TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-01 > 1264357170


From: "LBoswell" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] BCG Standard #1
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:19:30 -0500
References: <3e2fba731001230821y3d8f747i57213ad10ef9bb42@mail.gmail.com><3e2fba731001231113h54da9ae3r6c1a7ab56a42fcdc@mail.gmail.com><4B5BBA92.30007@carolina.rr.com><C8BCB9ACDC864461BAB81137B0222D84@acer511eba12df><34E2CE8FBBDB4E508B4230947DEE9EF5@ALISONOFFICE>
In-Reply-To: <34E2CE8FBBDB4E508B4230947DEE9EF5@ALISONOFFICE>


typo: didn't mean to say it should be withdrawn whether or not there are
microfilm copies or not. That would raise another question. What if the
material is becoming damaged, but yet hasn't been filmed or digitized.
Should it continue to be left open to access, or should it be protected
until it can be filmed/copied?

But Allison, I just checked again to see if there had been changes of late,
but I still see both text and microfilm copies simultaneously available for
various records? Some may be unavailable at the moment while "descriptive
purposes" process is ongoing, but I see no signs that they won't be
available again (the text and microfilm copies have been available together
as long as I can remember).

I wasn't referring to 'withdrawn material' at all. Sorry if I caused you
to check unnecessarily, but I reread my post and I think it clearly says
original material that has also been microfilmed, and where that's the case
the researcher should choose to look at the microfilm only rather than the
text document.

Larry


This thread: