Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119898297

From: "Gary Rea" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Macro vs. Micro View of Genetic Genealogy
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:51:37 -0500
References: <>

Again, I'm not saying I want to split the list. I did say that the
temptation to find an alternative is there, but, having no alternatives to
choose from, I remain subscribed to this list, post when I want to, and
delete it when it's of no interest to me, which is almost all the time. I
think there would BE more people here who are interested in actual genealogy
if the list hadn't become dominated by those who are more interested in
population studies, large scale migrations and DNA technical data. Since
subscribing, I have witnessed the people interested in genealogy dwindle to
almost none. Perhaps the list should be renamed to POPULATION-GENETICS-L?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Stafford" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Macro vs. Micro View of Genetic Genealogy

> Gary,
> I could go either way on it. I don't find the
> objections convincing. It just depends if there is
> enough interest in receiving genealogy-only emails.
> I think most of us who have read the list for a while
> would subscribe to both. However, my mailbox would
> have the same number of emails in it either way (as
> long as people didn't double post). It would be little
> different than labelling each email as genealogy or
> ancient ancestry. The biggest problem is where to draw
> the line.
> I don't see how any sense of community would be lost.
> We may actually gain more total members. I notice that
> many veterans interested in genealogy rarely post. I
> am sure a lot of newbies sign on and think there
> aren't any genealogists on the list
> If there are enough people out there who want to
> receive genealogy-only emails, I say go for it. It
> might be a good idea to discuss it off-line with the
> veteran surname project administrators who no longer
> follow the list.
> It is hard to assess newbie interest, since most of
> those dissatisfied with the list have presumably
> unsubscribed. However, I suggest that any interested
> email you privately.
> Bob Stafford
> --- Gary Rea <> wrote:
>> I don't know about you, but it seems evident to me
>> that this list has been completely taken over by
>> those whose focus is entirely upon the very
>> broad-brush picture of ancestry provided by MtDNA
>> studies, as opposed to the reason most of us got
>> into genetic genealogy in the first place; i.e., to
>> use Y-DNA data in conjunction with our "paper trail"
>> research to find specific ancestors with known
>> names. Whatever happened to that?
>> Endless discussions of the technical details of
>> haplotypes that include half the people of Europe
>> and endless speculations over which band of
>> nameless, faceless paleolithic ancestors migrated to
>> where from where have just left me so numb I don't
>> even bother to read the posts on this list anymore.
>> How about getting back to the root purpose of
>> surname studies; i.e., breaking down brickwalls in
>> conventional research and finding connections to
>> specific, known individuals? After you know you're
>> an R1B and your ancestors migrated out of Africa and
>> across the Eurasian continent, what else is there to
>> know about them? Will I ever know their names? No.
>> Will I ever know anything about how they lived their
>> individual lives? Only to the extent that
>> archaeology can provide any evidence of specific
>> settlements.
>> Am I the only one who feels the need for a separate
>> list for those of us who run surname studies, or
>> participate in them, and whose focus is upon
>> establishing links between ancestors who lived in
>> historical times?
>> Gary
>> ==============================
>> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million
>> records added in the
>> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the
>> world. Learn more:
> ______________________________

This thread: