GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-01 > 1106757542


From: Whitney Keen <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Suggestion
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:39:02 -0500
References: <D3836276CCAF084BA9EB1B814552B70F12CB3A@emailsvr.conrad.org>
In-Reply-To: <D3836276CCAF084BA9EB1B814552B70F12CB3A@emailsvr.conrad.org>


Good idea, if I can remember how to spell it.
Whitney Keen

Mike Harper wrote:

> Has anyone tried spelling it out as deoxyribonucleic acid?
>
> Michael Harper
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Barton [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 8:49 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [DNA] Suggestion
>
> John, I appreciate and support your proposed approach, and recommend it
> in
> general. But, I don't believe it addresses the real issue we face. Our
> problem is the continued removal of postings about an important aspect
> of
> modern genealogy. The removals have no consistent pattern or basis,
> other
> than the use of the word "DNA" and many are not being done by the Board
> and
> List managers. There is no set of rules that you can follow, if you
> intend
> to use the phrase "DNA" and still hope to avoid removal over time.
> These
> problems are not being suffered only by those who have simply shown up
> "out
> of nowhere" one day, posting about a DNA Project. And, the removals are
> not
> only on those postings which have some "commercial" slant. I had one
> posting removed which simply announced that we had new results and
> information, which could be read at the website.
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx
>


This thread: