Other interesting comments from the Contribution section. Information about our services.


Mr. J.

Finally, after almost 3 months, you [i.e. Richard Jäger, Regionalleiter Banat im AKdFF] considered that is the time to make publicly your position [or it's AKdFF's? or Neupanat HOG's?] regarding our comments on Banat's Familienbuchs. That's all ? We must confess that we are very surprised by this very poor "defense"! Or is this an "offensive"?
Here are our responses to the problems raise by your position which deserve an answer:

1] In fact, our comment clearly claims that, in their actual shape, the FBs are not more [and could not be more] then simple Indexes. This is the main reproach never answered in any way by you.
Also, here, in our comment, are listed in detail all the information existing in the original KBs left out in the published FBs. And the fact that you do not accept our criticism only because we are professional genealogists makes me wonder about your logic. In fact, only because we are professionals you should be very attentive at what we have to say.

2] Please do not use the "errors simply happen" excuse! We pointed at too many conceptual errors in our comment on the Triebswetter and Wiseschdia FBs and these errors are only the resultants of author's ignorance.
Why bringing into discussion the Jahrmarkt FB's case when this is still unpublished and we never mentioned it in our comments?

If this is the "road" [supporting everybody to work a FB without taking into consideration if that person has the skills to perform this task only because she/he is an "ideologists -should be idealist but who's counting- and want to record the history of the German communities and places for posterity"] you / HOGs /AKdFF want to follow in the future, we are saying that the German history in Banat deserve a better destiny. Or, at least, a correct one . . .

3] Our Note 11 explains the romanian Banat's KBs fate after WWII. And this is quoted at Banat's Familienbuchs comment. So, no need for any correction from your part on this point.

4] Be very careful in your wishes; as far as we heard, the persons from Germany that came to Timisoara's Bishopric to copy all the Bishopric archives were kicked out by the Bishop and the records existing in the Bishopric archive were not allowed to be copied. And the Bishopric archive is still a closed archive for research!

5] As the KB's being the property of the RC church, this statement is at least debatable. Why not the property of the local communities who supported the church and for whom the church existed in the first place? But all the communities are living in a state. And the state authorities -Habsburgs or Hungarians- took constantly decisions regarding the juridical status of Banat's KBs long time before the communists.

6] On our Web Page is written clearly: "Entire parishes records were copied by people [usually, Germans originally from Banat] and an "industry" of Familienbuch was set up trough the efforts of villages HOG or AKdFF". So, why you twisted the meaning of this sentence to: "It is wrong to claim the Heimatortsgemeinschaften (HOGs) or the AKdFF would have published an "industry" of family books"? Do you not understand a simple English sentence? Or you are not able to quote correctly a sentence?

7] ". . . takes advantage of information for a charge . . ." What a low kick! Using of published works by professional genealogists does not contradict or violates any ethics of the profession. Even the research in a library takes time and deserves to be rewarded.

8] In the end, we do not quite understand what is the link between the subject line of your e-mail ["Familybookindustry" GenealogyRO Group] and some info from your post [like the book about Glogowatz, your Magyarized name, etc.].
We did not wrote that book and we never magyarized your name.

When AKdFF will decide to talk seriously about the shape of the Banat's Familienbuchs we will be available -if we will be invited!- for this debate.