TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264374235


From: "Jack V Butler" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Usability [was Genealogy as a discipline]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:03:55 -0500
References: <33c0e.1d06f600.388d1c9f@aol.com><4B5C6A68.8050507@carolina.rr.com><5585892BD4C7406CBC4AF7D31AB1A910@acer511eba12df>
In-Reply-To: <5585892BD4C7406CBC4AF7D31AB1A910@acer511eba12df>


Harold has not "opened the hood" of the GPS. Since it has been stated
repeatedly, I am just not sure whether you actually do not understand the
nature and the function of the GPS or if you are simply intent on ignoring
the fact that the BCG Standards currently under discussion are no part of
the GPS. They are part of the Data Collections Standards.

The GPS is a totally separate standard and is a creditability standard - a
standard intended to apply to the judging of the creditability or
reliability of a genealogical conclusion.

>From your many statements of the fact, I do understand that you do not wish
to be held to any BCG standards, or possibly any standard not generated by
yourself. But I truly do not understand why you think that the GPS would
apply to conclusions included in a certification portfolio but not to
conclusions made in other genealogical research. What would be the
difference?

Jack Butler



This thread: