GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111452493
From: adam bradford <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Splitting the List
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:48:13 -0500
Everyone seems to be jumping on the list-splitting bandwagon, but I'd
like to chime in and cast my vote with Jon.
That being said, if having one list has turned out to be such a burden
of time to the list administrator, I suppose I couldn't find fault
with a solution designed to relieve that burden somewhat. But that
would be the only reason I'd support a split.
While we're at it maybe we could create a
GENEALOGY-DNA-WEIRDTHEORY-PSEUDOHISTORY-L list. Whenever a
once-legitimate topic starts to seem like an episode of In Search Of -
it could be referred to that list, where topic drift would be the
order of the day.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:35:03 -0800 (PST), Jon Spencer
> It makes no sense to me to split the list. It is working fine the way it currently is, excepting for some people who can't seem to carry intelligent and constructive dialogs from time to time. The list moderator has handled that quite well in the past.
> Personally, I like the lively debates, the outstanding information, the upcoming events, the great scientific minds, and yes, the mumbo-jumbo!!
> BUT, if I'm not interested in a particular anthropological subject – I move on – and use the delete key - or whatever. Anyway, what's so difficult about that?
> I expect when this site began that just about everyone was a "newbie" struggling with terms, concepts and DNA testing in general. But, as time passed, more became "learned" with the help of each other, testing companies, etc. As sophistication grew and "newbies" became better informed, some tolerance levels went south and diminished patience overwhelmed some egos.
> There may not be as many needing information, since "newbies" can learn a great deal more now than probably many of the "oldies" on this list were able to do in the beginning. Maybe the "DNA genealogy" traffic is down because the "newbies" are getting their questions answered with the discussions on the list and with all of the OUTSTANDING DNA coordinators offering informative websites. I believe that as someone called them – the silent majority – are reading, making decisions from the give and take here, along with the outstanding contributions that this site offers a variety of peoples.
> If there is a "dislike" for R1b and I and Q and E3b, etc. and haplogroups discussions in general, then move on! Nobody is forcing the person to drink, no arm-twisting, or holding a gun to his or her head. What am I missing here?
> Too many want to "prove" relationships for their genealogical brick walls. Maybe everybody needs to get focused – back to the basics - and think about DNA testing and what it does best – you know – proving yes/no we are related. Keep in mind – it's one big lottery game - the SNPs, haplogroups, etc. is all fluff, gravy, or that ace in the hole. But, there is room for both under one roof, in this case, ONE website.
> I believe that many are not shy when there is something to contribute and I think many have pegged to whom they will respond, or if it needs to be in private. Some folks use this as their personal email, when they should be doing their messages in private after their initial hit. It only takes one time for somebody to respond half cocked to a "newbie" for him or her to go into hiding.
> So, I don't think that splitting the list is going to solve anything – if that is what some are trying to do – Incidentally, what is it you're trying to "solve" anyway? Maybe I should have begun with this question.
> If Anthropology is the science of human beings; "especially" the study of human beings in relation to distribution, origin, classification, and relationship of races, physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture - to be effective - don't we need genetics being the branch of biology that studies heredity and variation in organisms and last but not least the traditional genealogy which is the account of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms. Why would we want to isolate them from each other?
> I CAST MY VOTE: IT AIN'T BROKE – SO, LEAVE IT ALONE!
> PS: I haven't gotten back to the list to thank all of you (11) who sent me outstanding information on Surname Census and Migration Maps . Outstanding! and thanks to each of you. I'm still working on one program, that's a challenge, but I'll get there!
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records.
> New content added every business day. Learn more:
|Re: [DNA] Splitting the List by adam bradford <>|