Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264365662

From: "Michael Hait" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Usability, ethical standards & BCG #2
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:41:02 -0500
References: <> <> <> <> <004101ca9d10$13e6c990$3bb45cb0$@net><> <005f01ca9d2a$1b115b30$51341190$@net><COL108-DS9F514EFB2950815324ACF92600@phx.gbl><008e01ca9d34$c7c64340$5752c9c0$@net>
In-Reply-To: <008e01ca9d34$c7c64340$5752c9c0$@net>

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I personally do not feel that it is
unnecessary - just that I understand the reason for disputing this standard.

I might suggest that BCG have either a separate code of ethics or a section
in the Standards Manual labeled "Code of Ethics."

But, I do understand why the BCG included this among the Standards. The BCG
Standards are "all-in-one" - unlike NGS which has, I believe, four separate
"Guidelines," and APG, which has simply a "Code of Ethics."


From: <>
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 3:35 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Usability, ethical standards & BCG #2

> Michael wrote:
>>This is why there is some dispute about BCG Standard #2 -- it seems to be
> more of an ethical rule, and as you state, "in no way a standard of
> proof."
> Michael, I'm not sure I understand you here--which means I obviously did
> not
> explain myself well enough. :)
> The 74 numbered standards in the BCG Standards Manual are not "standards
> of
> proof." The Genealogical Proof Standard is the standard by which a
> determination of "proof" is evaluated. The 74 are standards are standards
> that examine various aspects of our work as genealogists.
> Elizabeth
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
> message

This thread: