless shipped within that 24 hours. Except in
the case of monthly subscriptions, you will be notified by e-mail 15
days before your subscription will end, asked to correct any information
which has changed and reminded of the opportunity to "opt out" of your
renewal. From the United States, you may only cancel by phone and must
call Ancestry at 1-800-262-3787 at least two days before the renewal
date for the cancellation to be effective. International customers must
call 1-801-705-7620 during business hours or send an e-mail to
internationa...@ancestry.com and provide the following
information:
Given name and surname
Username
Subscription type (UK/Ireland collection, etc.)
E-mail address used when subscribing
Phone number including country code
Country
2.2 Cancellations. Initial Annual Subscription. An initial annual
subscription comes with the option to cancel during the first 7 days and
receive a full refund, unless the subscription began with a free trial
period. (Also, no refund is available in the case of a gift
subscription.) The 7 day period begins on the day you register for the
subscription Service, which is also the day you are given access to the
subscription area of the Service. If you subscribe to the Service
following a free or other trial period, that trial period takes the
place of the 7 day cancellation period, and once the paid subscription
begins, no refund will be provided. Cancellations during the 7 days may
only be made by phone if you are a United States customer and must be
made by calling us at 1-800-262-3787 and providing the same information
that you provided when you subscribed. International customers must call
1-801-705-7620 during business hours or send an e-mail to
internationa...@ancestry.com and provide the following
information:
Hugh W
Brad Rogers
> 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"
clifto
> 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
Robert Melson
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
Dave Hinz
> 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.
Bruce Remick
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.
Bruce
Robert Melson
Dave Hinz <Dave...@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
clifto
> 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.
Charani
> 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/
Brad Rogers
> 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?
Dave Hinz
>
> "Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:4cpoq0F...@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.
Bruce Remick
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.
Bruce
Dave Hinz
> In article <4cpoq0F...@individual.net>,
> Dave Hinz <Dave...@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.
Christopher Jahn
>> 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.
>
>
Then you've never subscribed to TIME.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
... bleakness ... desolation ... plastic forks ...
Robert Melson
Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> writes:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 02:25:32 GMT, Robert Melson <mel...@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote:
>> In article <4cpoq0F...@individual.net>,
>> Dave Hinz <Dave...@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.
> 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.
>
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
Dave Hinz
> (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.
Aw, c'mon, I for one enjoy your posts.
Speaking of Bobs, Bob H, are you out there?
Colin Bearfield
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".
Best wishes
Colin
Henry Brownlee
"Robert Melson" <mel...@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote in message
news:yp1ag.4818$u4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
> 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
Robert Melson
Dave Hinz
> 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.
Christopher Jahn
news:ugbh6252dj7nv8bth...@4ax.com:
> 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.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Why is the cheese moving?
m...@privacy.net
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."
Please don't say any more.
Dave Hinz
> On 15 May 2006 17:28:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <Dave...@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>
m...@privacy.net
wrote:
>Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>news:ugbh6252dj7nv8bth...@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
Colin
Robert Melson
<m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>>news:ugbh6252dj7nv8bth...@4ax.com:
> 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
Christopher Jahn
news:fksh6259l2r8jng3l...@4ax.com:
> This forum is for discussing genealogy, but it is people like
> you that offer distractions. Don't do it. You're wrong again.
Pot? Kettle calling.
<plonk>
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Hey! Welcome back to Kansas!
Colin Bearfield
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.
Colin
Robert Melson
Colin Bearfield <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:56:36 GMT, mel...@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
Colin Bearfield
Melson) wrote:
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!
Colin
Noname
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. :-)
SRJ
--
Sherolyn
"Noname" <te...@iwaniw.net> wrote in message
news:1148063496....@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dave Hinz
> Not to mention some of the info they charge for is public knowledge.
And it's all in one place, conveniently waiting for you. Nobody forces
anyone to subscribe.
Christopher Jahn
news:hOobg.35043$mh.2...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
>
> 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.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
Be excellent to each other
Hugh Watkins
> I've been reading the posts about Ancestry.com with great
> interest...and chuckling quite a bit.
me too
you have no name so are not to be believed
Hugh W
daily blogs with new photos
http://slim2005.blogspot.com/
http://snaps2006.blogspot.com/
family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com
Hugh Watkins
> Not to mention some of the info they charge for is public knowledge.
>
they charge for using their servers
not the data on them
Noname
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. :-)
Dave Hinz
Hugh seems to have experience in the matter he comments on. We have no
way of knowing the validity of your claims.
Hugh Watkins
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
Hugh W
FamilyMatters
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.
Free Family Reunion Planner Organizer
Free Genealogy Tools And Resources
visit my site at http://family-reunion-planner.fimark.net
Dave Hinz
><--- 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_.
Bruce Remick
"FamilyMatters" <ibc...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:1148166687....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <--- 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.
Bruce