GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1265646792
From: "Ron" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] FTDNA reporting issues: what about 522- 523- ?
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:33:12 -0600
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 22:26:00 EST, Ann writes:
> Not meaningless -- it's one of the possible conventions, and actually the
> one I had hoped FTDNA would follow after my correspondence with them last
> year, since FTDNA and SMGF would then be in synch.
As long as we can agree that reporting 524.1C 524.2A is a boldface error and not a "matter of convention," "nomenclature issue," etc., the latter of which FTDNA has maintained until Eileen set the record straight on 2010 February 2, then I think we're on the same page. I've never cared which convention is adopted, as long as the insertions were reported correctly. To maintain that FTDNA's reporting (prior to the late October 2009 changes) was simply because "of the absence of a clearly defined rule set" (Bennett's own words - 6 Apr 2009) when the rule set has always been defined clearly as: 523insCA is equivalent to 524insAC; 522-523delCA is equivalent to 523-524delAC ..., wouldn't you agree that this is irresponsible, if not a subterfuge? Just as Thomas' reply to Ian four days ago?