Thursday, February 26, 2009
Equal Time
My vent about one of my pet peeves - family researchers who drop me with no explanation - brought a response from Cousin #2, as I thought it might. I am giving her observations equal time today. This is what she said:
. I need to learn the facts before jumping to my own conclusions.
. My snide remarks are uncalled for.
. I am full of it if I think she doesn't have good records. If her records aren't good, it is because she has been given misinformation.
. Who do I think I am?
. She is sorry that I have my panties in a bind.
. I am barking up the wrong tree.
. I am trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
. She didn't like the tone of my e-mails. In fact, she was shocked.
. Her cousin had the DNA done and she doesn't know anything about it.
. Her cousin is ill and is hospitalized.
I have responded to her personally and politely concerning her observations. Sadly, if she had given me those last two facts she believes I should have somehow learned, I would not have written last week's blog. Apparently, she didn't like my asking, point blank, why they were reluctant to discuss the DNA subject they had brought up so she stopped writing.
It is really too bad that an opportunity for a good exchange of information has been lost. It happens a lot when one party suddenly stops communicating with no explanation. And, although I did finally get a response as a result of what I wrote last time, I am still puzzled by this entire situation. It would have been much better for all of us if we had simply answered each other's questions in good faith and agreed to disagree, if necessary. We would, undoubtedly, have learned things we didn't know about mutual ancestors. Instead, we ended up in an Internet situation reminiscent of the Hatfields and McCoys, taking pot shots at each other. Maybe it's because we all sprang from West Virginia.
If nothing else comes of it, I hope that at least one person has learned to not leave people hanging on future correspondence that she initiates. I wish her well as she continues her search for her family's history.
. I need to learn the facts before jumping to my own conclusions.
. My snide remarks are uncalled for.
. I am full of it if I think she doesn't have good records. If her records aren't good, it is because she has been given misinformation.
. Who do I think I am?
. She is sorry that I have my panties in a bind.
. I am barking up the wrong tree.
. I am trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
. She didn't like the tone of my e-mails. In fact, she was shocked.
. Her cousin had the DNA done and she doesn't know anything about it.
. Her cousin is ill and is hospitalized.
I have responded to her personally and politely concerning her observations. Sadly, if she had given me those last two facts she believes I should have somehow learned, I would not have written last week's blog. Apparently, she didn't like my asking, point blank, why they were reluctant to discuss the DNA subject they had brought up so she stopped writing.
It is really too bad that an opportunity for a good exchange of information has been lost. It happens a lot when one party suddenly stops communicating with no explanation. And, although I did finally get a response as a result of what I wrote last time, I am still puzzled by this entire situation. It would have been much better for all of us if we had simply answered each other's questions in good faith and agreed to disagree, if necessary. We would, undoubtedly, have learned things we didn't know about mutual ancestors. Instead, we ended up in an Internet situation reminiscent of the Hatfields and McCoys, taking pot shots at each other. Maybe it's because we all sprang from West Virginia.
If nothing else comes of it, I hope that at least one person has learned to not leave people hanging on future correspondence that she initiates. I wish her well as she continues her search for her family's history.