<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> <DIV>The term "restricted list" is Yahoo's terminology for a list where membership goes through an approval process.  I haven't restricted anyone so far, and there's a wide range of experience on there. All I ask is that people who join have a genuine interest in studying this subject comprehensively.  And that would suggest that it's aimed at exactly those with that need.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've asked that people with recognized expertise not join while the group is in its formative stages, until a dynamic is established because I think it would be inevitable that they would become the focus of question and answer sessions that would make it difficult to move ahead in any structured way.  That may be in error, but let's see.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I've also said that I think there's great opportunities for 'experts' to take part later as the group gets into the sessions. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>So no one is restricted in that sense.  I just ask for a little leeway  and understanding as the group gets going. This group is hopefully not intended to duplicate what's asked/answered on the TGF list for example, but members will be taking their question to that list too.  I think this group will be a good fit with the traditional lists where specific questions and answers are more appropriately addressed.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Larry</DIV></DIV> <DIV>Larry Boswell BA, PLCGS<BR><A href="http://www.TheBackstairs.com">www.TheBackstairs.com</A><BR><A href="http://thebackstairs.com/blog/">http://thebackstairs.com/blog/</A><BR>"Experts in Historical & Genealogical Research"<BR>Listowner, TheoryGen (a non-archived list)<BR><A href="http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/theorygen/">http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/theorygen/</A><BR>Ottawa, Ontario, Canada<BR><A href="mailto:laboswell@rogers.com">laboswell@rogers.com</A></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=clsheets1@yahoo.com href="mailto:clsheets1@yahoo.com">Connie Sheets</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=persisto@live.com href="mailto:persisto@live.com">Craig Kilby</A> ; <A title=apgpubliclist@apgen.org href="mailto:apgpubliclist@apgen.org">apgpubliclist@apgen.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:31 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APG Public List] [APG Members] Source Citation study groupcommencinc soon</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>Craig,<BR><BR>It was not my intention to suggest Larry has not been open about the list. I did not understand from his description whether participants would be self-selecting, or he would approve only certain requests to join while deeming other applicants too experienced. I was seeking clarification, and had no intent to criticize Larry. <BR><BR>I suspect there are times when even Elizabeth struggles with understanding a source and figuring out how to best cite it, and I remain bothered by the suggestion that she or anyone else would be "restricted" from joining. But it is Larry's list, and he can do with it as he likes.<BR><BR>Connie<BR><BR><BR>--- On Thu, 6/10/10, Craig Kilby <<A href="mailto:persisto@live.com">persisto@live.com</A>> wrote:<BR><BR>> Connie,<BR>> <BR>> I think Larry has been quite public about his goals, and<BR>> how to join his list-serves. I personally don't like the<BR>> yahoo.com part of it, because it is a hassle, and even<BR>> jumping through the hoops for (me) has not been easy. But I<BR>> don't think it is fair to say he has not been completely<BR>> open in answering questions on the APG lists, and he has<BR>> been very forthcoming about his objectives. He has explained<BR>> them all most clearly. It may not suit everyone (including<BR>> me) but so be it. I am always glad to learn of new<BR>> alternatives.<BR>> <BR>> Craig<BR>> <BR>> On Jun 10, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Connie Sheets wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > [I apologize in advance if I'm cross posting to the<BR>> wrong lists; I've lost track of what was posted where].<BR>> > <BR>> > Larry,<BR>> > <BR>> > Could you please respond to Elizabeth's question<BR>> publicly? In addition, could you let us know how you<BR>> plan to distinguish those who are allowed to join your list<BR>> vs. those who are not? <BR>> > <BR>> > Although I have little time to participate in another<BR>> group, I might be interested if I could be assured that<BR>> authors of relevant books or articles, and anyone else who<BR>> is willing to serve in a mentor role, are available to<BR>> answer questions or offer relevant comments at all times.<BR>> > <BR>> > I have little interest in a group that would restrict<BR>> membership, particularly when I've not seen a description of<BR>> how you plan to decide who is able to join and who is<BR>> not. If your intent is to allow individuals like<BR>> Elizabeth to participate only on certain occasions, I'm not<BR>> comfortable with that, as it could easily lead to loss of<BR>> context for all involved.<BR>> > <BR>> > I do like Linda's idea of a Google Wave experiment.<BR>> > <BR>> > Connie Sheets<BR>> > Arizona<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>