Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
-
Ye Old One
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:47:25 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
I asked "Q" a question earlier, but so far no answer. Maybe you would
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
THINK.
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little confidence in
that.
DSH
------------------------------------
Rules:
1. Famous People are generally fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
5. There is NO "One Size Fits All" Approach Here. One must know the
precise situation and then judge accordingly.
6. It's also a question of to WHOM the genealogical information is being
released -- e.g., a trusted Family Member alone -- or to the Great Unwashed
General Public -- with malicious axes to grind.
7. For example, I know details about distant relatives -- some of whom are
quite famous -- which I would NEVER release to the Great Unwashed General
Public -- but I might share privately with a trusted Family Member of
wisdom, care, sensitivity, judgment and discretion whom I TRUST.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little confidence in
that.
DSH
------------------------------------
Rules:
1. Famous People are generally fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
5. There is NO "One Size Fits All" Approach Here. One must know the
precise situation and then judge accordingly.
6. It's also a question of to WHOM the genealogical information is being
released -- e.g., a trusted Family Member alone -- or to the Great Unwashed
General Public -- with malicious axes to grind.
7. For example, I know details about distant relatives -- some of whom are
quite famous -- which I would NEVER release to the Great Unwashed General
Public -- but I might share privately with a trusted Family Member of
wisdom, care, sensitivity, judgment and discretion whom I TRUST.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:47:25 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid,
Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
I asked "Q" a question earlier, but so far no answer. Maybe you would
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
-
Ye Old One
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:14 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Clearly you didn't, if you had you would not have top posted your
reply.
Mmmmm. Last time I looked this was usenet, a place where at any one
time a very large majority do not use thier own name.
So, a few hours ago you just needed 4 rules, now you need 7. At this
rate there will be thousands by the end of the week.
Still, you didn't answer the question I put to you. Would you like to
go back up the thread and have another go? And this time have the
decency to reply correctly.
--
Bob.
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:47:25 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid,
Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
I asked "Q" a question earlier, but so far no answer. Maybe you would
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
Moronic posting style corrected.
THINK.
Clearly you didn't, if you had you would not have top posted your
reply.
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little confidence in
that.
Mmmmm. Last time I looked this was usenet, a place where at any one
time a very large majority do not use thier own name.
DSH
------------------------------------
Rules:
1. Famous People are generally fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
5. There is NO "One Size Fits All" Approach Here. One must know the
precise situation and then judge accordingly.
6. It's also a question of to WHOM the genealogical information is being
released -- e.g., a trusted Family Member alone -- or to the Great Unwashed
General Public -- with malicious axes to grind.
7. For example, I know details about distant relatives -- some of whom are
quite famous -- which I would NEVER release to the Great Unwashed General
Public -- but I might share privately with a trusted Family Member of
wisdom, care, sensitivity, judgment and discretion whom I TRUST.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
So, a few hours ago you just needed 4 rules, now you need 7. At this
rate there will be thousands by the end of the week.
Still, you didn't answer the question I put to you. Would you like to
go back up the thread and have another go? And this time have the
decency to reply correctly.
--
Bob.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
THINK.
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little confidence in
that.
Suspicions Confirmed...
"Ye Old One" is Non Compos Mentis and not a serious genealogical researcher.
John 5:14
DSH
------------------------------------
Rules:
1. Famous People are generally fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
5. There is NO "One Size Fits All" Approach Here. One must know the
precise situation and then judge accordingly.
6. It's also a question of to WHOM the genealogical information is being
released -- e.g., a trusted Family Member alone -- or to the Great Unwashed
General Public -- with malicious axes to grind.
7. For example, I know details about distant relatives -- some of whom are
quite famous -- which I would NEVER release to the Great Unwashed General
Public -- but I might share privately with a trusted Family Member of
wisdom, care, sensitivity, judgment and discretion whom I TRUST.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little confidence in
that.
Suspicions Confirmed...
"Ye Old One" is Non Compos Mentis and not a serious genealogical researcher.
John 5:14
DSH
------------------------------------
Rules:
1. Famous People are generally fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
5. There is NO "One Size Fits All" Approach Here. One must know the
precise situation and then judge accordingly.
6. It's also a question of to WHOM the genealogical information is being
released -- e.g., a trusted Family Member alone -- or to the Great Unwashed
General Public -- with malicious axes to grind.
7. For example, I know details about distant relatives -- some of whom are
quite famous -- which I would NEVER release to the Great Unwashed General
Public -- but I might share privately with a trusted Family Member of
wisdom, care, sensitivity, judgment and discretion whom I TRUST.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:47:25 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid,
Discriminating Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
I asked "Q" a question earlier, but so far no answer. Maybe you would
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
-
Janet
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
1. Famous People are fair game. Not if they are still living like Val
Kilmer
Janet
-------Original Message-------
From: D. Spencer Hines
Date: 08/13/06 13:58:51
To:
Subject: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/2006
..
Kilmer
Janet
-------Original Message-------
From: D. Spencer Hines
Date: 08/13/06 13:58:51
To:
Subject: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.9/417 - Release Date: 8/11/2006
..
-
Q
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:532vd2pmbuetdq6ag50ubpuh2sqn2vf0u4@4ax.com...
No kidding. Are they all "despicable cowards," or am I the only one who
is? -- Q
news:532vd2pmbuetdq6ag50ubpuh2sqn2vf0u4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:14 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:47:25 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To
Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid,
Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
I asked "Q" a question earlier, but so far no answer. Maybe you would
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
Moronic posting style corrected.
THINK.
Clearly you didn't, if you had you would not have top posted your
reply.
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little confidence
in
that.
Mmmmm. Last time I looked this was usenet, a place where at any one
time a very large majority do not use thier own name.
No kidding. Are they all "despicable cowards," or am I the only one who
is? -- Q
-
Q
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:StKDg.33$M14.754@eagle.america.net...
you are addressing have no idea what a Grey Area is. -- Q
news:StKDg.33$M14.754@eagle.america.net...
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid,
Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
That's exactly what I think. I also think that quite a few of the people
you are addressing have no idea what a Grey Area is. -- Q
-
Ian Singer
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
But if the information has already been published elsewhere, or is
available through public sources, I say it's OK to compile it and
publish on a genealogy website such as mine.
Ian Singer
--
=========================================================================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
=========================================================================
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
But if the information has already been published elsewhere, or is
available through public sources, I say it's OK to compile it and
publish on a genealogy website such as mine.
Ian Singer
--
=========================================================================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
=========================================================================
-
Paul J Gans
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
In soc.history.medieval Q <quondam1@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
Is D. Spencer Hines his real name? He says it is, but if you
look around you will find that impossible to verify.
You will also discover that logic is not his strong point, though
he's quite good with clever invective.
--- Paul J. Gans
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:532vd2pmbuetdq6ag50ubpuh2sqn2vf0u4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:14 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:47:25 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To
Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid,
Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
I asked "Q" a question earlier, but so far no answer. Maybe you would
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
Moronic posting style corrected.
THINK.
Clearly you didn't, if you had you would not have top posted your
reply.
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little confidence
in
that.
Mmmmm. Last time I looked this was usenet, a place where at any one
time a very large majority do not use thier own name.
No kidding. Are they all "despicable cowards," or am I the only one who
is? -- Q
Is D. Spencer Hines his real name? He says it is, but if you
look around you will find that impossible to verify.
You will also discover that logic is not his strong point, though
he's quite good with clever invective.
--- Paul J. Gans
-
The Thill Group, Inc.
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Dear Ian,
Just because some one is ugly doesn't mean we should keep telling them
it every day. Just because I can doesn't mean it is right.
I feel deference should be used in what we are doing. It seems like
your wanting to put living people on your website to brag you know
something.
Your opinion is yours and yours to live with but I feel it is a total
shame that you don't take living peoples feelings into things.
I myself would only publish living people if I have their permission,
never with out permission, but that is my choice.
Becky
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Singer" <iansinger@sympatico.ca>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Just because some one is ugly doesn't mean we should keep telling them
it every day. Just because I can doesn't mean it is right.
I feel deference should be used in what we are doing. It seems like
your wanting to put living people on your website to brag you know
something.
Your opinion is yours and yours to live with but I feel it is a total
shame that you don't take living peoples feelings into things.
I myself would only publish living people if I have their permission,
never with out permission, but that is my choice.
Becky
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Singer" <iansinger@sympatico.ca>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To
Privacy.
But if the information has already been published elsewhere, or is
available through public sources, I say it's OK to compile it and publish
on a genealogy website such as mine.
Ian Singer
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Becky,
When on a forum like this, people say something they try tobe brief and do
not always cover all aspects. I agree with Ian, when there is a published
source covering living people, like Burke's Peerage, Genealogisches Handbuch
des Adels, and numerous other books which cover living people, then you do
not infringe on the anonimity of 'unknown' people.
Having said that I will add, and am sure Ian would agree, if any of those
people make contact and request to be removed, I will and so will Ian.
I am sorry to see you berate Ian without asking him "What do you do if
people ask to be removed?" Did you jump to the conclusion he would not
listen to such a request? Many a time it is just impossible or unwieldy to
ask _all_ living people in advance whether they object to being included.
I have been asked by a few people to be removed from my website, including
one person who had married someone with royal blood and was published in
several books, and of course I removed them.
People do not make websites to brag "that you know something". In my case I
had build up a large collection which I hoped will help other people, and it
does. Sometimes the help is simply making known the sources used, some times
I have been able to help people making contact with people from their past
they had lost contact with.
Sometimes "unknown people" make contact and supply missing details and are
very grateful for what has been assembled so far. Every person reacts
differently and by giving them the choice to ask to be removed, I do not see
that Ian or I do something objectionable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Thill Group, Inc." <ttg-inc@comcast.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
When on a forum like this, people say something they try tobe brief and do
not always cover all aspects. I agree with Ian, when there is a published
source covering living people, like Burke's Peerage, Genealogisches Handbuch
des Adels, and numerous other books which cover living people, then you do
not infringe on the anonimity of 'unknown' people.
Having said that I will add, and am sure Ian would agree, if any of those
people make contact and request to be removed, I will and so will Ian.
I am sorry to see you berate Ian without asking him "What do you do if
people ask to be removed?" Did you jump to the conclusion he would not
listen to such a request? Many a time it is just impossible or unwieldy to
ask _all_ living people in advance whether they object to being included.
I have been asked by a few people to be removed from my website, including
one person who had married someone with royal blood and was published in
several books, and of course I removed them.
People do not make websites to brag "that you know something". In my case I
had build up a large collection which I hoped will help other people, and it
does. Sometimes the help is simply making known the sources used, some times
I have been able to help people making contact with people from their past
they had lost contact with.
Sometimes "unknown people" make contact and supply missing details and are
very grateful for what has been assembled so far. Every person reacts
differently and by giving them the choice to ask to be removed, I do not see
that Ian or I do something objectionable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Thill Group, Inc." <ttg-inc@comcast.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Dear Ian,
Just because some one is ugly doesn't mean we should keep telling them
it every day. Just because I can doesn't mean it is right.
I feel deference should be used in what we are doing. It seems like
your wanting to put living people on your website to brag you know
something.
Your opinion is yours and yours to live with but I feel it is a total
shame that you don't take living peoples feelings into things.
I myself would only publish living people if I have their permission,
never with out permission, but that is my choice.
Becky
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Singer" <iansinger@sympatico.ca
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 11:23 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To
Privacy.
But if the information has already been published elsewhere, or is
available through public sources, I say it's OK to compile it and publish
on a genealogy website such as mine.
Ian Singer
-
The Thill Group, Inc.
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Dear Leo, Ian,
I extend apologies. I also should have reread my e-mail before posting
to check the tone in which I was writing again apologies.
I still stand with my opinion even with the information that you
graciously wrote. I will be leaving my research with a already arranged
archive so the living people can be found after my passing.
Becky, going back under her rock
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
I extend apologies. I also should have reread my e-mail before posting
to check the tone in which I was writing again apologies.
I still stand with my opinion even with the information that you
graciously wrote. I will be leaving my research with a already arranged
archive so the living people can be found after my passing.
Becky, going back under her rock
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo van de Pas" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
Becky,
When on a forum like this, people say something they try tobe brief and
do not always cover all aspects. I agree with Ian, when there is a
published source covering living people, like Burke's Peerage,
Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, and numerous other books which cover
living people, then you do not infringe on the anonimity of 'unknown'
people.
Having said that I will add, and am sure Ian would agree, if any of those
people make contact and request to be removed, I will and so will Ian.
I am sorry to see you berate Ian without asking him "What do you do if
people ask to be removed?" Did you jump to the conclusion he would not
listen to such a request? Many a time it is just impossible or unwieldy
to ask _all_ living people in advance whether they object to being
included.
I have been asked by a few people to be removed from my website,
including one person who had married someone with royal blood and was
published in several books, and of course I removed them.
People do not make websites to brag "that you know something". In my case
I had build up a large collection which I hoped will help other people,
and it does. Sometimes the help is simply making known the sources used,
some times I have been able to help people making contact with people
from their past they had lost contact with.
Sometimes "unknown people" make contact and supply missing details and
are very grateful for what has been assembled so far. Every person reacts
differently and by giving them the choice to ask to be removed, I do not
see that Ian or I do something objectionable.
-
Ye Old One
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:23:43 -0400, Ian Singer
<iansinger@sympatico.ca> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
This is the poin tthat the likes of "Q" keep trying to avoid.
I have twice asked the question "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
So far "Q" has deliberatly avoided answering, maybe because he knows
none of that data can be considered private.
Every so often someone raises the spectre of genealogical invading
people's privicy. It always ends up with them hitting the same brick
wall - that the data is already available, it is already out there in
the public domain.
--
Bob.
<iansinger@sympatico.ca> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
But if the information has already been published elsewhere, or is
available through public sources, I say it's OK to compile it and
publish on a genealogy website such as mine.
This is the poin tthat the likes of "Q" keep trying to avoid.
I have twice asked the question "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
So far "Q" has deliberatly avoided answering, maybe because he knows
none of that data can be considered private.
Every so often someone raises the spectre of genealogical invading
people's privicy. It always ends up with them hitting the same brick
wall - that the data is already available, it is already out there in
the public domain.
--
Bob.
-
JohnR
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
In the soc.genealogy.medieval the question must be irrelevant.
-
Ye Old One
Re: Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
On 14 Aug 2006 02:27:50 -0700, "JohnR" <cjrees@gmail.com> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
What? None of them have survived this long? I've got many with no date
of death so they must still be around - though getting a big grey
maybe
--
Bob.
this group when s/he wrote:
In the soc.genealogy.medieval the question must be irrelevant.
What? None of them have survived this long? I've got many with no date
of death so they must still be around - though getting a big grey
maybe
--
Bob.
-
Q
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
"Paul J Gans" <gans@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ebosq2$2e3$5@reader2.panix.com...
Does it matter whether it's his real name? Don't the posts to these groups
speak for themselves?
Maybe he wrote away for somebody else's birth certificate -- it seems that a
few people think it's okay to treat other people's birth certificates as
toys.
distort what has been said. If Hines does that, I suspect it is deliberate,
and that he very likely learned it from the folks at this newsgroup
(soc.genealogy.britain) where the method has been turned into an art
form. -- Q
news:ebosq2$2e3$5@reader2.panix.com...
In soc.history.medieval Q <quondam1@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:532vd2pmbuetdq6ag50ubpuh2sqn2vf0u4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:14 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Ye Old One" <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:hktud2p45eafjvncjmo1ugo79639nrchlt@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:47:25 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
poguemidden@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To
Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid,
Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
I asked "Q" a question earlier, but so far no answer. Maybe you
would
like to give your answers. I asked "Where does the data that would
appear in a geneological family tree fit with your view? Where do
you
stand on the following being included:-"
Name?
Date of Birth?
Location of birth?
Parents?
Siblings?
Date of marriage?
Location of marriage?
Children?
Address?
I look forward to your reply just as much as I would have Q's.
--
Bob.
Moronic posting style corrected.
THINK.
Clearly you didn't, if you had you would not have top posted your
reply.
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name I have little
confidence
in
that.
Mmmmm. Last time I looked this was usenet, a place where at any one
time a very large majority do not use thier own name.
No kidding. Are they all "despicable cowards," or am I the only one who
is? -- Q
Is D. Spencer Hines his real name? He says it is, but if you
look around you will find that impossible to verify.
Does it matter whether it's his real name? Don't the posts to these groups
speak for themselves?
Maybe he wrote away for somebody else's birth certificate -- it seems that a
few people think it's okay to treat other people's birth certificates as
toys.
You will also discover that logic is not his strong point, though
he's quite good with clever invective.
One of the ways a person can be deliberately annoying is to ignore logic and
distort what has been said. If Hines does that, I suspect it is deliberate,
and that he very likely learned it from the folks at this newsgroup
(soc.genealogy.britain) where the method has been turned into an art
form. -- Q
--- Paul J. Gans
-
Paul C
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:28:14 +0100, "D. Spencer Hines"
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:
Where you really given the name "D."?
<poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:
THINK.
If you are capable of doing so.
Since you are too cowardly to use your Real Name
Where you really given the name "D."?
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Publishing Genealogical Details Of Living People
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
and the universal right to freedom of speech?
Hugh W
--
new computer = new blog
http://mac-on-intel.blogspot.com/
daily blogs with new photos
http://snaps2006.blogspot.com/
http://slim2005.blogspot.com/
family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com
Rules:
1. Famous People are fair game.
2. Private Individuals, who are NOT celebrities, have a Right To Privacy.
3. There are obviously Grey Areas.
4. Careful, Objective, Fair-Minded Discretion & Good, Solid, Discriminating
Judgment Are Called For By All Concerned.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Fortem Posce Animum
and the universal right to freedom of speech?
Hugh W
--
new computer = new blog
http://mac-on-intel.blogspot.com/
daily blogs with new photos
http://snaps2006.blogspot.com/
http://slim2005.blogspot.com/
family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com