GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-03 > 1047073869


From: Charles <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] MALLINDER/SWALLOW fam histy -- lab recommendation
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:51:09 -0500
References: <6f.3634b20b.2b9a6814@cs.com>


Dear Bob,

Thou protests too much. You started the name calling, as you are calling
it, by labeling other folks in this forum "cheerleaders", not I.

And while Ancestry.com and Relative Genetics are indeed two separate
companies, Ancestry.com was marketing Relative Genetics DNA lab testing
services, i.e., using Relative Genetics as their test lab. So your
attempts to separate any responsibilities for the problems experienced
with Ancestry.com's test results from Relative Genetics are totally
illogical. In my opinion you are trying to muddy the water as to who is
responsible for problem lab results obtained last year from the
Ancestry.com/Relative Genetics.

The incorrect DYS454 and DYS455 results were received directly from
Relative Genetics personnel and not from Ancestry.com. The problems with
them not following the discoverer's protocols or not being in
calibration for those two markers is with Relative Genetics not
Ancestry.com.

I've only been here a week but I noticed your "cheerleading" name
calling pretty quickly. I thought it was time to address it.

Geez, do you own stock in Relative Genetics. Why are you so sensitive
and not recognizing that they had some problems last year. Why not just
accept it and move on. You addressed me specifically and asked me why I
prefer FamilyTreeDNA and I told you.

Charles



wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ==============================
> To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to:
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

This thread: