GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1109877373
Subject: Re: [DNA] Open and Closed Genealogy and DNA population LIMITATIONS
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:16:13 +0000
There seem to be some major differences concerning our understanding of the structure of a message. When someone posts some literal Biblical interpretation of dating for creation and then inludes a link to prop up their statements then it is part of the posting, and if part A is inappropriate then so is part B. Furthermore, your argument about a "tiff' you may or may not have had with the IRS has no applicability in the context of the subject we are discussing. You would presumably not be posting details of a new I1a discovery and including a clickable link to a website outlining your woes in relation to the IRS all in the same posting.
-------------- Original message --------------
> David and I have a knack for triggering strong reactions from each other's
> messages, so I will work to keep this message under control.
> I agree with David's first sentence. The messages from someone to our list
> which are seeking to support literal biblical genealogy speak for themselves
> and should be rejected as appropriate to this list on their face value and
> face content. Fine!
> But David's second sentence goes too far. It reminds me of the problem we
> had a month ago with some messages about caves up in Finland and claims of
> some super early genetic line living up there and being the origin for
> various northern populations of today. I don't think it is appropriate to
> attack contributors to the list on the basis of links to other web sites
> that are not a direct part of the message to the list. First of all, it
> involves imputing motive for a contributor's message. That's not our
> business. We are to respond to the objective or non-objective content of
> the message. Many people have a life beyond genetic genealogy, and their
> connections to other things should not be material to be dug up to shoot
> down their message to the list. Their message to us is the issue ---
> period --- it is credible or not on its own merits.
> The next thing I know someone is going to find on the web that I once sued
> the IRS and lost .... and therefore my views concerning haplogroup I1a are a
> bunch of baloney.
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Open and Closed Genealogy and DNA population LIMITATIONS
> > . This is not a forum in which to promulgate religious fundamentalist
> views that have nothing whatsoever to do with DNA. Click on the last link
> if you wish to see the poster's true intent.
> > David F.
|Re: [DNA] Open and Closed Genealogy and DNA population LIMITATIONS by|