GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1144539038


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] novice SMGF question
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 19:30:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4437C8A9.3040304@sbcglobal.net>


No, I haven't. Please note that this is the first time I've tried to get
something out of SMGF, despite my long involvement in genealogy and two-year
involvement with DNA projects. I'm not trying to anything "broad" in the way of
research, the way Ken and others are doing. I'm only trying to serve my
genealogy projects, specifically in this case, my STRAUB/STROUP project. This
one STROUP record in the SMGF database is the only record there I've ever cared
about extracting, hence my posting a "novice" SMGF question. The Subject of my
message didn't intend to imply that I'm a total novice, only that I was a novice
at using SMGF.

However, having just opened a "Danish Demes" regional project, I anticipate that
I will be making more use of the SMGF database. <Eeeuuu> But on that score,
the people I will appeal to are not the bureaucrats at SMGF, but the test
subjects, and my plea to them is to take your data and upload it to Ysearch.
That *will* solve the problem.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alfred A. Aburto Jr. [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 9:29 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] novice SMGF question
>
> Have you wrttten to them and asked why they don't show the actual
> mismatch between markers? It would be interesting to see
> their comment.
>
> They must realize that their current practice of showing "no match"
> doesn't really deter anyone from determining the actual
> mismatch between
> markers.
>
> Al
>
> > Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:
>
> >Man, you give me credit for a lot of power. I can't
> personally force them to
> >give me the time of day. But it hadn't occurred to me
> before... Maybe if the
> >SMGF database is shut down entirely, everyone in it will
> donate their data to
> >other, more accessible online databases. Teach the bumbling
> bureaucrats a
> >lesson.
> >
> >It amazes me that people resent sending their DNA to a
> commercial lab that makes
> >no claim to ownship (and no requirement for a pedigree), one
> that provides them
> >with fast service and a multitude of perks, but will eagerly
> turn around and
> >give away their DNA and a lifetime of genealogical research
> to another lab that
> >treats them like change from a nickle, then practically
> worship them for the
> >privilege of having done so. DNA testing isn't *that* expensive.
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: John Chandler [mailto:]
> >>Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 10:18 PM
> >>To:
> >>Subject: Re: [DNA] novice SMGF question
> >>
> >>Diana wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If they promised their test
> >>>subjects not to put their data on the web, they have failed
> >>>
> >>>
> >>to live up to that
> >>
> >>
> >>>promise because the data ARE on the web and ARE retrievable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Please don't say that so loudly. If the oversight board were
> >>to decide
> >>that the on-line database is, in itself, a violation of the
> protocols,
> >>the database would have to go away entirely. Do you really
> >>want to make
> >>a name for yourself as the one who personally forced the SMGF
> >>off the web??
> >>
> >> John Chandler
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ==============================
> Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more.
> Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn
> more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx
>
>
>


This thread: