BEARD-L Archives

Archiver > BEARD > 2004-10 > 1097954852


From: "dspencer" <>
Subject: Re: [BEARD] Re: Combined Y Study
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:27:45 -0600
References: <003301c4b2ec$1b816f70$1502a8c0@francesvw10d4c>


Two more cents. My Edward Beard's son Samuel F. was converted to Baird at
some time, hence my Baird line. I can imagine the county clerk or census
taker, (not Irish), trying to understand Samuel F. Beard's heavy Irish
accent during some recordable transaction, in which Beard becomes Baird, or
Bard, or any one of several other spellings. Think of all the family names
since time began that were convoluted in the same manner. Whew!!!
Del Spencer, in Colorado
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frances" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: [BEARD] Re: Combined Y Study


> May I stick my 2 cents worth in. I have documented proof of Beard and
> Baird
> in the same family and by that I mean brothers. So no one can say for
> sure
> what the correct spelling is. Mine starts in the 1600 and by the 1700
> most
> were Beards but some adopted Baird as a last name. No Bards so far. .
> It
> does not appear to be that it was because of locality. Just some unknown
> reason so far. Frances
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frederick Baird" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:18 AM
> Subject: [BEARD] Re: Combined Y Study
>
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> ==== BEARD Mailing List ====
>> Have you tried Cyndi's List of Genealogy Sites on the Internet?
>> http://www.CyndisList.com
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________


This thread: