Jean,
SSDI = Social Security Death Index. but I'm quite sure you knew that -
couldn't have ever read a book on American genealogy without knowing it!
As to the rest - my thoughts are in agreement with Lena's
Margaret.
At 03:42 PM 18/09/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I will not dignify the statement regarding $$$ with a response. It is an
>insult to every hard-working genealogist in the United States. There is no
>profit in genealogy unless you take the research of someone else and do not
>spend the hours and hours and travel the miles and miles to dig out the
>information. To insinuate otherwise only proves that you have not trodden
>that path yourself. As my CPA is fond of saying, "you may break even if
>you live to be 150!" If you wish to make money, you publish a trashy
>novel - you do not publish a family history.
>
>I have no idea what the SSDI base is, nor do I intend to find out. My
>entire research has been documented directly from the primary source and
>used only to preserve the 35 years of family histories entrusted to me.
>
>I have no fear of the internet whatsoever - What is there to fear? After
>teaching 25 years and completing 5 years of college, I do however, have a
>fear of the loss of an individual's right to preserve their own history,
>and a great fear of new knowledge being lost as authors and musicians are
>finding their materials stolen daily.
>Jean
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Lena A L <lal@algonet.se>
>To: <sinclair@mids.org>; milamba <milamba@milamba.com>
>Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 12:41 PM
>Subject: Re: Sinclair Genealogy Digest Number 11
>
>
> >Dear Jean and others who fear the Global Database,
> >
> >Jean Grigsby wrote:
> >>
> >> My feelings derive from the many, many people who have requested that
>their
> >> family history not be used for public consumption.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >The future Global base it not intended to be public in the sense that
> >the whole world population may access the base. It's for Sinclairs only,
> >that's why the base it NOT accessible via the net for the time being.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I can still recall my
> >> nephew calling me late one night as he had found my parents (his
> >> grandparents) listed on a website and only one child listed - me. He was
> >> extremely upset and to be quite frank so was I. I had never heard of the
> >> person and when contacted he admitted he had copied the data from a small
> >> family book I had published in 1970 - 29 years ago.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The important word above is the word PUBLISHED........ make it public...
> >and as you made it public there are no way of you stopping who ever from
> >doing the same as long as they have access to the source (unless they
> >violate rules of copywrite etc), just like you do when you quote some
> >other writer or person when giving information on this list.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I had only made 10
> >> copies for family members and unfortunately one of the recipients passed
> >> away and during this 20 year period it had ended up in an "in-laws"
>hands -
> >> a person not even related to the family.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >That is exactly why me and Margaret are the only ones, at the moment,
> >that have access to the base. In the future though a copy of the base
> >will be held in the Sinclair Archives in Scotland accessible to
> >researcher in the same way old documents are accessible.
> >
> >I think the fear has to do with fear of new technology but if we realize
> >that there are no relevant difference between documents that consists
> >of 101010101110000101010100111000010000, bit, byte, kb, mb etc and
> >documents made out of paper or old papyrus scrolls for that matter. When
> >it comes down to basics it's pure data all of it. And I am quite
> >convinced Jean that you would not argue that access to old documents are
> >the base of all historical research. And Jean, have you never used the
> >SSDI base on the net?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> This has become a concern for most professional genealogists and most of
> >> them are simply refusing to share their material.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm sorry Jean but I believe their motives for refusal has nothing to do
> >with the above. I think it has to do with $$$$$$$$. They will be out of
> >business if all data where easy accessible on the net. But that's a
> >whole different issue which I don't wish to discuss further.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I refuse to allow a few
> >> to disrupt what I feel is an important goal - hence my refusal to send
>out
> >> material on any branch unless the person requesting the material is a
>proven
> >> descendant of that branch.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, then there will be much easier when learning history in the
> >future. No kings, no generals, no regents or royal families to memorize
> >as there will be no public records of them left.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Perhaps others will be as honest as I have been and state their true
> >reasons
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >As managing director of a historical museum I know the importance of
> >leaving documentation behind for coming generations to explore, research
> >and learn from. My true reason for starting this project was to gather
> >as much information as possible in one place without any profit what so
> >ever for my self (more than the warm feeling that I might have helped
> >some future researcher in the year 2099). And then, of course,
> >professional genealogists do have to think of the profit....... I don't!
> >
> >Regards
> >Lena
> >[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
> >[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
>
>[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
>[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html