GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1109882466


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Open and Closed Genealogy and DNA population LIMITATIONS
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <030320051947.7440.422769E10007044600001D102207001641050B989A0E00@comcast.net>


List:

Well, first, I agree with Jim - this guy's got far too
much time on his hands and has over-explored every
religious/esoteric/pseudo-scientific theory out there.
Just on a personal note, I'm continually amused to
see these theories about how Celts and other European
populations are more genetically Jewish than the Jews
themselves. The claim Tom makes - supposed descent
from Jewish Priests - can be easily verified by DNA
testing.

As to the issue regarding posting this kind of
material, I think one could argue that Rootsweb's User
Policy is fairly clear - you can contribute
appropriate content to the list discussions. I
interprete this to mean that the content must be
generally on-topic or consistent with the focus of the
list. The topic of the list as stated: "Anyone with
DNA who would like to discuss methods and share
results of DNA testing as applied to genealogical
research." I'm sure Ann can (and will) clarify this
further.

Since URL's is meant to bring you to link conveying
further information, I think David's argument
regarding the link being "de facto" part of the post
gains support. You really don't know what is
contained in the URL until you click on it. And that
may bring you to some information that you would have
prefered to not read and would rather not have clicked
on in the first place. It may have nothing whatsoever
to do with DNA or genealogy research. And you can't
tell what's in the link until you have clicked on it &
read it, right?

However, this particular Tinney thread is a little
more complicated than Tom simply posting his URL. The
original post by Tom questioned the accuracy of DNA
testing in general being able to trace genetic links
back before the period of the Roman Empire. This
belief seems to based on Tom's religious convictions,
but these convictions were not part of the original
posting. I enjoyed reading Charles digging into Tom's
supposed 4000 B.C. genealogical data, which again
didn't bring up any objectionable religious doctrines.
After that, I'm not clear who posted the URL leading
readers to some really extensive "Mormon" religious
ideology. It may simply have been an attempt by
Charles to expose Tom's somewhat-hidden rationale in
objecting to DNA testing.

Ellen Coffman



--- wrote:

> Ken, do me a favor and just this one time let me
> have the last word.
>
> A posting is a wholistic entity. It is also of
> finite length dictated by the rules of the hosting
> authority (most of us have been criticized for going
> over this length - usually because we forgot to crop
> the attached earlier postings). Therefore people
> cannot include everything they wish to say in a
> single posting and so resort to including a URL
> linking to a more detailed elaboration of the
> subject. Thus it is defacto part of the posting.
> QED. :-)
>
> David F.
>
>
> > >
> > ==============================
> > New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and
> search for your ancestors at
> > the same time. Share your tree with family and
> friends. Learn more:
> >
>
http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&target
>
> > id=5429
> >
>
>
> ==============================
> New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and
> search for your ancestors at the same time. Share
> your tree with family and friends. Learn more:
>
http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429
>
>




This thread: