TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264388902


From: <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Usability [was Genealogy as a discipline]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:08:22 -0600
References: <33c0e.1d06f600.388d1c9f@aol.com> <4B5C6A68.8050507@carolina.rr.com><5585892BD4C7406CBC4AF7D31AB1A910@acer511eba12df>
In-Reply-To: <5585892BD4C7406CBC4AF7D31AB1A910@acer511eba12df>


Larry wrote:
> since I've taken advanced methodology courses that had a focus on the BCG
GPS and have a proven familiarity with it, out of purely academic interest
I indicated that I thought some areas where improvements could be
introduced.


Larry, you have our sympathy for that powder incident, but it's good to hear
that you do mopping also. :) I've wondered what was inside one of those fire
extinguisher bottles.

Re the above snippet, I started to not ask; but my curiosity has gotten the
best of me....

Give your conclusion that the GPS is only a BCG tool for the certification
process, I'm puzzled how you could have "taken advanced methodology courses
based on the BCG GPS." BCG doesn't offer such a course. My own advanced
methodology course at the Samford IGHR is certainly rooted in the GPS, but
unless I slept through one week of it, I don't think you've attended.

If this presumptions holds, the logical conclusion would be that some other
institution also feels the GPS is important to genealogical methodology. But
then, given the extent to which you have issues with the GPS, I have to ask:
Are you basing your view of the GPS on what this other institution taught or
on what BCG itself teaches in its "skillbuilding" tracks at major
conferences?

Elizabeth

-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Tennessee




This thread: