Taulbee Public Archives for March 1999 From: JRoenicksr@aol.com 3/12/99 8:20 PM Subject: Re: [TAULBEE-L] [Fwd: Tolsons] Resent-From: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com To: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com >From my weekly visit to the genealogical library. Did not get to spend much time today, other things keep pressing. A couple of new acquisitions for the library: Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames (for those trying to locate the distant origins of the name) Gives about the same origins for TALLBOY as Judge James Franklin Taulbee and Rose gave for the Taulbee line, except it has no Talby examples or variants. Still looks like reaching, but there could be a connection a few centuries ago between our lines and Tallboy. KY Encyclopedia, John E. Kleber, Editor (pub about 1988) This is for those keeping track of William Preston Taulbee: William Preston Taulbee, U. S. congressman, was born October 22, 1851, in Morgan County, one of twelve children of Mary Ann (Wilson) and William H. Taulbee, farmer and later state senator. He attended local schools, married Lou Emma Oney in 1871, entered the Methodist ministry, and in 1881 was admitted to the bar. Taulbee was twice Magoffin County court clerk. A Democrat, he was elected to two terms in the U. S. House of Representatives, serving from March 4, 1885, to March 3, 1889. Taulbee's political career ended in scandal when newspaperman Charles E. Kincaid reported the married congressman's relationship with a young Washington, D. C., woman. Months later, on February 28, 1890, Taulbee threatened Kincaid; in the Capitol a few hours later, Kincaid shot the unarmed Taulbee. He died on March 11 and was buried in Mt. Sterling. Kincaid, who was charged with murder, was acquitted despite two eyewitnesses to the shooting. See James C. Klotter, "Sex, Scandal., and Suffrage in the Gilded Age," Historian 42 (February 1980 225-43. Article is signed James C. Klotter. Still going through the LDS North American CD. Looks I will finally get a few hits for our list cousin Richard Jennings. Richard, there are birth and baptismal records going back to the 1600s in MA. If this interests you , will copy them to a disk and email them to you next week. A note for those of you who have upgraded to Win 98. You will want to visit the Microsoft webpage download site and download a few patches. One of them fixes a year 2000 bug effecting Win 98 and some microsoft software, the others fix some security problems in outlook express and Internet Explorer. In some cases a hacker could get into your computer via the back door, so the messages read. I imagine as long as we have hackers we will have these kind of problems. I would like to place a search engine on the Taulbee Web pages, on our closed page, that would search both the open and closed directories so things would be easier to find. If any of you knows a simple way to do this, would you let me know? Talk to you all later. Joseph Tolson b. 1841 is the son of Peter Tolson and Polly Taulbee. He married Elizabeth Gullet and they have a daughter Margaret Tolson. We would be glad to share what we have with you. Peter Tolson name was spelled Tolston in the 1850 census. Living next door to Peter is Rita's gg grandparents Thomas Tolson and Rebecca . Jim and Rita Tolson Roenick From: Slbrin@aol.com 3/14/99 10:47 PM Subject: (no subject) To: Taulbee-L@rootsweb.com Hi I am Lucille Collins Brinegar . My grandparents were Matilda King Collins and James Collins.My father was Willis Victor(Vick) Collins b.May 7,1917 d. May 29,1988.Married Gladia M.(Marie) Walters b.Feb. 27,1928.d.June 28,1994. She was the daughter of James G. Walters and Rose L. Risner Walters. Victor and Marie had eight children Alene, Ethel, Glenna F. Billy V. Bobby J. Larry D. Lucille, and Gary L. I am trying to find out who were the parents of James Collins. Can anyone help ? From: Bob George 3/21/99 11:42 AM Subject: [TAULBEE-L] appropriate vrs inappropriate posts to lists Resent-From: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com To: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com I have been asked to address this issue to the list, so here goes. Just remember that a list owner is not the Pope and cannot claim infallibility. The question is how much about living people, say those born since WWI or WWII, should be posted to a list? My general answer is NOTHING. There have been several discussions about this on several lists I belong to and it boils down to two opposing sides. Side 1 is that since almost all information is already available from other sources, there is no reason not to share information, since genealogy is all about gathering and sharing information. Side 2, which I tend to adhere to, is that genealogy is not a justification for invasion of privacy and that just because something CAN be done does not mean that it SHOULD be done. There are valid family security reasons for not posting about living people. 1. If you have a time and place of birth, plus the name of the parents and their birth dates and locations, you can obtain a birth certificate. Think of what you can do with a birth certificate. You can assume the person's identity, get their social security number and a driver's license. Even a passport. The mother's maiden name is often the only security required to obtain the PIN number to a debit or ATM card, or access to a checking account. People using someone else's social security number have caused all kinds of credit and tax problems to the real holder of the card. While I do not know of anyone who has used genealogy to actually do this, it has been done through other means and there is no reason to assume that it will not be done with genealogy information. I would caution you not to post about the two most recent generations of your family to a public forum. I try to make sure that all this goes into our private achieves, but when I get busy, I can easily put them in the public instead. Our posts are not archived on rootsweb to give us some control over what is there and what isn't. Also remember that email stays on the routers for a long time and can be recovered by those who wish with the appropriate knowledge and software. While it is technically possible to encrypt the list and the website, it is not practical. So we are left with common sense. I spent many many years in Intelligence extracting information from seemingly harmless communications, so I may be a wee bit over sensitive about this, but that is how I am. Unless you are in search of a relative who has disappeared, a birth parent you have never met, or something similar, be careful what you post. When in need, the information can be transmitted via private email rather than a list. Your desire to know does not justify invading the privacy of an individual who wishes to remain private. Genealogy does not justify such action. I hope I have answered the needs of those who requested that I make this post. Your comments are invited. Maybe you have a more clear reason than I have stated for either side. -- Bob George Surprise, Arizona http://www.doitnow.com/~moravia/index.html The Crooked Tree's Census On Line & The Taulbee Pages George, Taulbee, Brady, Bailey, Dressback From: Bob George 3/24/99 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [TAULBEE-L] James TALBY Resent-From: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com To: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com Copyright is something we can get around on an obit by simply extracting the genealogical information rather than posting a verbatim copy. This is what Louise did with 4000 of the obits Carole sent us. If an artice, book, or whatever, is more than 75 years old, there is no longer a copyright. If it was published prior to the 1970s, there is a 75 year limit. If published from the 70s on, then copyright extends to at lesat 50, and possibly as much as 100 years after the author's death in accordance with the newest international copyright conventions. For most things, we can simpy edit the publication to extract the data. As long as it is facts you are posting and not literary stye and content, you are not violating a copyright. BLKYGYRL@aol.com wrote: I > did however find his obit and would like to know how long one has before the > copyright expires. I know with books it is something like 50 years from the > date of the authors death. > Judy -- Bob George Surprise, Arizona http://www.doitnow.com/~moravia/index.html The Crooked Tree's Census On Line & The Taulbee Pages George, Taulbee, Brady, Bailey, Dressback From: Bob George 3/25/99 10:37 PM Subject: [TAULBEE-L] Taulbee notes Resent-From: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com To: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com First, after experimenting with having replies go to the list rather than the sender, I have put it back so that replies go to the sender unless you direct them to the list. I think all having them go to the list did was create confusion from seeing just half a conversation. Please reply to the list whenever you think your reply will benefit other members. Second, I have finished the census pages upgrades and am in the process of ungrading the cemetery and vital records pages. I am doing Georgia and hope to finish as far as Kentucky in the next two or three week. This working during the day and webpage building at night is not working out well. Be much better when summer comes. Once finished with these files, I intend to start building the Taulbee genealogies again. Speaking of genalogies, some of you already get this, but this article in the most recent rootsweb revies speaks to the privacy issue I posted to the list and several of you have discussed privately with me. OXYMORON: PRIVACY AND THE INTERNET by Myra Vanderpool Gormley, CG Genealogists use RootsWeb and the incredible power of the Internet to learn more about ancestors and to find far-flung cousins. However we are caught in an incongruous position on privacy matters. Everyone wants their privacy respected, but are you invading that of your relatives? Technology enables us to share genealogical information easily and quickly via e-mail, mailing lists, chat rooms, bulletin boards, newsgroups, GEDCOMs, CDs and Web sites. In our eagerness to obtain and to share data we forget that our living family members have a right to privacy. We also post personal details about ourselves that we would not put on the local supermarket bulletin board. Aunt Martha might reveal her real birth date and confess that she had a child out of wedlock when she was 19. Sweet old Uncle Jim may tell you that he has been married and divorced six times. However, you are invading their privacy if you publish this information or if you share it with others via a GEDCOM or family group sheets. Information on home pages, bulletin boards, and mailing lists is electronic publication. It is OK to collect and compile information about your living relatives, but don't share it (unless you have their permission, of course) with others -- in any format via any means. During the preparation of a talk for my local genealogical society on this subject, I searched hundreds of genealogy-related home pages. At one I found the names and details about everyone in the family, including when and where they were all born, right down to a one-month-old grandson, listing the hospital in which he was born. One researcher reports, "In just one file that I downloaded . . . I found more than 200 names of persons born within the last 70 years . . ." Another notes, "I was shocked and dismayed to find that someone had copied my entire GEDCOM and put it up on their Web site. While I have no objection to anyone using my dead ancestors, this person had included the living as well . . ." Now, I've heard from several genealogists who claim it does not matter what we put up on our home pages or share on the Internet since "this information is all public information, anyway." Another one argues that "unless and until they quit putting births, deaths and marriages in the newspapers the basic relationships and names are and will remain public info." I have no quarrel about marriage and death records -- if they are really obtained from public sources. However, I asked several correspondents to provide me with the source of the birth information posted on their home pages, and guess what I learned? In every instance the data were either supplied by a cousin or obtained from a GEDCOM that someone had sent them. In other words, they had not found the information in a public source at all. Take a look at the policy posted at "Don't Mess with the Living, Texas" : "It is the policy of the Texas GenWeb Project to protect the rights and privacy of our living relatives. We strongly encourage all involved to do their best not to place information on the Internet about anyone who is still living, unless you have their express permission to do so." Among the suggestions for ways to protect living family members are: -- When requesting information (via e-mail, chat, queries, etc.) do not include personal information on living persons. -- When responding to requests for information, especially to someone you really do not know, do not provide them with personal information about living persons. They could post it on the Web or do who knows what else with it. -- Before sharing GEDCOM files with others, expunge information on all living persons. Programs such as GEDClean, GEDLiving, and GEDPrivy will do this for you. -- If you have a genealogy Web site, remove information about all living persons. (Check Cyndi's Genealogy Home Page Construction Kit for tips and links to the several GEDCOM utility programs that will exclude such data.) British genealogists are using the "GEN100" logo to signify that their Web site respects a cut-off date of 100 years, and to advise that information which is less than 100 years old will not be divulged. Many Americans use January 1920 as the cut-off point, since that is the most recent federal census available to the public. We should exercise good manners and respect the privacy of our families -- those generous relatives who have shared information with us or who shared with a cousin of a cousin. Additionally, there is another and growing problem -- identity theft. Why make it easy for cyberthieves to steal your or a loved one's identity? When you post public messages about your research, it is sufficient to say you are researching a Cynthia Jones line. You don't have reveal relationship by saying she is your mother or maternal grandmother. To learn more about identity theft and other privacy issues visit: and . In the pursuit of our ancestors, let's not hurt ourselves or our living family members. Think before you post or share data. * * * * * HUMOR. Many thanks to Audrey Reece from sunny Queensland, Australia , who writes: My eight-year-old granddaughter had been to Sunday school and knew all about God, and also her Mum had been explaining about evolution, and how man came from the apes. Then one day her four- year-old sister asked, "Who is God?" Miss Eight who knew all about it said, "He is the Creator. He made the world and the birds and trees, and everything." So then the four-year-old asked if He also made the people. Miss Smarty replied, "Only the women; the men came from the apes." * * * * * PERMISSION TO REPRINT articles from ROOTSWEB REVIEW is granted unless specifically stated otherwise, PROVIDED: (1) the reprint is used for non-commercial, educational purposes; and (2) the following notice appears at the end of the article: Written by Previously published by RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative, RootsWeb Review, Vol. 2, No. 12, 24 March 1999. Please visit RootsWeb's main Web page at . -- Bob George Surprise, Arizona http://www.doitnow.com/~moravia/index.html The Crooked Tree's Census On Line & The Taulbee Pages George, Taulbee, Brady, Bailey, Dressback From: Bob George Tue 7:43 PM Subject: [TAULBEE-L] LDS site visited and results Resent-From: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com To: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com The LDS site is up at http://32.96.111.13/default.asp Going to reserve judgement for now. Did a search for John Talby and got the following result: . John TAYLBYE - International Genealogical Index/British Isles Gender: M Marriage: 14 Oct 1619 Threekingham (cum Stow Green) , Lincoln, England The source given was the IGI for British Isles. Will have to look it up to see if it possibly our John Talby in Salem. No name of spouse was given. There is a two generation search engine that returns results from Ancestral Filem Family History, Library Catalog, InternationalGenealogical Index, Web Sites, FamilySearch Pedigree Resource File From: "Bess Rose Miller" Thu 5:24 PM Subject: [TAULBEE-L] Re: New Swango Book Resent-From: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com To: TAULBEE-L@rootsweb.com To all of you out there who may be Swango descendents: NOTICE; WILLIAM SWANGO (SCHAWAGAU) AND HIS WIFE AND SONS: JACOB, ABRAHAM, & ISAAC CAME FROM SCHWANGAU, GERMANY IN 1747. (Well, the wife died and was buried in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, but the rest of them got to VA. The Swango Family in the U.S. has been well researched and THE SWANGO FAMILY, published in 1976 records much information available about the Swango Family from 1747 to 1976. However, we realize there are some gaps, and we are also looking for update material since 1976: i.e. births, deaths, marriages, etc. , since we are presently updating THE SWANGO BOOK of 1976. We would very much appreciate any such information that any of you could send us. If you know--or suspect--that your ancestors are in the 1976 book, OR you know that they are not and wish to be included, please send any information showing your Swango connections to brosemil@siscom.net OR via snail mail to: Bess Rose Miller, 104 Cranewood Dr., Trenton, Ohio 45067. The new book will be prepared for publication in 2000. Please send any information by January 5, 2000. Any questions can also be sent to the above address(es). There are a limited number of the 1976 SWANGO BOOKS still for sale. They will become collector items in the near future--if they are not already. If you are interested in obtaining a copy of the 1976 book, e-mail the above address for information. THE SWANGO FAMILY BOOK COMMITTEE: Norma Rose Profitt, Ch.; Tutt Lambert, Keith Swango, Karen Swango Stephens, and Bess Rose Miller.