GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111613274


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Please don't split the list.
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:27:54 +1200
References: <42419643.6060503@scs.uiuc.edu> <42419995.1030400@kerchner.com> <004901c52fcb$72c9c6e0$eb409145@Ken1>


I agree with Ken. I am concerned that splitting the list would sap the two
"half lists" of a lot of their vital energy.

The vote showed about two thirds don't want the list split.

Retiring (burned out?) "List Mom" today posted a reference to "ancient DNA"
including by some definitions sources only 140 years old. There is just too
much grey area between the poles, to easily wrench the list appart at a
"mutually agreeable" point. If only 37% agree to splitting the list at all,
could you get more than 5% to agree on the exact point at which to make the
split?

In my view, ancient/ deep ancestry DNA and genealogy DNA is a seemless
continuum. Advances, such as are likely with SNPs, are likely to extend
the "genealogy" back to the ancients. Hypothetically, the day may come when
a SNP test might "prove" a person specifically descends on the direct male
line from Charlemagne, Rollo, or a specific Roman Emperor. If this is to
happen, the break through might very well come about as a result of exchange
of ideas on a vibrant, broad scoped list.

Charles has a favorite saying, "synergy at work". My dictionary says
synergy means "the working together of two or more drugs, muscles etc, to
produce an effect greater than the sum of their individual effects." My
feeling is that severing one arbitary part of the ancient/ recent genealogy
DNA study continuum from the other part, is going to reduce the scope for
synergy of the parts.

Recently it was noted that a hard core of obsessed DNA genealogists
accounted for the vast majority of list postings. The list gets it's energy
from the posters, not from the "silent majority", of perhaps not yet
obsessed DNA genealogists. Perhaps some of the "silent majority", are only
half serious about DNA, and only want half a list, and perhaps they are in
the 37% who want the list split. I think the list benefits by diversity.
As most obsessed DNA genealogists, the heaviest list users/ contibuters/
addicts, seem to have broad interests, I think it would be wise to keep the
list together, as these obsessed people are the ones who breathe life into
the list, even if the breath gets a bit hot and bothered at times.

I previously stated my opinion that the list should be kept as one. This
posting is an appeal for the new list administrators to "please" consider
that democracy has spoken, with a two to one majority for keeping the list
alive, vital, undivided, and whole.

John.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] list split


> Charles, If your are asking for another vote, a.l.a. Florida, I think
> splitting the list will be a profound mistake. I think you and Doug
should
> serve as co-administrators of the List after Ann leaves, assuming that is
> fine with you two, of course.
>
> Ken


This thread: