I totally agree

Barbara

How do we get rd of this clown? Is there someone we have to send an
email to, or what?

Jesus.

HR.
===========
In article 4ax.com>, MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk wrote:

"Lesley Robertson" wrote in message
news:Daadnd7lS_IlvQzYRVnyhgA@infopact.nl...

"Charani" wrote in message
news:4590f80a$0$97270$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

RM: The trick is to identify which (non-public record) parts of family
histories in gedcoms are factual and which are not. Without that
extraordinary ability, a defendant in a damages suit could not prove that
only facts were copied.

It would be even more risky if the author of an original work indicated
in some way that not every part of the work was factual - thus removing
from freeloaders the defence that they believed they were dealing with
facts.

get the full story at
http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/press/TELOfficePressReleases/JigsawPressReleaseDec2006...

Hello, I've looked at past posts, and think this is an appropriate
question for the group.... I want to get back into working on
genealogy. When I started, I imported someone else's research into
mine - close to 5,000 names of people related to my great grandmother.
As a newbie, it was very exciting. After working on the tree a few
years and learning more about genealogy, I'm still glad to have access
to the other person's research, but I really wish I hadn't merged it in
with mine. Short of reentering all of "my" information, does anyone
have advice on how to approach this problem?

My current software is "The Master Genealogist v6." I'm new to it,
having bought it about 2 years ago, but not using it much since I
realized what I really should do before adding more information is
clean up what I have.

Thank you for your thoughts and time.
Katie

Hugh,

For what it's worth, I think this deceased equine has been thoroughly
beaten. Not that I'm unsympathetic to your desires regarding
publishing and protecting your Sullivan material, just that the
discussion always circles back to the basic fact that if they can
see it, they can copy it in some means or manner and there's not a
damn thing you can do to prevent that.

You can make it more difficult, surely - throwing up graphic images,
for example, slows down those who'd republish your material unattributed
by adding extra steps.

You can protect your material through "obscurity" - e.g., publishing
only a list of what's available and asking folks to contact you for
specific material. You can choose whether to grant the request after
checking their bona fides through whatever mechanism you wish - perhaps
requiring referrals by two known/previously "registered" Sullivan
researchers.

I am a visual person and the interface is very appealing. I also like
the idea that it is gecom-based so, in theory, you would not lose
anything when sharing (FTM has a reputation for losing notes and
sources when exporting) They also claim to be able to print a tree
with all members. I would like to see all children on a chart, not
just direct ancestors.

I'd like to hear from anyone who has used the software and find out if
it's as they claim. I don't mind paying the higher price if it's a
good program.

On 17 Dec 2006 17:14:20 GMT, Dave Hinz gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:38:35 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan adelphia.net> wrote:

From a technical standpoint, if they can display it, they can save it.
Doesn't mean you want to or should just post a downloadable GEDCOM or
editable documents. What I was saying about portability was more of so
that if you want to change hosting providers, you can pick it up and
move it without having to jump through hoops.

Sounds like a blog would be good then - people can contribute but you
can set yourself up as the moderator or editor, so only you can publish
the content. It also lets you worry about the content and not have to
sit down and learn frontpage or whatever web software, things like the
WordPress blogging software are just like writing in MS word, formatting
icons & all that sort of thing. "click here to add a link", and so on.