APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2001-06 > 0992968410

From: "Mills" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] BCG Standards Manual
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:33:30 -0500
References: <df.16572e94.2860306f@aol.com>

Debbie wrote:
>For . . . the BCG project, we are trying to determine if we are
> interpreting what the manual is asking us to use. Since one of the areas
> that you are judged on is the ability to follow directions, it is
> to know that you have understood those directions. At times they seem
> ambiguous. It could be intentional, to see if one can make a rational
> decision,

Debbie, let me assure you that nothing BCG writes is "intentionally
ambiguous." The problem is one all writers have -- being "so close to their
material" that it is difficult to perceive how the words could be
interpreted by readers who aren't familiar with it at all. With every
printing of every piece of literature, BCG's trustees try to refine the
wording to eliminate ambiguity. That is why discussions such as the one you
generated here on APG-L are so valuable -- and why Helen, yesterday,
encouraged everyone to continue asking questions when something does not
seem clear.

As Helen also says from time to time, BCG *wants* all professional
genealogists to be certified. That's the best hope our field has to avoid
the governmental regulations that eventually but inevitably are imposed
whenever a field does not establish its own criteria for professionalism and
ethics. So there are no "trick questions" to keep BCG's ranks lean or elite!

Elizabeth Shown Mills,
BCG Trustee (and former president)

This thread: