TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-03 > 1268010562


From: Jeanette Daniels <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Examples with every standard
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 17:09:22 -0800 (PST)
References: <mailman.13626.1267912773.2663.transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com><BAY144-W1D98FE285D3A9B1715C1BCA370@phx.gbl><356396.88374.qm@web35907.mail.mud.yahoo.com><72f804b41003070751h2b121485ob842a04134c28860@mail.gmail.com><726270.47532.qm@web35903.mail.mud.yahoo.com><72f804b41003070957y6c331706vc9b03f2d880217b7@mail.gmail.com><2F31C2BE1C6341599ECE29B5B246800A@acer511eba12df><COL108-DS223F59F6F8176B843249C692350@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <COL108-DS223F59F6F8176B843249C692350@phx.gbl>


Larry and Michael,

Thank you. I appreciate your emails. The Theory Gen email might be a good
place for this. I feel strongly that there does need to be an open discussion from
any genealogists regardless of experience level. I am planning to open a website
dedicated to discussing the Best Practices, standards in general for the profession and
educational ideas and ethics for genealogists. This would be very open and give all
a chance to develop "our profession" together as a group rather than only a few
creating their own and telling the rest of us that it is already done and we can't contribute.

The focus on this list is for those transitioning from doing their own to taking clients
and also expanding that to self-sustaining genealogy businesses. I believe that through
my contacts here in Salt Lake City with the genealogical community that I would be able
to enlist the professionals not showing up on the APG email lists or on the TGF email list.
That way, there would be a greater expansion of ideas and a sense that everyone may
contribute. That's what I am hoping for.

I will definitely let everyone know when the website is ready. In the meantime, Larry's
theorygen email site, sounds great.

Jeanette Daniels
Heritage Genealogical College
Salt Lake City, UT




----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Hait <>
To:
Sent: Sun, March 7, 2010 5:56:10 PM
Subject: Re: [TGF] Examples with every standard

Regarding the standards, I think that a discussion of both "what's it mean?"
and "what's wrong with it?" could be appropriate to this list. The problem
that I think Christy may have is that the "what's it mean?" indeed involves
discussion among both transitionals and well-experienced professionals,
whereas the "what's wrong with it?" is dominated almost solely by the
professionals, at times losing the transitionals altogether. Obviously,
that sort of discussion is not appropriate for a list centered on the
experiences and learning of transitionals.

Not to say, however, that either question is *inherently* wrong for the
list. I think we all need to be able to see when a discussion is headed in
the wrong direction, and police ourselves, so that Christy can watch over
her children, rather than us.

Any discussion on the standards that might be more appropriate for
TheoryGen, however, can count me in -- at least as much as I am able. After
all, I do have work to do. ;)

Thanks, Larry, for offering to move some of this discussion to the TheoryGen
list. I would love to see it get used more often -- for other discussions
as well.

Michael

--------------------------------------------------
From: "LBoswell" <>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 7:32 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Examples with every standard

> I'll point out that the discussion about the standards started out with my
> being questioned as to where the weaknesses were (which I add referred to
> in
> general terms). So I think the way the standards have been discussed has
> also included a discussion some of the inadequacies of particular
> standards,
> or parts thereof, which Elizabeth has also thanked the list for addressing
> (because it's produced some useful ideas for revising same in the future).
>
> In the last few standards most of the above (pointing out inadequacies)
> has
> not come from those who don't accept the standards, it's come from those
> who
> are committed to them but who see weaknesses or inappropriate inclusions.
> That has gone beyond looking at each " standard; what it means, what is
> does
> not mean, it belongs on this list." If revisions are being considered, I
> think this is exactly the list where shortcomings in wording, or similar
> should be pointed out by those for whom the standards are essential.
>
> I agree that question the standards 'as a whole' may be beyond the scope
> of
> newbies, and is probably more geared to those with a thorough
> understanding
> of the standards and their "overall" shortcomings. For this latter type of
> discussion, I'd (with Christy's permission) offer my yahoo list, TheoryGen
> (currently swept clean and dormant) as being a good venue for that type of
> no restrictions, no holds barred, brainstorming type discussion of
> genealogy
> and the idea of standards in general.
>
> But on this list, I hope that the standards discussion can continue to
> also
> focus on the shortcomings or inadequacies (or the opposite, the strengths)
> *within* individual standards. That's what the discussion was also about
> in
> the beginning. Changing the discussion in midstream to one that is held
> exactly to "what's it mean" is to my mind, is less useful for a
> transitional
> genealogy (because part of the confusion or misunderstanding someone
> coming
> to these standards in the first place may feel might actually be arising
> from a lack of clarity in some parts of some standards. Poor wording, poor
> examples in some cases). That part of the discussion held some good
> outcomes for later possible revisions.
>
>
> Larry Boswell BA, PLCGS
> www.TheBackstairs.com
> http://thebackstairs.com/blog/
> "Historical & Genealogical Research Services"
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Craig R. Scott, CG
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 12:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [TGF] Examples with every standard
>
>
> We are talking about two different things.
>
> If we are talking about a discussion of a specific standard; what it
> means,
> what is does not mean, it belongs on this list and I am all for it. I
> applaud the effort so far as meaningful and insightful, not to mention
> helpful to many including myself. Understanding the standards is
> fundamental
> to being a better genealogist.
>
> That is not what I was referring to.
>
> I am referring to the desire of some to; present the standards as the
> work
> of a few and therefore not representative of genealogy; the inadequacy of
> those standards; the need for the format of the standard to change so
> that
> people will have more time for research instead of coming to a personal
> understanding of what the standards mean. To give them fish, rather than
> teach them to fish.
>
> Harold has said the cat who wants to be king should look at the king. I
> agree, even though my comments were not directed to those who would study
> the standard, but berate them.
>
> But the Duke of Monmouth reminds us what happens when the cat decides to
> do
> more than look, to attempt to become king, to change the standards,
> without
> following the standards of the time. Thank goodness the Duchess
> Buccleugh,
> Ann, was a duchess in her own right and did not participate in James


-------------------------------
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: