BEARD-L Archives

Archiver > BEARD > 2004-10 > 1097857125


From: Frederick Baird <>
Subject: Re: Combined Y Study
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:18:45 -0600


Hi Bruce and Curtis:
Thanks to all of you. There needs be no harsh feeling we can still
interchange ideas and help each other better this way.
I well remember the big flap on the discussion re? Baird-Beard mailing
list that Bruce refers to. Some wanted it together and others separate.
The Separatists prevailed and I think for the best. ,however that doesn't
stop anyone from joining or mailing to each other.
I have seen documents that the preparer spelled the name BEARD and where
the signer signed it BAIRD etc,on the very same doc.
I am excited about the advancement of DNA and how it can break down brick
wall, very reasonably, and point us on the RIGHT paper trail.
I couldn't help but think of the story of the three little pigs and the
big bad wolf who wanted to eat the little pigs, so he huffed and he
puffed and blew the straw and stick houses down, but prevailed not
against the brick house ( correct DNA). I have had two houses blown down
already because
I wasn't building the correct house.
I just hope and pray that this new one matches up. We have been snake
bitten soooo many times already, thats why my cousin decided to do his 12
marker test also.
I would hope that many of you undecided out there (RE/ DNA) BAIRDS and
BEARDS alike or BARDS decide to DNA and thwart the efforts of the BIG BAD
WOLF More comparison the better
sincerely
Fred Baird


On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:47:51 EDT writes:
Hi Curtis,

I'm happy to see that you hold no prejudice and I assume that we will
continue working together as we were before this matter came up.

BTW, I did click on the long link that Bennett sent out shortly after he
sent it. However, as I remember it, it took me to a page for new
prospects to join the new group and not the new group's GAP. Bennett
even said in his e-mail that it was an address to give to potential
recruits for the new site. Possibly he sent you a different link then he
sent me. After I clicked on Bennett's link, I clicked on the Baird Gap
and found no members there. Then I clicked on your old Bard Gap page
which you sent me, and found the 8 members there.

Even though it may be an inconvenience in handling the data, I think it's
best to keep the projects separate for the following reasons.

First, each project can have only one group administrator no matter how
many co-administrators it has. It appears to me the group administrator
has total control of his project since he can add or remove his
co-administrators as he sees fit. I think this is how it should be since
things seem to work better when one person is in charge.

Second, there is this attachment that people have to their own name.
Most Baird's don't consider themselves Bard's, Beard's, Biard's, or any
other spelling of their name, and the same holds true for each of those
names. Baird and Beard family historians have gotten use to
interchanging their names because they are so often interchanged with
each other in the records. But this interchange is not as common for
other spellings so there is a hesitancy for Baird's and Beard's to
associate with these other names. For example when we organized the
BAIRD Mailing List in 1995, we named it Baird, but specifically stated
that it was also for people named Beard and, of course, for variations,
although we didn't spell out the exact names of these variations. Then
in 1997, a Beard decided that he wanted his own mailing list and posted
this on the Baird list. A discussion ensued about why he shouldn't form
a separate group, but he did anyway. This was followed by a separate
Board group in 1998, a Bard group in 1999, and a Beaird group in 2000.
Everyone wanted there own surname mailing list, which means I have to
search separate archives instead if just one.

I bet the same thing will happen to the Y-chromosome surname projects.

Thirdly, FTDNA just made an offer to match up to $200 in test fees per
surname project for reducing the costs in order to attract new members.
As two surname projects, we could get a total of $400 in contributions,
but as a single project we couldn't get more than $200. Although we
probably won't take advantage of this offer, we may do so for similar
offers made in the future.

Bruce




In a message dated 10/14/2004 12:34:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
writes:
Bruce and Fred,
Yes, the GAPS have been separated again, but the link referred to OUR
study not MY study (with a combined description); i.e.: the combination Y
study when the GAPs were together.

After he moved them to your project, the Baird GAP was vacant and we
could no longer track people we had recruited regarding the progress of
their kits. This was very upsetting to us.
If you had clicked on the NEW GAP link that Bennett sent out (not working
now), you would have seen that you still had full access to all Baird AND
Bard data, full control of any and all changes necessary, and full access
to tracking of ALL the data not just the BAIRD data!

We all had mutual and common control of the study via the GAP link
Bennett sent.
In other words, all we had to do to have a combined study was agree on
the language and wording of the description, and the project goals, and
then we would all have had access to ALL the data equally!

I'm sorry you jumped to conclusions, and didn't understand the
implications of a combined study, and missed this opportunity to share
information and decision making equally.

I'll remove your description comments from the (now) separated study.

I hold no prejudice concerning this misunderstanding, and remain open to
the idea of a combined study. If you and Fred see the benefit, change
your minds, and wish to work together at any time in the future, please
let me know. Bennett will surely accommodate us, if we all agree.

Best,
Curtis

This thread: