GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-03 > 1047072276


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] MALLINDER/SWALLOW fam histy -- lab recommendation
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:24:36 EST


In a message dated 3/7/03 2:29:54 PM Central Standard Time,
writes:


> Are you deliberately being naive or are you just a Relative Genetics
> cheerleader/booster in this forum?

So, it is down to name calling now. If you do cheer for FTDNA, you get called
names. I asked you to describe the good points of FTDNA's products and you
respond with ad hominem attacks.

I guess giving an objective evaluation of the the strengths and weaknesses of
the various firms doesn't sit well with some FTDNA boosters. Since you refuse
to learn anything about RG's product, how can you pretend to be able to
compare the two companies?

First of all, Ancestry and RG are not the same company. I can't understand
why this concept is so difficult for you. Do I need to get a lawyer's
opinion? You had no relationship with RG. Ancestry was responsible for the
product delivered to you If they thought RG was doing a bad job, they should
have found another lab. It appears that the shoe was on the other foot though.

Now, which CREDIBLE RG direct customer are you talking about? I know of only
two who post here.

Jim's previous posts resulted from an earlier Ancestry (or RG?) result.
Inititially, he was dissatisified because the result proved a cousin was
unrelated. In other words, Jim's genealogy was wrong. Jim was unhappy, so he
told us there was an error in the results. We were supposed to chip in for
some tests. Nobody bought in and he unsubscribed.

Now, we learn that Jim had this person retested and, low and behold, the RG
results were right. They were unrelated. However, one site was off. Jim won't
try to determine the cause. Yet he apparently wants us to chip in for his
error testing.

Given these circumstances, I would not consider Jim's opinions to be very
objective.

Bbo Stafford





Bob

This thread: