Sept 2002-December 2002 NOTE: The DBS published only sporadically throughout the remainder of my term as Representative At Large. I was prevented from reading either of the Board lists, posting to either of the Board lists, and in many cases in voting in a timely fashion. I had real life things to occupy my time and there seemed little point in paying attention to USGenWeb, since it was so clearly going to hell in a handbasket. As of this writing in November 2004, that assessment has not changed. =========== When you cannot get what you want by open discussion and consensus, abuse your power. Its the USGenWeb Way. Effective immediately, this list is available to everyone for open discussion of USGenWeb issues and concerns. You may subscribe at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dailyboardshow and read messages there as well. Peace out, -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project Publisher, Daily Board Show "Besmirching the name of USGenWeb" since 1998 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:45:59 -0700 From: Richard Harrison Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [BOARD-L] The USGenWeb-ALL list Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:48:23 -0600 Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com Dear USGenWeb-ALL List and USGenWeb Project Members- We have recently received this policy statement from RootsWeb.com regarding list ownership. "Resources (web space accounts, lists, boards, etc.) that contain the name of a Project are considered to be under the ultimate control/responsibility of the Project leadership. This means that the Project ultimately determines who manages the resource and is responsible for ensuring issue resolution arising from the resource. RootsWeb and its parent company, MyFamily.com, will become involved as we see necessary if any use of the resource is in conflict with our terms and conditions or privacy policies." The USGenWeb Project had considered the USGenWeb-ALL list to be unofficial and completely independent. The Advisory Board exercised absolutely no control over the list and had no responsibility for what was said there. With the above policy statement that position is no longer tenable. The NC, the AB and the Project are now ultimately responsible for the list. The list carries the USGenWeb service-marked name, and it is specifically mentioned in the Bylaws. Consequently, it's important that the list be used in a way that doesn't reflect poorly on the Project, creating negative attitudes and negative public images. Project members--including the more outspoken ones--need and deserve places where they can express opinions and discuss issues. Lists that exist under the auspices of The USGenWeb Project are appropriate venues for most of this discussion. Those few Project members who insist on an unregulated, anything-goes discussion as they have had for some time on ALL, can have that list somewhere else without besmirching the USGenWeb name. Effective immediately, the USGenWeb-ALL list will be a temporary announce-only list for project business, managed by the National Coordinator. The ultimate fate of the list will be determined by the Advisory Board. I have taken this action as National Coordinator in what I believe to be the best interests of the Project. Although the Advisory Board will decide what happens next, I bear full responsibility for what has happened so far. -Isaiah ========== Hi everyone, I know I haven't been around much these days, but the brutal murder of the people's list has motivated me to expend the effort to discover what has been going on since I was kicked off the Board list a couple of months ago and see if I still give a damn. It appears our most recent Esteemed National Coordinator [who apparently fancies himself some sort of prophet] has been busy in the few weeks since he ascended to the throne. The first item on His agenda was apparently to commence packing the Board with like-minded seat-warmers and His first action was an attempt to seat fellow-traveler and former Board member George Waller to the NE/NC seat no one could be bothered to run for. This attempt failed dismally when 1) a several Board members protested that this isn't how empty seats have been filled in the past; 2) some members objected to His method of privately querying potential candidates without informing the Board He was doing so; 3) potential candidates protested privately and publicly about the method of soliciting candidates; and 4) King Richard was caught in what can be charitably called a bald-face lie about who He contacted and how diligent He was in ascertaining interest in the position. [It was during the vote to table this motion that King Richard contacted me privately and threatened to declare my seat vacant if I did not respond to Him...on September 8, eight days into His reign. Apparently He cannot wait to get my seat open so He can pick someone else to sit in it.] After the vote to table the motion failed, King Richard decided on His lonesome to send the matter to the Election Committee so they could apply a thin veneer of propriety to His choice for the seat. Thus far, nothing further has been heard on the matter, although it did take over a week for Our Leader to get around to formally notifying that Board that the motion was withdrawn. Following hard on the heels of this move to seat George, the King tried to halt most public discussion on Board-L by instituting offsite message boards where all discussion of items other than current motions was to take place. These proved to be less than satisfactory and were used only briefly. Several Board members refused outright to use them, most people protested that reading discussion on Board-L was far easier and efficient and the message boards were little more than an attempt to hide discussion from the membership, and a few reported that the code the boards loaded onto their machines caused them problems. The message boards died a sad and lonely death and after a couple of weeks King Richard announced that they would be closed. Notably, however, among the first items He posted there concerned the fate of the USGENWEB-ALL list. From the discussion, both on the boards and on -ALL itself, the majority of respondents preferred leaving -ALL the way it was. [Their opinions, of course, accounted for exactly squat; more on this later]. After the attempt to seat George failed, His Highness was able to get His choices for Board Secretary [Shari Handly] and parliamentarian [Roger Swafford] in place rather quickly. [Gratz to Roger for finally getting the seat he's always wanted. He told me once that whoever sets parliamentary procedure for the Board more or less runs the Board and he's worked diligently for as long as I've known him to be that person. Nice to see that hard work has paid off.] Pam Reid who, although not the worse webmaster I've ever seen, has certainly done her part to further the image of USGenWeb as a pathetic bunch of unprofessional amateurs, was re-confirmed as webmaster. [Pam will be allowed to write up a list of her own duties; hopefully they will include updating email contacts for the NC more than once every three years.] New Board mediators were announced [Jan Cortez, Bill Oliver, Jimmy Epperson, Ron Eason, Jana Black] following an alleged call for volunteers [maybe on the secret list?] and no public vote whatsoever. [Since the system has never actually been used, it does seem rather pointless to go through the motions of following its instructions for appointment of mediators.] The Board also approved a new slate of EC members to replace several missing members and members who will be leaving when their terms are up in January. Several of the slate have been on the EC for some time, serving as "temporary" members, a designation that allowed Linda to put them on the EC without seeking the guidelines-mandated Board approval. My status briefly became a public issue about nine days into the new regime and the Board dithered back and forth about whether or not I could or could not post to Board-L, what my standing is, whether or not I am even around [yes, this is very funny. They _know_ I am no longer on the Board lists--I've had this confirmed by a colleague--and this public display of concern is almost heart-warming.] Although the discussion looked to be interesting, King Richard forced it onto the secret list. [Yes, they still spend an exorbitant amount of time talking about me on that list; they must have very empty lives. Jana in particular is expending considerable effort to get me removed, whether that involves holding a recall election or just declaring the seat vacant if I don't dance to her tune. Rarely have I seen any one person so devoted to me; its quite touching.] Attempts to get the "not in good standing" lifted or my rights to use Board-L restored were rebuffed by His Highness as being out of order. On September 14 they started to discuss the "vacant" RAL seat on the Election Committee, with King Richard noting that I am unfit to serve and that the EC would very much like to have Vicki Shaffer join them in their secret playground. After much dithering, including a call for nominees that got no response, it was decided to instead change the EC guidelines to allow someone other than the RAL to be the second Board seat on the EC. Voting on that motion is currently underway. I've voted on it... but I doubt the vote will be counted since it will defeat the motion. [One of the more interesting things to come out of the discussion of this issue is the fact that ex-officio members are full working members of the committee and should have the right to vote. We understand that the EC is more than a little peeved that King Richard is exercising his duties and voting on EC business.] Through all of this there has been the whiff of unseemly haste. A common complaint in the Board posts is the very short time, sometimes as short as 12 minutes(!), between the time King Richard calls for comments and the time He closes discussion and moves to a vote. The time allowed for seconds and discussion has occasionally been measured in hours rather than the two days formerly allowed. Time for the actual placing of votes has shrunk to less than 24 hours. Numerous requests to formalize this process, setting times for response that people can rely on and creating reliable rules for progress, have been rebuffed. The Biggest News Of All, however, concerns the demise of the ALL list. On September 24, King Richard Harrison notified the Board and the project that he was shutting down the ALL list and converting it to an announce-only list under His Royal Control indefinitely. He was given leave to do this by our corporate masters at Root$web and Ancestry.con, who graciously informed Him that as far as they were concerned, the list belonged to the project and He could do what He wanted with it. [It is not too hard to imagine some bottom-feeder in a suit over at corporate headquarters noting that USGW is only valuable so long as it sells product and the unlimited free speech on the -ALL list certainly doesn't sell product. So they gave His Royal Heinie the rope with which to hang it.] King Richard of course chose to shut it down, which was His intention all along [see above]. It does not matter that the members of the list, who use it and defend it, didn't want it changed or that a significant amount of discussion by Board members supported leaving it as an open forum. What is the point of power if you cannot use it? The King knows that his action will not be overturned by the Board; He needs only four members who support him to prevent any attempt by other members to over-ride it. The list will remain under His control until the Board can agree on list rules and appropriate list managers [the depth of the King's cynical manipulation here is breath-taking]. Although Board members are graciously allowed to comment on Board-L, member comments are not allowed. [It is not perhaps too cynical to note that the first thing _every_ dictator does when He takes power is close off all avenues of public comment and place Himself in control of the means of disseminating news.] The -ALL list is gone for good and the silence of those who no longer have a voice is deafening. I do not know if USGenWeb will be a better place without its bitch list, but it will certainly be a better place for King Richard Harrison. --- On A Personal Note Corner: Many of you have written to me wondering where I've been and what I've been up to. I apologize for not responding to you, but its mostly been because I don't know what to say. For those of you who have been worried, my health is fine. For those of you with conspiracy theories, no, they don't "have something" on me. I've been very very busy, basically, and have little time for games. The DBS stopped because it is just too time-consuming to get the Board information from Root$web's crappy archives. And as for my 'non-participation' on the Board... well, its hard to participate when people work so hard to exclude you. I can't vote when I don't know 1) what we are voting on; and 2) when the vote is called. I have limited access to the discussions surrounding the issues, so its irresponsible of me to cast a vote anyways. You may ask why I haven't done something about this, but honestly [and those of you who don't like strong language might want to stop reading here], I don't miss it all that much. Being on the Board just absolutely sucks. Don't get me wrong. The workload isn't bad, especially once I figured out that I can safely ignore anything written by Jana, Phyllis, and Tim. It certainly isn't intellectually taxing. And the constituents have, to a person, been great. But you know what? As a Board member, one has to deal daily and extensively with people blissfully ignorant of depth of their own hyprocrisy. They hate _everything_ you say, but bitch up a storm if you don't say anything. They go on and on about people writing their representatives and then mock those that do. It is freaking creepy to watch these people expound on being nice and polite while they are _publicly_ eviscerating anyone who disagrees with them on the slightest point. You have wade through reams, and I do mean reams, of drivel written by people who have absolutely nothing to say, but who absolutely MUST reply to EVERY comment made by someone else IN DEPTH, REPEATEDLY. You have to learn to ignore the slams against members who only want help from their elected representatives, the accusations of secret complicated agendas, and the laughing acknowledgement that the Board can and will do nothing for anyone unless that anyone is one of their pets [although they can take action pretty quickly against me, other member's issues languish for months and are left unresolved and unlamented.] The Board violates its own bylaws and its selected parliamentary procedure on a regular basis and couldn't give a fig. Rules are for other people. With a handful of exceptions, these are the kind of people that probably spent a chunk of their formative years picking the wings off of flies. Some of them probably still do so, while telling the flies in the sweetest possible language exactly why they are being tortured and why it's good for "the Project" and everyone else in general. Dealing with them is sickening, to the heart and to the soul. So, I don't do anything about it because I don't miss it and I'm not interested in playing the game they want to play. No more empty-headed twelve page long diatriabes by Jana. No more of Phyllis' bizarre non-sequiters and general all-around nuttiness. No more of Tim's attempts to disrupt absolutely everything that goes on. No more of King Richard's sanctimonious self-righteousness as he actively works to exclude all free comment from the project, along with those who would dare to disagree with His Royal Vision of a project where all is calm and the entrails of dissenters hang from the keep walls as a lesson to others. I don't have to watch Jana stroking Richard for all she's worth, or the sad attempts by Kathy Heidel to have everyone be nice to everyone [its a losing battle Kath; these people live to be cruel]. My inbox is uncluttered with crap, for the first time in years. I'm sure you will excuse me for enjoying the silence. However, I realize that I was elected to do a job and do it I shall...if I ever get back on the Board to do it. And so I remain, -Teresa Lindquist Representative-at-Large, USGenWeb Project Publisher, Daily Board Show Besmirching the USGenWeb Name Since 1998! ========== At 06:36 PM 12/1/02 -0500, IsaiahHarrison@cs.com wrote: > It has been moved by Ron and seconded by Bill that Motion 02-17 be reconsidered. > > Assuming there is no objection, we will immediately begin discussion of Motion 02-17. If there is an objection, discussion of the motion will be suspended while we vote on whether or not to reconsider the motion. I object. Per Sturgis (page 41) debate on the main motion must wait until the motion to reconsider it has been voted on. Sturgis also says the motion to reconsider must occur immediately but I imagine "immediately" can be stretched to include a three month span of time if it suits your purposes. -Teresa (and thanks again, my friend, the game is afoot!) =========== I vote no. Although Richard would apparently like to avoid the issue, I would like a ruling from the parliamentarian on the appropriateness of conducting a vote to reconsider a motion three months after the original motion was defeated. I can think of at least two things that would mitigate against it: 1) the composition of the Board has changed substantially in the intervening time; and 2) a substantial amount of intervening circumstances may affect how members would choose to vote. Neither of these circumstances would obtain in a standard meeting, and the intent and spirit of Sturgis' discussion of this issue would seem to argue against allowing "immediately" to extend for months on end. -Teresa merope@radix.net > Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:26:34 -0700 > X-Original-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com Mon Dec 2 08:26:34 2002 > Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 10:25:14 -0500 > From: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com > Old-To: Board-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 > Subject: [BOARD-L] VOTE-Motion to Reconsider > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-From: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Reply-To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/10730 > X-Loop: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Sender: BOARD-L-request@rootsweb.com > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > > Teresa has objected to the Motion to reconsider. It will be necessary to take a formal vote on whether or not to reconsider Motion 02-17. > > Please cast your vote: "Yes" to reconsider the motion. "No" if opposed. > > -Isaiah > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > Archives for Board-L are located at: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/board =========== I request a ruling from the parliamentarian on this matter. -Teresa ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:38:15 -0800 From: Richard Harrison To: merope Subject: Re: {not a subscriber} Fwd: [BOARD-L] VOTE-Motion to Reconsider At 03:24 AM 12/3/2002 -0700, you wrote: > I vote no. > > Although Richard would apparently like to avoid the issue, I would like a > ruling from the parliamentarian on the appropriateness of conducting a > vote to reconsider a motion three months after the original motion was > defeated. Not true. I rely heavily on the advice of the Parliamentarian and post or quote from his opinions. Furthermore, Roger would be the first to say that he doesn't offer "rulings" --he offers opinions based on his knowledge and experience. > I can think of at least two things that would mitigate against it: 1) the > composition of the Board has changed substantially in the intervening > time; and The Board has lost only one voter and gained one voter since September. I do not find that "substantial." > 2) a substantial amount of intervening circumstances may affect how > members would choose to vote. Neither of these circumstances would obtain > in a standard meeting, and the intent and spirit of Sturgis' discussion of > this issue would seem to argue against allowing "immediately" to extend > for months on end. > > -Teresa > merope@radix.net In a face-to-face meeting, a substantial amount of intervening circumstances are also possible. The argument that members may have good reason to want to vote differently now means that allowing for a reconsideration expedites business. The alternative would be to adjourn the meeting, call a new meeting, and then the motion voted down at a previous meeting could be re-introduced, so that members could now vote on it. Requiring these additional steps thwarts the purpose of parliamentary procedure which is to facilitate business and promote working together ("The purpose of parliamentary procedure is to facilitate the transaction of business and to promote cooperation and harmony."--Sturgis, p. 7) Sturgis doesn't say a Motion to Reconsider must occur "immediately" after the voting on the original motion. Here's what Sturgis says about "immediately" (p. 40): "When a motion to reconsider is proposed and seconded while other business is pending, the presiding officer directs the secretary to record its proposal; but the motion to reconsider is not considered until the pending business has been handled. It is then considered and decided immediately. If the motion to reconsider is offered when no other business is pending, it is considered immediately." As you can see from the context, the immediacy issue is that the motion can't interrupt other business, but once there is no other business pending, then consideration of the Motion to Reconsider cannot be delayed. This is precisely what the AB is doing. To rule the Motion to Reconsider out of order would clearly delay the issue until a later meeting and would thwart the "immediacy" imperative in Sturgis. -Isaiah Richard "Isaiah" Harrison National Coordinator The USGenWeb Project =========== http://www.fido7.net/cgi-bin/forumi.fpl?user=ecbbs http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~haas/guidelines1.html Don't delay. They won't be there long -Teresa ========= Posted by request. (As a side note my signature, which was publicly validated and which Keith publicly said he'd post, has never been added to the petition). -Teresa no honor among thieves > I Diane Kelly declare the Petition created by Keith Giddeon against > Representative Teresa Lindquist, noted below to be obviously bogus and > should be removed from the web. > > I note that the last three signers listed, include newly elected SC Derick > Hartsharn of NC, followed immediately by Diane Kelly and Daryl Lytton of > NC. I never signed that petition and i have been assured by Daryl Lytton > that he did not either. When this Petition was placed online, we were > assure that it would be conducted with integrity and all signatures would be > validated. > > Well, where there are two errors there can be more. The whole process is > now suspect and can itself be considered a player in enigmatic gamesmanship > and a violation of integrity. Considering this petition has lost it > credibility and might now be construed as a mere vendetta, the author should > remove its presences from the web immediately. Public actions of this sort > cannot be tolerated by folks who wish to support the USGenWeb Project from > being associated with anything that is in the slightest tinted. > > =========================================================== > http://www.giddeon.com/usgenweb/petition.html > The webpage begins with these words: > > Petition to The USGenWeb Advisory Board > Updated: October 21, 5:30 pm EDT > This page was first uploaded: July 22, 11:30 pm CDT > > The membership of The USGenWeb Project need to take back The Project from > those who use it as a battlefield for enigmatic gamesmanship. It is time for > the Members to stand up and say "No more!" > Please sign the petition and show those who would violate the integrity of > our Project that we will no longer tolerate it. > ============================================ > I would like to see the confirmation emails concerning my signature. > Diane Kelly ========= We are pleased to report that the "borrowed" material was promptly removed following the threat of legal action. -Teresa Representative at Large (and we mean that) USGenWeb Project _still_ no honor among thieves > Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:15:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Leah Sims > To: IsaiahHarrison@cs.com > cc: tngibson@att.net, , , > , , > , , > , , , > , , , > , , , > , > Subject: NCGenWeb: Grievance because of copyright infringement > > Dear Board Members, > On 18 November 2002 I resigned from my position as Stanly Co., NCGenWeb > CC by notifying SC Hartshorn and his associates of my resignation. I also > removed all USGenWeb logos from my Stanly Co. website to clearly indicate > that my website was no longer affiliated with USGenWeb. > > Today I discovered that someone in NCGenWeb, most likely SC Hartshorn, > has taken my copyrighted Stanly Co. website (dated 23 November 2002) and > placed it on Rootsweb as the official Stanly Co. USGenWeb website at > www.rootsweb.com/~ncstanly > My former USGenWeb and now independent Stanly Co. page is at > www.eskimo.com/~lcsims > Obviously someone went to eskimo.com, where I have had my Stanly Co. site > for several years, and copied my website to Rootsweb. This transfer > clearly indicates intentional theft. > > No one from NCGenWeb contacted me about using or placing my website on > Rootsweb and I never granted permission for such action. I did have a > personal correspondence with ASC Buckley concerning Mr. Hartshorn's rude > behavior, in which I told Mr. Buckley that my Stanly Co. website would > remain on the Internet and I would continue to help researchers, > independent of NCGenWeb. I never told Mr. Buckley that NCGenWeb could copy > or continue using my website nor did he ask for permission to take said > action. > > Article X, Section 1, of the Bylaws clearly states that I am the sole > copyright owner of my website and NCGenWeb does not have the right to use > said website. I have added the sections from the relevant bylaws below. > > I demand that: > 1. NCGenWeb immediately stop using my website as part of NCGenWeb and > remove my website from Rootsweb. > 2. That SC Hartshorn and any other involved NCGenWeb official be > sanctioned by the Board for violating the Bylaws, especially Article X, > Section 4. > > If NCGenWeb does not remove my website from Rootsweb and Mr. Hartshorn and > his associates continue to violate my copyright by stealing any other > files, then I will be forced to take legal action against NCGenWeb and > USGenWeb for copyright infringement. > > Thank you for your attention. > Leah C. Sims > lcsims@eskimo.com > > Article X. Copyright > Section 1. In The USGenWeb Project, copyright of websites resides solely > with the creator of the web page(s). Their inclusion as part of The > USGenWeb Project does not give any irrevocable right, implied or > otherwise, to The USGenWeb Project to permanently use the material. > Section 4. All members of The USGenWeb Project shall be responsible for > adhering to The USGenWeb Project's Official Copyright Policy which may be > found, along with further information about copyright, at The USGenWeb > Project national website, > http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/copyright.html. =========== Reminds me of something someone once said about the robber barons at the turn of the 20th century... "When they speak they are lying, and when they are quiet they are stealing." -Teresa Representative at Large The USGenWeb Project Perhaps a game, but certainly gamy > Reply-To: "diane" > From: "diane" > To: "Daryl Lytton" , "Derick" , > , "Phyllis Rippee" , > , , , > "Bill Oliver" , > "Jan Cortez" , , > "Ron Eason" , "Theresa Lindquist" , > , , > "Richard Harrison" , > "Bremer,Robert" , "Jana Black" > Subject: Bath County Grievance > Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 17:38:30 -0500 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 > X-ELNK-Trace: ebdd508827ab541485cf3013fc9a8ec3e5331016acda17f9007344531e8ef30bbacf4d6becbff7d9350 badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c > > Daryl wrote this and sent it to me so that i may add my signature and > comments. > > IsaiahHarrison@cs.com, tngibson@att.net, mio@netins.net, merope@radix.net, > tsvickery@adelphia.net, bremerr@oclc.org,nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, > cristian@netonecom.net, > wnoliver@worldnet.att.net, tstowell@chattanooga.net, eppy@ticnet.com, > lflesher@fidnet.com, wchs@getgoin.net, > derickh@charter.net > > To the AB: > Bath County Grievance. Against Derick Hartshorn, and the USGenWeb Project > Management, for the wrongful delinking of Bath Co., and for libel. > > Derick & the NCGenWeb is charged with: > > 1. Improper use of the mandatory NCGENWEB read-only State list, to discuss > County issues and to conduct personal vendettas and libel on. > > 2. Conducting libel on said list, with the statements that "Daryl Lytton was > expelled from the NCGenWeb Project for deceit and fraud" and "fictitious > personalities Mr. Lytton has assumed" when in fact, Daryl's Constitutional > due > process rights, and rights guaranteed under the USGenWeb Grievance Bylaw for > due process, were denied him. Furthermore, no FACTS were ever presented > against Daryl, Daryl was never asked any questions in supposed actions > against > him, nor was Daryl allowed to ask any questions of his accusers. There are > no > grounds for Derick's statements, and therefore it is libel. > > 3. Breach of Bylaws, Article III, Section 7, "The state project shall have > the > responsibility to remove any links to websites which fail to meet The > USGenWeb > Project/XXGenWeb Project established guidelines/standards." There is nothing > wrong with the Bath County page, it is completely within this USGenWeb Bylaw > standards and as a membersite of the USGenWeb Project, it's affiliation with > the USGenWeb Project is being denied by this wrongful delinking. > > 4. Breach of USGenWeb Procedures. As long as a County page is in compliance > with said "established guidelines/standards," a SC has no right to tell a CC > what > they can/cannot have on their pages, much less the right to delink a County > membersite because the name of a person an SC conducts a personal vendetta > against, > is on that County page. Diane Kelly was the original Host and creator of the > Bath co membersite in 1996 and has never left hosting duties of Bath Co. > > 5. Breach of USGenWeb Procedures. Being a "Member Not In Good Standing" is > not > a reason to delink a county, especially when the original host (Diane) is > still on duty serving the USGenWeb Project by maintaining that Bath > membersite. Equally, BJ Roundtree found herself delinked as well since she > was also a co host. > > 6. Breach of Bylaws, Article XII, Section 5. "State projects are empowered > to > develop/adopt any additional rules/bylaws and guidelines, as appropriate, > for > their state so long as they do not conflict with these bylaws" Derick's > actions in delinking Bath County are in conflict with the Bylaws, and exceed > the established guidelines/standards of the USGenWeb & the NCGenWeb. It is > illegal for any state, or group, to enact rules, and/or to enforce any > punishment, in excess > of National level Bylaws and Procedures in place for all Members. > > 7. Breach of other Bylaws and Procedures outlined in our previous Grievance, > as they pertain to this one. > > > Project Management is charged with: > > 1. Gross and negligent violation of Bylaws, Article VI, Section 3, "The > responsibilities of the Advisory Board shall include: addressing any problem > issues AS THEY ARISE...." It is our considered opinion and the opinion of > others that had the AB functioned in accordance with their mandate - several > months ago when the issues were first brought to the attention of the AB - > that NCGenWeb would have been made known personal vendetta > (discrimination)(harassment)(threatening message)are not allowed within the > USGenWeb, and the matter would not have escalated to the delinking of Bath > County and the loss of its services to the Public AND to the USGenWeb > Project. > > 2. Permitting and thereby condoning, the act of libel & harassment on a > RootsWeb list > provided to the USGenWeb Project. Also, permitting and thereby condoning, > the > use of the name "NCGenWeb" and "USGenWeb" to commit libel & harassment. This > is extremely negligent, as libel has been a repetitive complaint made > against Derick for the last three months. This is not just libel, it is > multiple counts of libel, > where each piece of libel you have allowed Derick to issue in names of the > Project, compounds the seriousness of the libel, and of the damages. It may > also be a criminal matter when added to some of the off list actions this > SC/ASC has conducted. > > Diane Kelly > Daryl Lytton > > > ============================================= > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:50 PM > Subject: [NCGENWEB] BATH County delinked > > In accordance with actions taken earlier by the NCGenWeb Project when Daryl > Lytton was expelled from the NCGenWeb Project for deceit and fraud, the Bath > County page, which bears his name as CC, has been de-linked from the NCGWP > Home Page. This Project will no longer acknowledge any of the fictitious > personalities Mr. Lytton has assumed over the years, including but not > limited to: Lt. Col. Maggie Olson, Webmaster Barbara, "nomad," "drifter," > etc. > An appropriate host for the Bath County page will be found. > > Derick S. Hartshorn > NCGenWeb State Coordinator =========== ...the King and his Court (not a quorum though, I notice) were threatening Project members for filing grievances. Not much of a surprise really...the names of the people willing to put their names to this shit do rather read like a who's-who of the usual suspects. As a strange coincidence would have it I read something the other day, written about another government body, but which suddenly seems utterly appropriate for our own sad little excuse of an "Advisory Board". "[It is] a cesspool of self-interest masquerading as public service, an oinkfest of duplicity fed by a frenzied, rutting lust for power among people whose solemn word is as bankable as a Xerox copy of a counterfeit Confederate seven-dollar bill." -Teresa Representative Still at Large! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Harrison" > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:20 PM > Subject: Your Grievance > > > > Diane- > > > > Regarding your Grievance and Appeal against the National Coordinator and > > the Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project, received 7 December 2002: > > The USGenWeb Project National Coordinator and Advisory Board find > > no reason to believe that our previous decision with regard to your > original > > grievance was in error. > > > > Daryl Lytton and "Maggie Olsen" are no longer members of the NCGenWeb > Project. > > > > Diane, if you wish to remain in the NCGenWeb Project, it is our > > recommendation that you take a more proactive approach and devote your > time > > and energy to furthering the mission of The USGenWeb Project, i.e. > > gathering genealogical and historical information for free online access > by > > researchers. > > > > If you are unhappy with the leadership of the NCGenWeb Project, your > > recourse is the same as in any other state project: to work positively to > > elect State leadership that you and the majority of project volunteers can > > work with effectively. > > > > The USGenWeb Project and the State and Special Projects have the right to > > set standards for acceptable behavior. The Advisory Board stands squarely > > behind such standards. Those whose behavior is not conducive to the > > well-being of the organization may be excluded from membership. > > > > Sturgis says, "If the rights of an individual member or a minority of > > members conflict with the rights of the majority of the assembly, the > > rights of the majority ultimately must prevail" and "The right of members > > to oppose ideas and candidates does not extend to the right to undermine > > the organization itself." > > > > Persistence in filing this same grievance with the Advisory Board or the > > NCGenWeb leadership is considered harassment. This, or any private > > harassment of other leaders or members of the USGenWeb Project, will > result > > in your expulsion from this organization. > > > > -Isaiah > > > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > > National Coordinator > > The USGenWeb Project > > > > And the following members > > of the Advisory Board > > > > Phyllis Rippee > > Jan Cortez > > Jana Black > > Larry Flesher > > Jimmy Epperson > > Vicki Shaffer > > Joe Miller > > Tina Vickery =========== Why anyone would want to donate their hard work to an organization that treats people this way is a mystery. -Teresa Representative At Large > Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:56:20 -0800 > From: sanfranciscomark > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) > X-Accept-Language: en > To: merope@radix.net > Subject: Kicked off GenWeb? > > Please read this and forward it if you would like. I thought you should > know and I am blocked from the list... > -> snip <- > Hello everyone, > It appears Hudspeth County may be taken off the GenWeb > system and I though you all should know about it. The > site has been re designed as of today if you want to > take a look at the simplified version. I have only been a CC for > about three months and thought I could do as I wished with the > site as long as I met the minimum requirements. > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~txhudspe/ > > Here is what I started with from Doris > http://www.rootsweb.com/~txhudspe/V2/ > > Here is what I was working on the way I want it > http://planetview.net/Hudspeth/ > > Judge for yourself and perhaps offer your opinion to > the list. I am curious about what everyone thinks. > Which one do you prefer? > > Mark Hudspeth > Hudspeth County > > David Morgan wrote: > You certainly have the Rootsweb space as long as you > keep > it as a genealogy site. > > That does not mean that I have to keep TXGenWeb linked > to it. > > Try turning it into a genealogy site that people will > enjoy > going to, and finding info. I am thoroughly disgusted > with it, > myself. > > David =========== King Richard attacks the little people... -Teresa when absolute power corrupts absolutely... > Reply-To: "diane" > From: "diane" > To: "Daryl Lytton" , > "Ron & Kathy" > Subject: Fw: Harassing Emails > Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 03:39:35 -0500 > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 > X-ELNK-Trace: ebdd508827ab541485cf3013fc9a8ec3e5331016acda17f9ad230bcd047ae2c8f074f94f860d8ceb35 0badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Harrison" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 3:15 AM > Subject: Harassing Emails > > > > Hello- > > > > One of your subscribers, Diane Kelly-Mason , > > continues to send harassing emails to me and to other members of the > > Advisory Board of The USGenWeb Project after being asked not to. > > > > Can you please help put an end to it. > > > > Thank you. > > > > -Isaiah > > > > > > Richard "Isaiah" Harrison > > National Coordinator > > The USGenWeb Project ============ some things speak volumes. -Teresa when you lie down with dogs... > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Fw: [USGW_Today] [DBS] Sticky fingers] or more false reporting???? > Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:17:00 -0800 (PST) > From: Leah Sims > To: Richpump@wf.net > CC: dailyboardshow@yahoogroups.com > > Dear Mr. Howland, > > Considering that I was a CC from the beginning of NCGenWeb, I would think > I would be entitled to a response from the Board about my concerns and > some respect from you. But instead I have you, a USGenWeb official, > attacking me on your private list by telling or passing on several lies. > If you had something to say about me, maybe you should have attacked me > directly by sending me a copy of your message, rather than being a coward > and going behind my back on a list that I am not subscribed to. > Thankfully, someone forwarded me your messages. > > I am sending this message to the Daily Board list because as a former CC, > I am or can no longer subscribe and post to USGenWeb lists, such as your > private list, to defend my character. This doesn't mean that I am part of > some conspiracy with Ms. Lindquist to show USGenWeb in a bad light. As > your message illustrated, many in USGenWeb need no additional help with > that. Sending my reply to the DBS indicates that I have no other public > recourse to deal with your statements. I doubt you will forward my > message to your private list. > > Let me walk you through the problem since you clearly did not understand > it or felt the need to lie about the substance of my complaint. > > I had my Stanly Co. USGenWeb page at Rootsweb at least three years ago. > While still the Stanly Co. CC, I moved the Stanly Co. NCGenWeb to > eskimo.com and put up a temporary redirect page at Rootsweb. I erased all > files at Rootsweb, except for the redirect. I was told that Rootsweb > would close down the account. So your accusation that I was sloppy about > leaving my files behind is totally incorrect and without foundation. When > I left there were no files in the account besides the redirect. There > have been no Stanly Co. files in the Rootsweb account for at least three > years. > > Nola has told me that after she obtained the passwords to the NCStanly > rootsweb account that she found my old redirect page and deliberately > left it up so that I would "feel better" about my departure. Therefore your > sequence of events about Rootsweb having removed the illegal redirect > before turning the account over to Nola is totally wrong. I had no idea > that the account still existed since I had not used it for at least three > years and believed it closed. I cannot be held responsible for Rootsweb not > closing the account when notified or for the account once Nola reactivated > it. > > Removal of the redirect did not expose my index file since my index file > had not been at Rootsweb for at least three years. There was no index > file in the Rootsweb account. So your statement about the removal causing > the problem is a bald-face lie that is part of NCGenWeb's story to cover > up copying copyrighted files. > > While Nola at first denied copying my files in her first two messages to > me, in her third message Nola has admitted to copying my files while > still blaming me for the problem of my index file making its way into > Rootsweb and becoming viewable. The new story is that I removed the > redirect in the Stanly Co. account, causing my index page to magically > appear, after she had taken control of the account. Since I don't have > the password and there was no index page in the account that story doesn't > hold water either. > > The real issue here is that someone in NCGenWeb illegally copied my > copyrighted files. Blaming me for Nola's illegal activities is morally > reprehensible. Since Nola has admitted to copying my files and I > have a screen shot of my index file on Rootsweb, I could sue for copyright > infrigement and win with no contest. I owe no one an apology. > > Fundamentally, there are two ways of dealing with problems. One is by > addressing concerns in a responsible manner and apologizing if a person > has been wronged. The other is to deny responsibility and attack > the victim. The Board, by not even publicly acknowledging my grievance, > sends a message to people in USGenWeb that copying copyrighted > files does not result in any sanctions. This creates a climate of > intellectual dishonesty at USGenWeb and works against the goal of > USGenWeb, which is to get data online. If researchers believe that > USGenWeb doesn't respect copyright, then they will be less likely to > transcribe and put up material. > > I believed that I was being civil by notifying the leaders of USGenWeb > and NCGenWeb that someone had copied my files and used my index file. As > the wronged party, I have the right to protect my copyright by notifying > USGenWeb officials of the problem. Maybe I should have just sued all the > relevant officials, instead of first expecting USGenWeb officials to > enforce their own bylaws. I suppose if someone had stolen my car, you would > expect me not to notify the police? > > I would expect someone with manners and morals to forward my message to > his private list and apologize publicly to me for his lies and baseless > attack on my character. But examining your previous behavior, reveals you > have neither. > > Leah C. Sims > lcsims@eskimo.com > Stanly Co., NC Genealogy at > www.eskimo.com/~lcsims =========== I see many funny things, but this is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. You go, Ron!! -Teresa when the rats start fighting each other, you know the ship is sinking > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron & Kathy" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 9:25 AM > Subject: Re: [Board-Exec] Harassing Emails > > > > Richard, > > > > I don't know about the rest of the Members, > > they may agree to the same tactics you use, > > but I think what you did was disgusting. You > > are in the position as the head of this Project. > > It is your duty and responsibility to hear from > > whatever member of this Project that chooses > > to write to you. You do not have to agree with > > them, nor do you have to like them. But to > > conceder their feelings as harassment is just a > > bit on the irresponsible side and down right > > selfish. > > > > You have done many things that have been disliked > > since you have become NC, and I have not said a > > word, when others have. But this time you stooped > > to a new low. You have taken the problems of the > > Project and made them personal, by attacking Diane > > to her ISP. That is uncalled for and you should write > > to them and retract what you said. I consider what > > you have done, no better than what Teresa did by making > > personal, and what was suppose to be private, public. > > > > Of course I really do not expect you to be the bigger > > person and make right what you have done, but if you > > do not, I will go on the Project list and make a statement > > as to your actions. I don't care what anyone thinks on > > this Board. Attacking the person, in a personal manner, is > > being no better than anyone you are judging. This is > > Project business and Project problems. If you do not like > > the people you serve, and you do not want to deal with > > them then I suggest that you immediately resign your position > > and we will replace you with someone that has a true heart > > for the Members and not their own personal feelings. > > > > If you don't like her, then deal with it like a leader, not > > like a coward. Tell her not to write to you, inform her that > > you will be placing her emails in a reject mode in your mail > > system, but deal with it as though you were the leader of > > the Project that she is still a Member of, not like a prankster > > that just wants to get back at someone. She has a problem, > > and she feels that she is being wronged. She is doing what > > she considers to be her right within the Project, which it is! > > And in exercising her rights, according to the Bylaws, YOU > > and everyone else, has a mandated responsibility to answer > > her email in a timely manner, or you are also in violation of > > the Bylaws, that gives her those rights. > > > > We need to stop picking and choosing our friends as though > > we have no other responsibilities. Our responsibilities extend > > to every member of this Project and they all have the same rights. > > Because one chooses to use them and the others do not, does > > not give us the right to discriminate against that one person. > > > > And although no one else chooses to agree, she is right. > > She has been wronged in many ways in North Carolina. > > She has not always been right, but neither has she always > > been wrong. Derrick has not treated everyone fairly and > > he should have been reprimanded by this pitiful, wimp of > > a Board, but instead everyone chose to slither into the grass > > and deny culpability and try to use that used up excuse that > > we have no power over the states and we have to leave > > them alone. That's simply pathetic and a sad excuse for > > having no back-bone to stand up and do what is right. > > > > Just remember, that just as it is easy to replace every sorry > > CC that has ever caused a problem, it is and can be just as > > easy to replace an entire state. Wake up Richard. We are > > suppose to be doing the Project business, not vindicating > > our own personal agendas of who we like or dislike. We > > have been fighting this form of stupidity and bias since day one. > > We need to grow up and act as though we are conducting > > this Project on a profit and loss basis. If we did, we would > > be in a much better position today than we are. > > > > And you can censure me if you like. Just remember in > > your judgment, that you are the one that stepped down to > > a lower level to act as you have. I have just stepped down > > to meet you on your level. > > > > Ron > > ============= Poor North Carolina certainly has more than its share of problems. Derick Hartshorn, bad poet and righteous bastard, has taken upon himself to remove one of the Project's biggest thorns and in the process is displaying all the awesome might of an SC, backed up by a friendly Board (and to think NC could have had a relatively harmless SC like Ron Eason; instead they ended up with a vindictive freak). Derick's latest? Well among putting one of Diane's counties up for adoption WHILE SHE IS STILL THE CC, refusing to allow another CC to transfer a page to her (one that she was the previous CC of), and telling the NCGenWeb that all inactive pages as of Dec 1 2003 will be declared abandoned (USGenNet is currently down pending server upgrades; Diane is the only NCGW CC that uses USGenNet and Court members that have asked Derrick about his uncompromising stance have been told take a hike), there's this lovely hatchet job: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/burkedat.htm It is very bravely unsigned, but its parent page is owned and operated by none other than Derick Hartshorn. Stay away from NCGW follks, apparently there's something very very bad in the water there. [should this page magically be unavailable, not to worry, I've saved it and I'll repost it) Remember, Diane has no further recourse to the Board, as she has been told that further communication with them will be viewed as harrassment and will result in her expulsion from the project. Wouldn't it be loverly if the NC and his Court actually defended the CCs instead of greenlighting their continued harrassment? -Teresa Court Jester USGenWeb Project =========== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 10:12 PM > Subject: [NCGENWEB] NCGenNet server problems > > > > The NCGenWeb Project and its members are being severely harmed by the > > inaccessibility of pages hosted by USGenNet. > > > > I have sympathy for USGenNet and their members but Project patrons trying > > to access our pages through the USGenWeb Project county page > > (http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/county.html) are not currently being > > served. I have received several complaints, as have our ASC's, and others. > > Most folks have expressed displeasure at not having a single county > source, > > for some particular Eastern North Carolina county. They have reported that > > the ALHN pages (served by Fred Smoot's server), the AHGP page (also served > > by Mr. Smoot's server) and USGenNet (Mr. Smoot himself), were down and > > waiting for new hardware replacements. In addition Diane Mason Kelly, > > (President of Webroots.org, founder of ncroots.com and CC of several > > Eastern NCGWP counties) had all her NC GenWeb Project pages down. She > fails > > to explain the entire down-time problem but does present a lovely > Christmas > > page at www.ncroots.com. She sent a post to our Project indicating > USGenNet > > hardware problems--nothing else. Nothing to indicate when her NCGWP sites > > would become re-actived. Her Burke County link (http://ncroots.com/Burke/) > > to the Burke Co. Data Base (http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/burkedat.htm) > > seems to be a pretty honest appraisal of the entire situation. I do > > disagree with several points made but overall, it seems to be quite > accurate. > > > > Nobody from the USGenNet has ever contacted me regarding the estimated > > down-time, let alone offered an apology for the inconvenience they have > > caused our Project so I have no idea how long our affiliated NCGenWeb > > Project pages will be out of service. > > > > It is the responsibility of each page owner to provide for server space > > from whatever individual or entity they choose. Nevertheless, it is the > > responsibility of that same page owner to provide for contingency plans > > when the unexpected occurs. > > > > I am forced by the current situation to issue a notice to page owners of > > any and all USGenNet-hosted sites within our NCGenWeb Project. Measures > > must be taken, and taken immediately. Effective midnight, December 31st, > > 2002, any pages not active in the NCGenWeb Project shall be declared to be > > abandoned and will be retained by the NCGenWeb Project to be available for > > adoption and/or re-assignment to an appropriate, knowledgeable and > reliable > > page owner. > > > > I believe that two weeks is ample time for the situation to correct itself > > or for the CC page owners to find alternate server space. For that reason, > > I trust that the NCGenWeb Project will be on even track in 2003 and that > > each and every one of you will enjoy a blessed holiday season and reflect > > on God's blessings on us all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org > > > > Visit the NC home page at: > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/ ============= > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:46 AM > Subject: [NCGENWEB] Re: NCGenNet server problems > > > > Jan, > > > > I have been very understanding. I have personally experienced the same > kind > > of hardware problems back in 1994. That's why I can be sympathetic. I > > represent the NCGenWen Project, as I was elected to do. If I was on the > > Board of the USGenNet, I would be just as supportive of their problems. I > > have been elected to represent my constituants. I'm sure you can > understand > > my position. I think, until New Year's Eve, that time limit is reasonable > > to expect the restoration of the missing NCGWP pages. > > > > As for the notifications on the NCGWP pages, that has been done by the > > pages owners themselved. At the present time, those pages read: > > > > Welcome to USGenNet Inc. > > We are currently in the process of replacing our main server. Please visit > > our temporary location for updates and server replacement status. > > We apologize for any inconvenience that we may have caused you. --The > > USGenNet Staff > > > > or messages to that effect > > > > This is not acceptable to the NCGenWeb Project. Please refer to my > original > > message to avoid any misquotes. > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org > > > > > > At 01:36 AM 12/16/02, you wrote: > > >Mr. Hartshorn, > > > > > >While I find this a very unfortunate situation that USGennet is down and > you > > >have pages in the NCGenWeb that are not being accessed by visitors, I > > >believe that the server will be installed in as expedient a manner as > > >possible. And believe me, you aren't the only state with this problem! > > > > > >Would it be so difficult for you to put some sort of note on the main > North > > >Carolina page? USGennet has notes up - why can't you? Give 'em a break! > > > > > >Just my two cents worth! > > > > > >Jan Cortez > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > > >To: ; ; > > >; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; > ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; > ; > > >; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; > ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; ; > > >; ; > > >; "Richard Harrison" ; > > >"Tim Stowell" ; "Ron Eason" > > >; "Jimmy Epperson" ; "Jana > > >Black" ; "Larry Flesher" ; "Mary Ann > > >Hetrick" ; "Joe Miller" ; > > >"Bill Oliver" ; "Jan Cortez" > > >; "Phyllis Rippee" ; "Vicki > > >Shaffer" ; "Tina Vickery" ; > > >"Robert Bremer" ; "Roger Swafford" > ; > > >"Linda Lewis" ; > > >Cc: > > >Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 7:12 PM > > >Subject: NCGenNet server problems > > > > > > > > > > The NCGenWeb Project and its members are being severely harmed by the > > > > inaccessibility of pages hosted by USGenNet. > > > > > > > > I have sympathy for USGenNet and their members but Project patrons > trying > > > > to access our pages through the USGenWeb Project county page > > > > (http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/county.html) are not currently > being > > > > served. I have received several complaints, as have our ASC's, and > others. > > > > Most folks have expressed displeasure at not having a single county > > >source, > > > > for some particular Eastern North Carolina county. They have reported > that > > > > the ALHN pages (served by Fred Smoot's server), the AHGP page (also > served > > > > by Mr. Smoot's server) and USGenNet (Mr. Smoot himself), were down and > > > > waiting for new hardware replacements. In addition Diane Mason Kelly, > > > > (President of Webroots.org, founder of ncroots.com and CC of several > > > > Eastern NCGWP counties) had all her NC GenWeb Project pages down. She > > >fails > > > > to explain the entire down-time problem but does present a lovely > > >Christmas > > > > page at www.ncroots.com. She sent a post to our Project indicating > > >USGenNet > > > > hardware problems--nothing else. Nothing to indicate when her NCGWP > sites > > > > would become re-actived. Her Burke County link > (http://ncroots.com/Burke/) > > > > to the Burke Co. Data Base > (http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncburke/burkedat.htm) > > > > seems to be a pretty honest appraisal of the entire situation. I do > > > > disagree with several points made but overall, it seems to be quite > > >accurate. > > > > > > > > Nobody from the USGenNet has ever contacted me regarding the estimated > > > > down-time, let alone offered an apology for the inconvenience they > have > > > > caused our Project so I have no idea how long our affiliated NCGenWeb > > > > Project pages will be out of service. > > > > > > > > It is the responsibility of each page owner to provide for server > space > > > > from whatever individual or entity they choose. Nevertheless, it is > the > > > > responsibility of that same page owner to provide for contingency > plans > > > > when the unexpected occurs. > > > > > > > > I am forced by the current situation to issue a notice to page owners > of > > > > any and all USGenNet-hosted sites within our NCGenWeb Project. > Measures > > > > must be taken, and taken immediately. Effective midnight, December > 31st, > > > > 2002, any pages not active in the NCGenWeb Project shall be declared > to be > > > > abandoned and will be retained by the NCGenWeb Project to be available > for > > > > adoption and/or re-assignment to an appropriate, knowledgeable and > > >reliable > > > > page owner. > > > > > > > > I believe that two weeks is ample time for the situation to correct > itself > > > > or for the CC page owners to find alternate server space. For that > reason, > > > > I trust that the NCGenWeb Project will be on even track in 2003 and > that > > > > each and every one of you will enjoy a blessed holiday season and > reflect > > > > on God's blessings on us all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > > > nc@usgenweb.org > > > > > > > > Visit the NC home page at: > > > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org =========== According to Diane, Bath is currently her county, not Darryl's, and it is not available for adoption. Try telling that to Derrick though. -Teresa > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:08 AM > Subject: [NCGENWEB] BATH COUNTY-available for adoption > > > > In accordance with actions taken earlier by the NCGenWeb Project when > Daryl > > Lytton was expelled from the NCGenWeb Project for deceit and fraud, the > > Bath County page which bears his name as CC has been de-linked from the > > NCGWP Home Page. This Project will no longer acknowledge any of the > > fictitious personalities Mr. Lytton has assumed over the years, including > > but not limited to Lt. Col. Maggie Olson, Webmaster Barbara, nomad, > > drifter, etc. > > > > The Bath County page is available for adoption. > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org ========= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 2:06 AM > Subject: [NCGENWEB] Montgomery County > > > > The following message was sent to me by Diane Mason Kelly from Charles > > Barnham who has withdrawn from the NCGenWeb Project: > > > > >Dear Diane, > > > > > >I'm returning your county of Montgomery NC to you, copyright, ownership > > >and web authority. I am retiring from NCGenWeb Montgomery County > effective > > >1 Jan 2003. > > > > > >Please forward this email to the appropriate officers in NCGenWeb. I had > a > > >lightening strike recently that destroyed many files and most of my email > > >addresses. I no longer have Derick or Paul's email addresses. Please, > > >also, forward this email to Ron, our CC Rep. His email address has > > >vanished as well. I'd appreciate a cc: of your email when you forward it > > >to those mentioned individuals. I hope NCGenWeb resolves their problems > in > > >the near future. > > > > > >Much regards, it has been great working with you. You are special. > > >Vaya con El Dios, Go with God. > > >Charles Barnum, CC Montgomery County NC > > > > I can find no provision in either the NCGenWeb Project protocol, volunteer > > page nor in the USGenWeb By-laws to return the Montgomery page > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncmontgo/ to Diane Kelly Mason. Previous > > representation of a county has no bearing on later ownership. Therefore, > > Montgomery county has reverted to the NCGenWeb Project for further > > assignment and a CC will be sought. > > > > > > > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org ============ [replies to Diane and Ron, forwarded to the Board-L list and DBS] Is Derick just completely out of control or what? -Teresa Representative at Large merope@radix.net At 04:49 PM 12/16/02 -0500, diane wrote: > To Ron and Teresa (AB Representatives) > > First of all, I am the legitimate Co Host of Montgomery County and Derick > has no right to replace me without someone else. I did not resign or give up > the county in any form or manner. > > Will you please advise the Board of this fact. > > I would imagine that the new co host is waiting for usgennet to get back > online so they can steal copies of the files. > > thanks, diane > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charles" > To: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > Cc: "Linda Lewis" ; "Roger Swafford" > ; "Robert Bremer" ; "Tina Vickery" > ; "Vicki Shaffer" ; "Phyllis > Rippee" ; "Jan Cortez" ; "Bill > Oliver" ; "Joe Miller" ; "Mary > Ann Hetrick" ; "Larry Flesher" > ; "Jana Black" ; "Jimmy Epperson" > ; "Ron Eason" ; "Tim Stowell" > ; "Richard Harrison" ; > ; ; ; > ; > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:23 PM > Subject: Re: Theft of my web site. > > > > To all Concerned: > > I Charles Barnum have not resigned from the Specific County mentioned in > > this message. Each member may decide when or when-not to resign from any > > particular position. It is not 1 Jan 2003, and I do not resign on that > date. > > That is my choice. I have a right to amend any decision not yet in effect. > I > > have already amended my choice. There are no provisions in the Bylaws > giving > > the SC authority to force a CC to resign. > > > > Whether or not the host server is online or not, also has nothing to do > with > > this matter. The fact that a server is down is not justification to kick > out > > a number of CCs from NCGenWeb. The CCs are not in control of the host > server > > in question. > > > > Charles Barnum > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > > To: "Charles" > > Cc: ; ; > > ; ; ; "Richard > > Harrison" ; "Tim Stowell" > ; > > "Ron Eason" ; "Jimmy Epperson" > > ; "Jana Black" ; "Larry Flesher" > > ; "Mary Ann Hetrick" ; > > "Joe Miller" ; "Bill Oliver" ; > > "Jan Cortez" ; "Phyllis Rippee" > ; > > "Vicki Shaffer" ; "Tina Vickery" > ; > > "Robert Bremer" ; "Roger Swafford" > ; > > "Linda Lewis" > > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:52 AM > > Subject: Re: Theft of my web site. > > > > > > At 11:42 AM 12/16/02, you wrote: > > >Derick S. Hartshorn, SC NCGenWeb. > > > > > >Disregard my email stating I was planning to retire from Montgomery > County > > >NCGenWeb on 1 Jan 2003. I am not resigning from said county web page. I > am > > >not retiring. > > > > > >Your attempt to steal my copyrighted website from me even before my > planned > > >retirement date is most obnoxious and violates Federal Copyright Law. I > do > > >not give you authority to re-assign my county. > > > > > >Charles Barnum, CC of NCGenWeb > > > > > >Blind Copy: Diane Mason, I apologize for any inconvience this has caused > > >you. Please foreword this email to Ron, our CC Rep. My computer still has > > >serious problems. I will have the hard drive replaced this week and it > will > > >be impossible to reach me for a few days. > > >Go with God. > > > > Charles, > > > > Your message, while not directed to me, was received second-hand. It read: > > > > >Dear Diane, > > > > > >I'm returning your county of Montgomery NC to you, copyright, ownership > > >and web authority. I am retiring from NCGenWeb Montgomery County > effective > > >1 Jan 2003. > > > > > >Please forward this email to the appropriate officers in NCGenWeb. I had > a > > >lightening strike recently that destroyed many files and most of my email > > >addresses. I no longer have Derick or Paul's email addresses. Please, > > >also, forward this email to Ron, our CC Rep. His email address has > > >vanished as well. I'd appreciate a cc: of your email when you forward it > > >to those mentioned individuals. I hope NCGenWeb resolves their problems > in > > >the near future. > > > > > >Much regards, it has been great working with you. You are special. > > >Vaya con El Dios, Go with God. > > >Charles Barnum, CC Montgomery County NC > > > > Diane Kelly does not have the automatic authority to take back the county > > upon your resignation. If you will note, the Montgomery link from the > > NCGenWeb County page is to the "temporary" USGenNet page. > > > > When you offered your resignation, I was duty-bound to find a replacement. > > While the new page owner has not activated their new page, I have > exercised > > my authority to facilitate the establishment of a new Montgomery page. > > > > You can rest assured that none of your original work has, nor will be > used. > > The question of copyright infringement will not be an issue. While your > > resignation was not made to me personally, it was received and acted upon. > > I regret that you have changed your mind about your resignation but > actions > > taken by this Project make it impossible to "unring the bell." We have > > already enrolled a new CC for Montgomery County and that individual will > > activate the page when enough original material can be created. I am sorry > > you have decided to leave the Project and will acknowledge your NCGWP > > membership until January 1, 2003. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org ========== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 5:42 PM > Subject: [NCGENWEB] USGenNet server problems > > > > In an attempt to protect the NCGenWeb Project from a mass outage, I made > > the decision to set an end date to dead pages. Not recognizing the impact > > on other states, a shut-off date for de-linking pages was set for 31 Dec > > midnite. I have received many explanations and suggestions on this matter. > > I have thoughtfully read them, and will look at this situation from a > > different perspective. > > > > Anyone having NCGenWeb Project pages housed on the USGenNet server will > not > > experience de-linking on any specific date due to hardware/software > > situations beyond their control. At the same time, the NCGWP Board stands > > ready to assist with short-term solutions to server problems for anyone > who > > asks. > > > > If this has resulted in any anxiety on the part of any CC, I am sorry. > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org ============= Ah, Our King won't forward my post to the real Board list, but its suitable for the secret one. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large USGenWeb Project > X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 21:24:11 -0800 > To: merope > From: Richard Harrison > Subject: Re: {not a subscriber} Re: foward from Charlie Fw: Theft of my > web site. > Cc: Board Exec > X-Apparently-From: Wholemeself@cs.com > > At 04:10 PM 12/16/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >> [replies to Diane and Ron, forwarded to the Board-L list and DBS] >> >> Is Derick just completely out of control or what? >> >> -Teresa >> Representative at Large >> merope@radix.net >> >> >> At 04:49 PM 12/16/02 -0500, diane wrote: >> >>> To Ron and Teresa (AB Representatives) >>> >>> First of all, I am the legitimate Co Host of Montgomery County and Derick >>> has no right to replace me without someone else. I did not resign or give up >>> the county in any form or manner. >>> >>> Will you please advise the Board of this fact. >>> >>> I would imagine that the new co host is waiting for usgennet to get back >>> online so they can steal copies of the files. >>> >>> thanks, diane >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Charles" >>> To: "Derick S. Hartshorn" >>> Cc: "Linda Lewis" ; "Roger Swafford" >>> ; "Robert Bremer" ; "Tina Vickery" >>> ; "Vicki Shaffer" ; "Phyllis >>> Rippee" ; "Jan Cortez" ; "Bill >>> Oliver" ; "Joe Miller" ; "Mary >>> Ann Hetrick" ; "Larry Flesher" >>> ; "Jana Black" ; "Jimmy Epperson" >>> ; "Ron Eason" ; "Tim Stowell" >>> ; "Richard Harrison" ; >>> ; ; ; >>> ; >>> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:23 PM >>> Subject: Re: Theft of my web site. >>> >>> >>> > To all Concerned: >>> > I Charles Barnum have not resigned from the Specific County mentioned in >>> > this message. Each member may decide when or when-not to resign from any >>> > particular position. It is not 1 Jan 2003, and I do not resign on that >>> date. >>> > That is my choice. I have a right to amend any decision not yet in effect. >>> I >>> > have already amended my choice. There are no provisions in the Bylaws >>> giving >>> > the SC authority to force a CC to resign. >>> > >>> > Whether or not the host server is online or not, also has nothing to do >>> with >>> > this matter. The fact that a server is down is not justification to kick >>> out >>> > a number of CCs from NCGenWeb. The CCs are not in control of the host >>> server >>> > in question. >>> > >>> > Charles Barnum >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" >>> > To: "Charles" >>> > Cc: ; ; >>> > ; ; ; "Richard >>> > Harrison" ; "Tim Stowell" >>> ; >>> > "Ron Eason" ; "Jimmy Epperson" >>> > ; "Jana Black" ; "Larry Flesher" >>> > ; "Mary Ann Hetrick" ; >>> > "Joe Miller" ; "Bill Oliver" ; >>> > "Jan Cortez" ; "Phyllis Rippee" >>> ; >>> > "Vicki Shaffer" ; "Tina Vickery" >>> ; >>> > "Robert Bremer" ; "Roger Swafford" >>> ; >>> > "Linda Lewis" >>> > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 9:52 AM >>> > Subject: Re: Theft of my web site. >>> > >>> > >>> > At 11:42 AM 12/16/02, you wrote: >>> > >Derick S. Hartshorn, SC NCGenWeb. >>> > > >>> > >Disregard my email stating I was planning to retire from Montgomery >>> County >>> > >NCGenWeb on 1 Jan 2003. I am not resigning from said county web page. I >>> am >>> > >not retiring. >>> > > >>> > >Your attempt to steal my copyrighted website from me even before my >>> planned >>> > >retirement date is most obnoxious and violates Federal Copyright Law. I >>> do >>> > >not give you authority to re-assign my county. >>> > > >>> > >Charles Barnum, CC of NCGenWeb >>> > > >>> > >Blind Copy: Diane Mason, I apologize for any inconvience this has caused >>> > >you. Please foreword this email to Ron, our CC Rep. My computer still has >>> > >serious problems. I will have the hard drive replaced this week and it >>> will >>> > >be impossible to reach me for a few days. >>> > >Go with God. >>> > >>> > Charles, >>> > >>> > Your message, while not directed to me, was received second-hand. It read: >>> > >>> > >Dear Diane, >>> > > >>> > >I'm returning your county of Montgomery NC to you, copyright, ownership >>> > >and web authority. I am retiring from NCGenWeb Montgomery County >>> effective >>> > >1 Jan 2003. >>> > > >>> > >Please forward this email to the appropriate officers in NCGenWeb. I had >>> a >>> > >lightening strike recently that destroyed many files and most of my email >>> > >addresses. I no longer have Derick or Paul's email addresses. Please, >>> > >also, forward this email to Ron, our CC Rep. His email address has >>> > >vanished as well. I'd appreciate a cc: of your email when you forward it >>> > >to those mentioned individuals. I hope NCGenWeb resolves their problems >>> in >>> > >the near future. >>> > > >>> > >Much regards, it has been great working with you. You are special. >>> > >Vaya con El Dios, Go with God. >>> > >Charles Barnum, CC Montgomery County NC >>> > >>> > Diane Kelly does not have the automatic authority to take back the county >>> > upon your resignation. If you will note, the Montgomery link from the >>> > NCGenWeb County page is to the "temporary" USGenNet page. >>> > >>> > When you offered your resignation, I was duty-bound to find a replacement. >>> > While the new page owner has not activated their new page, I have >>> exercised >>> > my authority to facilitate the establishment of a new Montgomery page. >>> > >>> > You can rest assured that none of your original work has, nor will be >>> used. >>> > The question of copyright infringement will not be an issue. While your >>> > resignation was not made to me personally, it was received and acted upon. >>> > I regret that you have changed your mind about your resignation but >>> actions >>> > taken by this Project make it impossible to "unring the bell." We have >>> > already enrolled a new CC for Montgomery County and that individual will >>> > activate the page when enough original material can be created. I am sorry >>> > you have decided to leave the Project and will acknowledge your NCGWP >>> > membership until January 1, 2003. >>> > >>> > Sincerely, >>> > >>> > >>> > Derick S. Hartshorn >>> > NCGenWeb State Coordinator >>> > nc@usgenweb.org >>> > >>> > Visit the NC home page at: >>> > http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/ > > > Your post is inappropriate and out of order. Please refer to my previous ruling on forwarding of private messages to Board-L and to _The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure_ by Alice sturgis. > > -Isaiah ========= > Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 13:06:03 -0500 > From: "Daryl Lytton" > To: listmaster@usgenweb.us > Reply-To: dlytton@mindspring.com > Subject: New list for USGenWeb Members > Sender: dlytton@mindspring.com > X-Originating-IP: 209.179.222.46 > X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) > > A new "ALL" list is now available for members of, and contributors to, the > USGenWeb Project, and Projects that are a part of the USGenWeb. The list is > for the general discussion of the Project. An optional Chat Room comes with > the list, it will probably be upgraded to a more fancy one. > The new list is hosted, supported, and sponsored by Members of the Project. > The list Guidelines were developed by Members and the Admins of the list are > Members. The list is not sponsored by RootsWeb or the USGenWeb Advisory Board. > It's expected to take a week or so before the word spreads, and the initial > batch of members subscribe. > To subscribe send a email to: all-request@usgenweb.us > with the Subject of the email being: subscribe > For more information, see the List Info page at: > http://server708.rackmonster.com/mailman/listinfo/all_usgenweb.us > Daryl - dlytton@mindspring.com > > PS: You are not on some sort of mailing list. This is a one-time emailing from > one USGenWeb Member to another. If you receive more than one copy, you are > probably using the USGenWeb with more than one email addy. I am a SysAdmin of > the server, not one of the list Admins. ============= When was Derick Hartshorn appointed to the Election Committee? -Teresa merope@radix.net >> From the NCGENWEB-L Archives From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" Subject: [NCGENWEB] County Representation Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 01:40:41 -0500 Hi Y'all, Without reflecting on who represents which county, Paul Buckley's recent post to the Board expressed what should seem to be obvious: If you are not an active or valid member of the North Carolina GenWeb Project, you have no vote or determination as to its operation. Therefore, all individuals who have left or resigned from the NCGWP do not enjoy any vote or determination as to our operation. In addition, I have been appointed to the USGWP Election Committee. Derick S. Hartshorn NCGenWeb State Coordinator nc@usgenweb.org ======== > X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:55:18 -0800 > To: merope > From: Richard Harrison > Subject: Re: {not a subscriber} Election Committee > X-Apparently-From: Wholemeself@cs.com > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > > At 06:54 AM 12/17/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >> When was Derick Hartshorn appointed to the Election Committee? >> >> -Teresa >> merope@radix.net > > > Derick Hartshorn was not appointed to the Election Committee. He miswrote. Derick was appointed to the Bylaws Revision Committee. Oh christ in a handbag, that's supposed to make us feel better? -Teresa merope@radix.net > -Isaiah ========= Now here's a little snippet of Derick's idea of reasoned debate...I guess we can thank our Esteemed National Coordinator that this class act is now on the Bylaws Revision Committee From: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/USGENWEB-ALL/2002-08/1028655774 > Subj:Attn: BY-Laws Committee: ARTICLE IV > Date:8/2/2002 6:46:48 PM Pacific Standard Time > From:derickh@charter.net > To:hollyft@bright.net, eppy@ticnet.com, kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com, > sagitta56@mchsi.com, sandiemac@bigpond.com, noelm@noelm.com, > shari@tyaskin.com, Kiezza@aol.com, cch@netdoor.com, mudman@cableone.net > CC:gingerh@shawneelink.com, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, > tstowell@chattanooga.net, betsym@1starnet.com, > PaulDBuckley@worldnet.att.net, ncgen@mindspring.com > Sent from the Internet > > > > Hi folks, > > Except for the attached letter (sent to me in error, c/o "USGW gize," ) I > think our By-Laws are great. However, failure to protect the organization > from competing and hostile interests is probably the most vital issue we > currently face. Article IV is a marvelously all-inclusive, touchy-feeling > piece of garbage. I shudder when I take it all in. I guess Pogo was the > most astute observer of all when he commented, "We have met the enemy and > they is us." > > Except for oil, the Western world has ignored the angry voices in the Near > East. If we continue to ignore the angry voices in our midst they will > attempt to terrorize us and destroy all that we have worked hard for. In > short, we should expect an analogous 9/11 event if we really don't care > what kind of folks represent us. We innocently allow (and encourage) County > > representatives to freely advertise their other genealogical pursuits (USGW > > / AHGP / USGENNET / NCROOTS / etc., /etc.) > If the current course is allowed to proceed we may see the USGW presence on > > the web simply as our 1996 history boilerplate on some obscure > organization's web page. We have yet to see AmericanRoots or MegaRoots but > we are witnessing the existence of their kin folk. > > > ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP > Section 1. The only requirement for membership in The USGenWeb Project is a > > desire to assist in gathering and disseminating genealogical and historical > > information for free on-line access by researchers. > > Section 2. The USGenWeb Project is an equal opportunity organization and > will not tolerate discrimination in any form because of race, color, > religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual > orientation, etc. > > ------------------- > > Deer ser, > > Throo no fawlt uf mione I fine myseff en stat prizen. I done beelon heer. I > > am acuzed uf rapin an killin sisteen lil gurls. Thas reeley stupad cuz I > persaly no it wazen morin twev I love genlology or which ever yew cal it. > I wan to bee a mimber. > > sined, > > eddie > ">derickh@charter.net > To:hollyft@bright.net, eppy@ticnet.com, kblizzar@tampabay.rr.com, > sagitta56@mchsi.com, sandiemac@bigpond.com, noelm@noelm.com, > shari@tyaskin.com, Kiezza@aol.com, cch@netdoor.com, mudman@cableone.net > CC:gingerh@shawneelink.com, nw_plains_sc_rep@hotmail.com, > tstowell@chattanooga.net, betsym@1starnet.com, > PaulDBuckley@worldnet.att.net, ncgen@mindspring.com > Sent from the Internet > > > > Hi folks, > > Except for the attached letter (sent to me in error, c/o "USGW gize," ) I > think our By-Laws are great. However, failure to protect the organization > from competing and hostile interests is probably the most vital issue we > currently face. Article IV is a marvelously all-inclusive, touchy-feeling > piece of garbage. I shudder when I take it all in. I guess Pogo was the > most astute observer of all when he commented, "We have met the enemy and > they is us." > > Except for oil, the Western world has ignored the angry voices in the Near > East. If we continue to ignore the angry voices in our midst they will > attempt to terrorize us and destroy all that we have worked hard for. In > short, we should expect an analogous 9/11 event if we really don't care > what kind of folks represent us. We innocently allow (and encourage) County > > representatives to freely advertise their other genealogical pursuits (USGW > > / AHGP / USGENNET / NCROOTS / etc., /etc.) > If the current course is allowed to proceed we may see the USGW presence on > > the web simply as our 1996 history boilerplate on some obscure > organization's web page. We have yet to see AmericanRoots or MegaRoots but > we are witnessing the existence of their kin folk. > > > ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP > Section 1. The only requirement for membership in The USGenWeb Project is a > > desire to assist in gathering and disseminating genealogical and historical > > information for free on-line access by researchers. > > Section 2. The USGenWeb Project is an equal opportunity organization and > will not tolerate discrimination in any form because of race, color, > religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual > orientation, etc. > > ------------------- > > Deer ser, > > Throo no fawlt uf mione I fine myseff en stat prizen. I done beelon heer. I > > am acuzed uf rapin an killin sisteen lil gurls. Thas reeley stupad cuz I > persaly no it wazen morin twev I love genlology or which ever yew cal it. > I wan to bee a mimber. > > sined, > > eddie > ======== IIRC, Derick was put on moderated status by King Richard on the State-Coord-L list, which means KR allowed this personnel vendetta against a CC to go through to the SC list. Very interesting, considering that he's not forwarding my messages to the Board list. Anyways, Diane says that Derick never offered to assist her in replacing her webspace or spoke to her about this matter at all, other than to tell her he was kicking her out of NCGW as soon as he possibly could. And she's not the President of Webroots or anything else. And apparently the esteemed SC of NCGenWeb has something against dwarves. Charming. -Teresa rooting for the real underdog From: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/STATE-COORD/2002-12/1040181416 From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" Subject: Re: [STATE-COORD-L] USGenNet server problems Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 22:21:20 -0500 References: <<4.3.2.7.2.20021216173044.00bf8ab0@pop.charter.net>> In-Reply-To: <<5.1.0.14.0.20021217115232.00a905a8@mail.telocity.com>> At 11:53 AM 12/17/02, you wrote: >Very nice note, Derick. Ellen, Thanks very much. I have never forgotten how you jumped my case sometime back. It hurt--but you were right--really and truly! I hated to admit it at the time. I guess that's because of my rebel (SCV) tendencies. I have always rooted for the under-dog. I always hated injustice and unnecessary violence. I have always despised back-stabbers, crooks, shysters, intimidators and frauds. I'm no goody-goody but I believe in what's right. You have been in this Project as long as I have and I respect your opinion and judgement. And and I listen when you speak. When you accused me of being reactive I tried to become more subjective and less judgemental. I *really* tried hard to be more pro-active and more understanding. During the current USGenNet outage the only person who was off-line without accepting assistance from our Project was Diane Mason Kelly. I worked with Tracy Putnam (Craven Co, NCGWP-now on http://www.carolinacuzins.org/) to help her get established. She was the only other CC in our Project served by USGenNet to remain down that I am aware of. Diane's characterization of our leadership and motives makes me very uncomfortable. In an attempt to gain support for her personal grievances, Diane has actually resorted to posting to anonymous folks on the Hyde Co (genealogical) list. She has sought to use them as her sympathetic foils. (see http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCHYDE/2002-12/1040093602 and the same thread) Could it be that all four of our past and present NC State Coordinators have been wrong all along and that Diane was right? All of us have been assailed by Diane for a variety of grievances; too many to reference here. I have honestly tried to find a single post on the NC archive lists or any other ones where Diane has been anything but critical, confrontive or abusive. None of her posts are of genealogical or historical relevance and she has never appeared to contribute anything constructive or substantive on her public posts. She publicly stated that transcribing is in some way, demeaning. Her supporters post negative e-mails and little else. On public lists her demeanor has been combative and confrontive. She tries to use unsuspecting Eastern NC researchers to support her plaintive cries of "discrimination." She sheds crocodile tears ("...they all dislike me...") and portrays herself as the aggrieved party. In the latest Hyde County "Crocodile Tears Daily," Diane focuses on several critical negative references to me. Her supporters don't know a blessed thing about me--and they haven't--from the git-go. Yet Diane has them hypnotized into writing hate mail to me. One even called me a "newcomer." HA ! (Check my name on Google). Another accused me of persecuting Diane. Fortunately common sense has prevailed and she has been unsubbed from yet another list by the attentive list-owners. I have been accused of being: a reactionary / a pacifist, a wild-eyed liberal / a reactionary conservative, a trouble-maker / a pacifier, a usurper / a uniter, a dictator / a volunteer. Funny thing is, most of my detractors are either very cozy with Diane or with her organizations. Actually, since Diane is the President of WebRoots (USGenWeb.us) and ncroots.com, it's difficult to tell whose-who without a score card. Check it out for yourselves. Don't take my word for it. Ask the former members of the defunct IIGS about their tragic history and their association with Mr. Daryl Lytton. Check the following archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/USGENWEB-ALL http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/USGENWEB-DISCUSS http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/NCGENWEB-DISCUSS http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/NCHYDE/2002-12 http://www.ncroots.com/ < That's not the whole story. After serving (surviving?) as Acct./Asst. NCGWP SC with Sharon Williamson (1999-2001), and Elizabeth Harris, before her (1997-1999), I was elected in a run-off election as No. Car. State Coordinator, July, 2002. I immediately came in contact with an individual named Daryl Lytton who recommended that a certain Maggie Olson become a CC of one of our counties. The recommendation seemed legitimate and harmless enough. Only later did we discover that Maggie was a figment of Daryl's fertile imagination. He was subsequently expelled from the NCGenWeb for fraud, deceit and activities detrimental to the NCGenWeb Project by a unanimous vote of the NCGenWeb Project Board. He continues to threaten me personally, in veiled tones, suggesting libel charges, as well as ominous threats of "...there is still time to step down..." (as a matter of public record--as are all of my sources) See http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/USGENWEB-ALL/, Digest V02 Issue #4881, 2 Sept 2002 Re: There is still time....] Since Mr. Lytton has been banished from our Project, this matter is, for the moment, behind us. Problem is, we still have another issue to deal with. It seems that Ms. Diane (Mason) Kelly, founding President of Daryl's privately owned domain, Webroots.org, Inc., continues to occupy this position as well as being the CC of five Eastern NCGWP counties. Daryl has now stolen the Service Mark of the USGENWEB PROJECT and has bought the usgenweb.us domain. Man, talk about chutzpah !!! I am a great supporter of the free enterprise system but something here just doesn't spell M-O-T-H-E-R. Please go to the references contained in http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/exposure.htm . This was provided to me by an anonymous individual whom I really thank: Thanks Damon! Diane, under the pseudonym "Beaufort," was a joint signator (along with Daryl and the erstwhile Lt. Col.) in a libel charge against the National Coordinator, the AB and just about anyone connected with the Project. (See http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/USGENWEB-ALL/2002-07/1026348950 ) and other messages archived under the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS-L Archives, Jul-Sep, 2002. Make your own judgements Rather than burn up bandwith, please check: http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/exposure.htm This pretty well explains the plight of the NCGenWeb Project and the accompanying waste of good volunteerism time, blithely unknown to the rest of this USGWProject. Hopefully my presence on the USGWP By-Laws Committee will not be for nought and we can get back to serving the public. Regarding my feeling of late, I seriously considered telling Isaiah Harrison, our NC, to take this SC job and shove it. The pay sucks, the complaints are asinine, the detractors border on being anarchists and dwarfs and it just plain doesn't make me feel good. Before this, I wrote books, transcribed documents, penned journal articles and had fun. Why do I endure this?? And for what???? I have asked myself the same question--as has my wife. Besides being a lightning rod and a glutton for punishment, I still enjoy meeting the hard-working folks that make this Project the ultimate "WORTH-WHILE." Anyway, Ellen, your initial admonitions to me have helped me become less reactive and confrontive but hopefully, no less expressive. Anyone choosing to donate to my legal defense fund to defend against libel lawsuits filed by webroots or their ilk--forget it. I have enough screen-captures and traces, URLS, witnesses, and have documented more than enough evidence to prevail in any court in the land against any of the idiots that cause turmoil within these all-volunteer organizations. Do you think I need an ego boost? Guess again!!! Legal threats??? I say, BRING IT ON!!!!! Best wishes, --Derick NC SC *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* For more Catawba County, NC help, queries, resources and lookups, visit our NCGenWeb page at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nccatawb/ Subscribe to "West of the Catawba" mail list -- 500+ subscribers! To learn of other genealogical resources provided by RootsWeb, see: http://www.rootsweb.com/ *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ===================================================================== ========================== At 11:53 AM 12/17/02, you wrote: >Very nice note, Derick. > >Ellen > >At 05:42 PM 12/16/2002 -0500, you wrote: >>In an attempt to protect the NCGenWeb Project from a mass outage, I made >>the decision to set an end date to dead pages. Not recognizing the impact >>on other states, a shut-off date for de-linking pages was set for 31 Dec >>midnite. I have received many explanations and suggestions on this >>matter. I have thoughtfully read them, and will look at this situation >>from a different perspective. >> >>Anyone having NCGenWeb Project pages housed on the USGenNet server will >>not experience de-linking on any specific date due to hardware/software >>situations beyond their control. At the same time, the NCGWP Board stands >>ready to assist with short-term solutions to server problems for anyone >>who asks. >> >>If this has resulted in any anxiety on the part of any CC, I am sorry. >> >> >>Derick S. Hartshorn >>NCGenWeb State Coordinator >>nc@usgenweb.org >> ========= Derick does a lot of "misspeaking". Some of us call it "lying". -Teresa merope@radix.net > X-Sender: IsaiahHarrison@imap.cs.com > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 > Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:55:18 -0800 > To: merope > From: Richard Harrison > Subject: Re: {not a subscriber} Election Committee > X-Apparently-From: Wholemeself@cs.com > X-Status: > X-Keywords: > > At 06:54 AM 12/17/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >> When was Derick Hartshorn appointed to the Election Committee? >> >> -Teresa >> merope@radix.net > > > Derick Hartshorn was not appointed to the Election Committee. He miswrote. Derick was appointed to the Bylaws Revision Committee. > > -Isaiah ============= FYI, King Richard has placed SE/SC State Coordinator representative Tim Stowell on censored status indefinitely for daring to support a CC's right to contact the Board and its members to seek redress for grievances and for challenging the use of Sturgis in an informal meeting. The censoring order extends to Board-L, the secret list, State-Coord-L and any other lists over which King Richard holds sway. (We predict that Ron Eason will be next...he's been known to defend those whom the King would like banished. Not a wise move in this political climate) In other news, Paul Buckley, Derick's handpicked brown nose over at NCGW, decided for some strange reason to attack Ellen Pack, SC of MSGenWeb (possibly because she dared to suggest that threatening to delink people for reasons over which they had no control was not in the holiday spirit). Big mistake. After being soundly thrashed by list members, Paul tried to claim that his detailed critique of MSGenWeb was meant to be humorous. He also posted this: "Obviously we can each find faults with our state and county pages. Could we please get back to our original intent to facilitate free genealogical information exchange within the confines of our bylaws and stop all this jockeying and bickering?" (Why is it that everyone insists we all "just get along" only _after_ they've said whatever nastiness they've got on their chest?) -Teresa merope@radix.net Still crazy after all these years ====== Derick is pretty clearly trying to get rid of Diane before his CCs vote to get rid of him. And the Board is just as clearly stalling the adoption of "standing procedures" to give him time to do it. Somehow, I don't think that brutalizing and harassing CCs is what the EC was designed for, but I would not be at all surprised if it leaps into this one with gusto. Call it Linda "If I don't like em, they don't vote" Davenport's goodbye gift to the cabal. -Teresa Lindquist Representative At Large, USGenWeb Project Out of order merope@radix.net > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:49 PM > Subject: [NCGENWEB] You've gone too far this time!! > > > > To all concerned, > > > > I am proceeding with a referendum to elicit a 2/3 majority to expel Diane > > Mason Kelly from membership of the NCGenWeb Project. > > Linda Haas Davenport of the EC is being contacted to help coordinate this > > action. > > > > I am preferring charges against Diane Mason Kelly in the following > > directive which is being sent to the entire NCGenWeb Project membership. > In > > addition, I am using the mandatory list as is my communications > prerogative > > when any situation threatens the health and well-being of our NCGenWeb > > Project. > > > > We have finally experienced the willful acti of a single individual to > > usurp our organization and immediate action must be taken. As State > > Coordinator, I am exercising my authority to act for the benefit and > > well-being of the NCGenWeb Project, as follows: > > > > I was elected State Coordinator in July, 2002 amidst an infectious climate > > that had plagued my two predecessors. The same old complaints from the > same > > complainants continued to rain down during my tenure. We wasted a lot of > > valuable time trying to fend off many absurd complaints and grievances. > > There seemed to be an ongoing campaign against whoever might hold > > leadership of this Project. None of the complaints contained anything of a > > constructive nature. We tried in vain to ignore these inane whinings from > a > > distinct minority to no avail. Fortunately, several of these > > "ankle-snappers" resigned from the Project. Unfortunately, a voice of > > dissension was left behind. This discordant voice tried to ensure that a > > fresh grievance was always on the back burner. Finally, six years later, > we > > have reached the point where crossing the line of ethical behavior has > been > > greatly exceeded. > > > > As you are probably aware, Diane Mason Kelly, President of Webroots.org, > > ncroots.com and partner of Daryl Lytton (recently expelled from the > > NCGenWeb Project for fraud and deceit--see > > http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/Oddsites.htm) has been vocal in most > > lists that she still has access to. In fact, she is currently the list > > administrator of NCBATH-L, a long established RootsWeb genealogical list > > devoted to historical and genealogical research. A recent series of posts > > to that list went well beyond the bounds of civility and included both > > ridiculous and unproven accusations against a renown researcher, > > transcriber and innocent victim, in a senseless and libelous tirade. Not > > only that but this bellicose outburst went beyond the bounds of the rules > > laid down by the list itself!! As if to thumb her nose at the membership > of > > the NCGenWeb Project, Diane Mason Kelly deliberately and willfully > > unsubscribed the current Bath County Coordinator to her county list for no > > logical or legal reason! > > > > An earlier communication made it clear that none of the pages that have > > been abandoned, taken back or otherwise orphaned would be used by the new > > page-owner except with permission from the original contributors. > > Fortunately for the NCGenWeb Project, there was very little of any > > consequential value on these prior pages, except for easy-to-duplicate > > links. Not much in the way of original transcriptions was left behind so > > these pages became quite irrelevant. Any charges of copyright infringement > > are preposterous to the extreme. > > > > My first inclination would be to immediately expel Diane Kelly Mason from > > the NCGenWeb Project for charges of slander, libel, behavior and speech > > detrimental to the Project and exceeding her authority as a list owner of > a > > closely associated Project resource. Since my personal desires would > > obviously be open to charges of bias, discrimination and further > > grievances, I am perfectly willing to abide by the desires of the > > membership of the NCGenWeb Project. Should two-thirds of this membership > > vote to expel Diane Mason Kelly from the NCGenWeb Project, for behavior > and > > conduct not in keeping with this organization's fundamental aspirations, I > > will certainly accept their decision. > > > > Voting instructions will be presented on this list as soon as the Election > > Committee notifies me of their procedures. The question on the ballot will > be: > > > > 1. Expel Diane Mason Kelly > > 2. Retain Diane Mason Kelly > > > > > > Derick S. Hartshorn > > NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > nc@usgenweb.org > > > > For verification of charges, please read the following: > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCBATH/2002-12/1040335811 > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCBATH/2002-12/1041156422 > > ============ Don't forget, this guy in on the Bylaws Committee. -Teresa > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derick S. Hartshorn" > To: ; > Cc: ; ; > ; ; ; > > Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 9:29 PM > Subject: Diane Mason Kelly > > > > To: RW/Ancestry.com associates, > > > > The NCGenWeb Project has finally encountered a situation which RootsWeb > and > > its ancillary entities need to act on immediately. > > Diane Mason Kelly, administrator of the NCBATH-L list, has finally > exceeded > > her authority as a RootsWeb/Ancestry list owner. > > Rather than moderating the list as was her mandate, she has used the list > > to promulgate her her personal animus and has personally attacked the > > legitimate page owner of the Bath County page (www.rootsweb.com/~ncbath/). > > > > I hereby respectfully request that the ownership of said NCBATH-L be > > transferred to the current legitimate page owner of of the Bath County > > NCGenWeb Project, Ginger Christmas-Beatty (glxmas@ancestraltracks.com ). > > > > Actions currently being taken agains Diane Mason Kelly are listed below as > > posts to relevant the individuals involved: > > > > >I am proceeding with referendum to elicit a 2/3 majority to expel Diane > > >Mason Kelly from membership of the NCGenWeb Project. You are being > > >contacted to help coordinate this action. > > > > > >I am preferring charges against Diane Mason Kelly in the following > > >directive which is being sent to the entire NCGenWeb Project membership. > > > > > >I will be using the mandatory list as is my prerogative when any > situation > > >threatens the health and well-being of our NCGenWeb Project. > > > > > >We have finally experienced the willful actions of a single individual to > > >usurp our organization and immediate action must be taken. As State > > >Coordinator, I am exercising my authority to act of and in behalf of the > > >well-being of the NCGenWeb Project, as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > >Dear fellow NCGenWeb Project Volunteers, > > > > > >I was elected State Coordinator in July, 2002 amidst an infectious > climate > > >that had plagued my two predecessors. The same old complaints from the > > >same complainants continued to rain down during my tenure. We wasted a > lot > > >of valuable time trying to fend off many absurd bluster. There seemed to > > >be an ongoing campaign against whoever might hold leadership. None of the > > >complaints contained anything of a constructive nature. We tried in vain > > >to ignore these inane whinings from a distinct minority to no avail. > > >Fortunately, several of the "ankle-snappers" resigned from the Project. > > >Unfortunately, a voice of dissension was left behind. This discordant > > >voice tried to ensure that a fresh grievance was always on the back > > >burner. Finally, six tears later, we have reached the point where > crossing > > >the line of ethical behavior has been grossly exceeded. > > > > > >As you are probably aware, Diane Mason Kelly, President of Webroots.org, > > >ncroots.com and partner of Daryl Lytton (recently expelled from the > > >NCGenWeb Project for fraud and deceit--see > > >http://webpages.charter.net/derickh/Oddsites.htm) has been vocal in most > > >lists that she still has access to. In fact, she is currently the list > > >administrator of NCBATH-L, a long established RootsWeb genealogical list > > >devoted to historical and genealogical research. A recent series of posts > > >to that list went well beyond the bounds of civility and included both > > >ridiculous and unproven accusations against a renown researcher, > > >transcriber and innocent victim, in a senseless and libelous tirade. Not > > >only that but this bellicose outburst went beyond the bounds of the rules > > >laid down by the list itself!! As if to thumb her nose at the membership > > >of the NCGenWeb Project, Diane Mason deliberately and willfully > > >unsubscribed the current Bath County Coordinator to her county list for > no > > >logical or legal reason! Legal actions are currently being formulated. > > > > > >An earlier communication made clear that none of the pages that have been > > >abandoned, taken back or otherwise orphaned would be used by the new > > >page-owner except with permission from the contributor. Fortunately for > > >the NCGenWeb Project, there was very little of value on these prior > pages, > > >except for easy-to-duplicate links. Not much in the way of original > > >transcriptions was left behind so that these pages became totally > > >irrelevant and certainly not something anyone would desire to copy. > > > > > >My first inclination would be to immediately expel Diane Kelly Mason from > > >the NCGenWeb Project for charges of slander, libel, behavior and speech > > >detrimental to the Project and exceeding her authority as a list owner of > > >a closely associated Project resource. Since my personal desires would > > >obviously be open to charges of bias, discrimination and further > > >grievances, I am perfectly willing to abide by the desires of the > > >membership of the NCGenWeb Project. Should two-thirds of this membership > > >vote to expel Diane Mason Kelly from the NCGenWeb Project, for behavior > > >and conduct not in keeping with this organization's fundamental > > >aspirations, I will certainly accept their decision. > > > > > >Voting instructions will be presented on this list as soon as the > Election > > >Committee notifies me of their procedures. > > > > > >Derick S. Hartshorn > > >NCGenWeb State Coordinator > > >nc@usgenweb.org > > > > > >Please read the following: > > >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCBATH/2002-12/1040335811 > > >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/NCBATH/2002-12/1041156422 > > ========== http://pub50.ezboard.com/fgensuckfrm3 -Teresa merope@radix.net ==========