This is enough for me. I have sat here and watched one after another post come in
From you, Steve in regards on how you want this list to go.  Folks cannot possibly
keep up with all your RULES.  This is not a list, it is a dictatorship, and you are
the dictator!  After reviewing your "homepage" I know even more that I do not want to
be a part of this list.  I have sat here night after night trying hard to ignore your
lengthily responses  that are to inform people on what they should or should not
post.  You want the list to keep things "short and sweet" but you are so long-winded
that by the time one reads all that you have written, one loses track of what the
intent of what you are trying to convey.  Keep your list, I don't need it. But before
I leave I will tell you this, this list is the worst one of the 25 lists that I am
on.  It is sad that you in your haste to "remind, inform and demand" people to do
this and that, you are intimidating most folks into not posting at all, so they
simply lurk in the background hoping someone will post something that will relate to
them and then they can reply to the person privately.  I for one am not easily
intimidated.  Remember, after I unsubscribe, I can not defend myself as I know that
you will not be able to refrain from responding to this as you hate to get mail like
this through the list.  But you know?  I could care less what you say about me.  I
have had enough mail sent to me about you and your list, that I have stored on
floppies.  So go for it, Steve.  RULE your list.   Your list now has 599 subscribers!
GOOD BYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE!!!
Cathy Ailstock
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven J. Coker [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 8:44 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: PROPOSED REVISED FORUM POLICY
>
>
>
> COMMENT: Regarding the following exception about announcements.
>
> "Announcements of ON-TOPIC Public email discussion groups,
> online chat groups,
> web sites, or other Internet based services which are
> directly related in a
> useful way to the Forum topic.  This includes services
> dedicated to surnames
> PROVIDED THAT the announcement identifies at least one person
> with the surname
> who was resident in South Carolina prior to 1861.
> Announcements regarding
> surname services which do not meet this requirement are
> considered OFF-TOPIC."
>
> This may eliminate African Americans who are in the early
> stages of research
> from posting info on their web sites. If they are researching
> enslaved ancestors
> the 1861 date is tough.
>
>
> RESPONSE: If I've overlooked something that needs rethinking,
> then the policy
> can be revised to fix it.  I don't intend to be overly
> demanding on the
> requirement about naming an ancestor.  Its intended to
> minimize abuse and
> overuse of surname service announcements.  I want them kept
> to a reasonable
> minimum and not have them overwhelm the Forum, which I'm
> concerned they could do
> if unchecked.
>
> I picked 1861 as a convenient time marker.  It only applies
> to the single
> exception about announcements of services and sites.  I'm
> open to revising if
> justified.  My reason for including this limitation is that
> I'm concerned if
> some limit isn't given, then the Forum could someday be
> "swamped" with people
> announcing Surname services.  There are many more Surname
> services than there
> are surnames.  And that is a lot.
>
> As we get closer to the present day, the number of surnames
> that have been in
> South Carolina becomes extremely large.  I don't want people
> using the Forum for
> announcements about surname services that aren't highly
> relevant or useful for
> South Carolina researchers.  Most people can trace their
> ancestors in South
> Carolina back to 1870 with census records, oral history, and
> such.  For most
> family groups (white, black, red, and yellow) it generally
> doesn't get really
> hard until the Civil War.
>
> If someone hasn't been able to trace back to 1870 or earlier,
> then I think it is
> unlikely they will have much on a web site worth announcing
> in the Forum.  But,
> like I said, this is open for rethinking.  Let's wait and see
> how the test
> period goes first.  I might decide to nix the whole idea and
> go back to the
> general prohibition on announcements.  There can be a fine
> line between
> "announcements" and SPAM.  I'm trying to find a workable
> middle ground.  And, as
> has been noted, there are always taglines that can used for subtle
> announcements.
>
> The 1861 limit certainly isn't intended to make research of
> slave ancestors more
> difficult.  I have particular interest in researching slave
> genealogies
> connected with my family groups and have worked to help
> understand slave
> connections with my family groups.
>
> Such restrictions probably wouldn't be a major problem right
> now with 600+
> subscribers.  But it is possible we might someday have 6,000
> or 60,000 or
> 600,000 subscribers.  I'm trying to setup a system that will
> work now and in the
> future.  It has to be a system that allows me to offer this
> free service without
> spending every waking minute monitoring the Forum or
> resolving problems that
> develop.  I have a real job and a life too, so the Forum
> operations, policy,
> etc., need to be clear and self-sustaining.  If we learn
> after sufficient
> experience that a policy restriction isn't needed, or should
> be modified, then
> it can be.
>
> Steve Coker
> Forum Manager
>
>


==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====