From: SMTP%"LISTSERV@BINGVMB.cc.binghamton.edu" 8-JAN-1998 15:22:49.75 To: CIRJA02 CC: Subj: File: "INDEX-L LOG9712C" Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 14:57:54 +0000 From: BITNET list server at BINGVMB (1.8a) Subject: File: "INDEX-L LOG9712C" To: CIRJA02@GSVMS1.CC.GASOU.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 01:15:57 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: John and Kara Pekar Subject: generic cross-references I know there was a discussion on this a while back, but I must have deleted it... When it is necessary to cross-reference to a series of headings which all begin with the same word (more or less), what's the best way to format the reference? _See farming headings_ _See_ "farming" _headings_ _See_ farming Assume the references are pointing the reader to headings like "farming practices", "farming, small-scale", and "farming, commercial". If there are only a few headings, I suppose you could write each one out. But what if there were 5 or 6? This can come up in certain jargon-laden fields. I think the reader would be inclined to get lost in a list of 5 or 6 similar-looking, multiple-word references. What have other folks done in this situation? TIA, Kara Pekar jkpekar@crosslink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 01:29:45 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: John and Kara Pekar Subject: indigenous vs. Indian I'm working on a book set in Mexico. There are a number of native groups mentioned. More often than not, he author refers to them as the such-and-so Indians. I realize that "Indian" is not a pc term for groups native to the American continent. Like the author, I've used the terms "indigenous peoples" and "indigenous lands" as generic labels. However, I need some way to indicate that these are tribe names rather than place names (which also abound in the book, and which can look very similar to a reader unfamiliar with the region.) But I'm not sure of the best way to do this. Should I follow the author's lead and use the term "Indian"? Generally, I'm all in favor of following the author's choice of words. But using this term could conceivable upset some readers, a thing I'd hate to do. Is there some other clever but pc way of clarifying that these are not place names, but groups of people? How have other people handled this situation? TIA, Kara Pekar jkpekar@crosslink.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:31:04 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian Kara, Would it be possible to append the word "people" after the name, either as part of the entry or as a parenthetical explanation. So instead of Tarahumara you'd have Tarahumara people or Tarahumara (people) Just one suggestion..... Janet +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing 610 East Bell Road, Suite 2-157, Phoenix, AZ 85022 (NOTE THE NEW ADDRESS) Phone Number hasn't changed. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 06:39:19 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: generic cross-references In-Reply-To: <199712150650.WAA11958@powergrid.electriciti.com> To me, >_See farming headings_ > is the most helpful. Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:51:46 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sanindex Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian I concur with Janet's suggestion. I have done this on many occasions. Sandi Schroeder, Schroeder Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:02:24 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Bookindexr Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: AOL Chat Reminder Don't forget the AOL Indexers' Chat tonight, Monday, at 8:30 p.m. Central Time. E-mail me for the link if you don't have it. If you don't have AOL go to webb page http://members.aol.com/bookindexr. Any question E-mail me: Susan Bookindexr@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:19:17 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sharon Wright Subject: indigenous vs. Indian -Reply I would distinguish the tribal names by referring to them as tribes, which I believe is standard anthropological practice. I've never heard of a Native American group being offeneded by that designation (Navajo tribe, Hopi tribe, Kwakiutl tribe, etc.). Referring to a group as "people" usually denotes a broader context than a tribal one (the Aztec people or Mayan people, for example, which included several smaller tribes). The place names you could further distinguish by including the place name and state name (for instance, Guadalajara, Jalisco), if necessary. Just my two cents... :-) -- Sharon W. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:14:26 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Anne Taylor Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian At 01:29 AM 12/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >I'm working on a book set in Mexico. There are a number of native groups >mentioned. More often than not, he author refers to them as the >such-and-so Indians. I realize that "Indian" is not a pc term for groups >native to the American continent. Like the author, I've used the terms >"indigenous peoples" and "indigenous lands" as generic labels. However, I >need some way to indicate that these are tribe names rather than place >names (which also abound in the book, and which can look very similar to a >reader unfamiliar with the region.) But I'm not sure of the best way to do >this. Should I follow the author's lead and use the term "Indian"? >Generally, I'm all in favor of following the author's choice of words. But >using this term could conceivable upset some readers, a thing I'd hate to >do. Is there some other clever but pc way of clarifying that these are not >place names, but groups of people? How have other people handled this >situation? > >TIA, >Kara Pekar >jkpekar@crosslink.net Hello, I think that if people are going to be upset, they'll upset with the author and editor(s) about the text, not with you and your index which reflect the text. If using "Indians" grates, you could drop that bit and place (people) behind the name: Chickasaw (people) Lakota (people) There's also the other tact of qualifying place names instead: Apache Apache (Illinois city), Cherokee (Missouri county), Missouri, Missouri River, Osage, Osage region near Missouri River, ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:28:19 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Paper Pushers Editorial Services Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian At 06:29 AM 12/15/97 +0000, Kara Pekar wrote: >Generally, I'm all in favor of following the author's choice of words. But >using this term could conceivable upset some readers, a thing I'd hate to >do. Is there some other clever but pc way of clarifying that these are not >place names, but groups of people? How have other people handled this >situation? Hi Kara-- When there are too many cross refs to list individually, I would use the wording, "See also specific tribes" or "See also specific Indian tribes." In general, I wouldn't stress over pc-ness when creating an index (a can of worms if ever there was one!) and just stick with the terms used by the author. I would certainly never inject new phrasing which I personally prefer or would GUESS would be less offensive/more appealing to readers. To me, the index should serve the author's work and not make a political statement. (BTW, for an amusing example of how an index can serve the author's work, make a political statement, AND be politically INcorrect, see the short, satirical index to Al Franken's *Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot.* As an indexer who has always suppressed the desire to sneak in JUST ONE bogus joke entry, I truly envied the chance to create such an all-out silly set-piece.) --Sudsy ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 11:55:21 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Cynthia Bertelsen Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian -Reply The concept of "tribe" is one that anthropologists in the nineteenth century used to define stateless population groups (usually on an Darwinian scale of evolutionary social progress). "Tribe" was not a term used by the people themselves. There is currently a raging debate in the field of anthropology over this term, as well as over the use of such terms as "primitive" or "simple" in referring to societies. Many anthropologists now suggest that "ethnic group" is the preferred term over "tribe." In fact, "people" is actually a term more closely related to many such groups' self concept (vis a vis their myths of origin, etc.) even though anthropologists do indeed reserve the term "people" for larger cultural groups with subcultures. Along with others on this list, I would use "people" as a qualifier for group names, not "tribes." At 10:19 AM 12/15/97 -0500, Sharon Wright wrote: >I would distinguish the tribal names by referring to them >as tribes, which I believe is standard anthropological >practice. I've never heard of a Native American group >being offeneded by that designation (Navajo tribe, Hopi >tribe, Kwakiutl tribe, etc.). Referring to a group as >"people" usually denotes a broader context than a tribal >one (the Aztec people or Mayan people, for example, >which included several smaller tribes). The place >names you could further distinguish by including the >place name and state name (for instance, Guadalajara, >Jalisco), if necessary. > >Just my two cents... :-) > >-- Sharon W. > > ***************************************** Cynthia D. Bertelsen--Indexer cbertel@usit.net Editor-in-Chief, Key Words, American Society of Indexers Web page: http://www.vt.edu:10021/B/bertel/ndx.html ***************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:08:28 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Locatelli Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Airborne Express The worst problem I've had with Airborn Express, which was a continuing one, was not being able to get supplies. It always took three phone calls, with a week's wait inbetween. Finally I'd end up yelling at the poor phone operater (even though I know the problem wasn't her fault). For some reason that seemed to create action. So after four years of this, not to mention pickups regularly missed, I've switched to FedEx. Fred Leise Between the Lines Indexing and Editorial Services ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:43:15 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pauline Sholtys Subject: Spanish names and companies - Reply Kara Pekar wrote: "Another puzzling name is Patrocinio Gonzalez (governor of Chiapas). At times, he is referred to as Patrocinio Gonzalez; at others, he is called Gonzalez Garrido. Does anyone know offhand which is correct, or why there is a discrepancy? How should this be indexed?" My guess would be that his name is Patrocinio Gonzalez Garrido, with Patrocinio being his given name, Gonzalez his father's family name and Garrido his mother's family name. Referring to such a person by the given name and father's name is correct; referring to him by the father's and mother's family names is also correct (equivalent to referring to someone by his last name only in English), although confusing if a previous reference didn't give his whole name. If this is indeed his name, it would be indexed as "Gonzalez Garrido, Patrocinio." Pauline Sholtys psholtys@grolier.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:58:02 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ann Norcross Subject: Re: generic cross-references Pam Rider wrote: > > To me, > > >_See farming headings_ What about: _See also at_ farming _See also under_ farming _See at_ farming _See under_ farming Does anybody use any of the above? Ann ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:48:39 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: frank exner Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian In-Reply-To: <199712150640.BAA27274@bambi.acc.nccu.edu> I come out of the pit of lurkers... Greetings. My name is Frank Exner, Little Bear, and I am an indexer in Durham, NC. I am also a member of the Squamish nation of British Columbia, Canada. The question you raise is a very good one; there are no rules (even in the 20th edition of the Dewey Decimal Classification) for indexing indigenous names. I personally don't mind the word Indian, but the truth is that most of us would prefer to be identified with our tribe. It's rathr like the preference a European might have for the word Italian or Swede. In fact, most traditional people expect to be asked about their tribe right after their name. Since the author uses the term Indian, it's reasonable for you to do so. Where personal name or tribal name are given, however, try using parenthetical modifiers. For example: Burnaby (Squamish village) Little Bear (Squamish Indian) Squamish (Tribe) totem poles (Squamish) If you have any further questions, please let me know. Frank Exner, Little Bear fexner@nccu.edu I return to the pit of lurkers... On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, John and Kara Pekar wrote: > I'm working on a book set in Mexico. There are a number of native groups > mentioned. More often than not, he author refers to them as the > such-and-so Indians. I realize that "Indian" is not a pc term for groups > native to the American continent. Like the author, I've used the terms > "indigenous peoples" and "indigenous lands" as generic labels. However, I > need some way to indicate that these are tribe names rather than place > names (which also abound in the book, and which can look very similar to a > reader unfamiliar with the region.) But I'm not sure of the best way to do > this. Should I follow the author's lead and use the term "Indian"? > Generally, I'm all in favor of following the author's choice of words. But > using this term could conceivable upset some readers, a thing I'd hate to > do. Is there some other clever but pc way of clarifying that these are not > place names, but groups of people? How have other people handled this > situation? > > TIA, > Kara Pekar > jkpekar@crosslink.net > ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:26:27 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Martha Osgood Subject: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two Hi Indexers - . Does anyone know if there is a difference between "inclusive" and "inclusivistic"? Or "exclusive" and "exclusivistic"? In fact, are the "-istic" words even words at all? The "-istic" stuff is so ugly, and not in my dictionaries, yet the (excellent) copyeditor let it pass. Eeeeuuu! How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be written by someone, according to the author? Let's say there is not a separate scripture index, and there is a tight line limit on the index. And let's say that the scriptural quotes which are to be indexed are only to be indexed by book (i.e., not by verse). Is it considered horrible form (or even heresy) to index as 1 - "John, book of" to distinguish it from John, a person, 2 - "Bible. See also books of John; Matthew;" 3 - Would you leave out "books of" in the See also x-ref? 4 - Or do something entirely different? See example below: Bible, 7-11, 33, 55, 81, 88, 137, 159-162 See also books of Job; John; Leviticus; Peter... ... Job, book of, 121 John, book of, 122-26, 198 John, MaryLou Carter, 169-174 Leviticus, book of, 18,24-26 Peter (the apostle) 51-52, 116 Peter, book of, 86, 116-125, 143 ... (Assume I'm trying to avoid listing the Bible books as subentries under the key word Bible because I want other gates into the index and can't double-post them due to space issues.) Looking forward to your...er...revelation... Martha Back Words Indexing osgood@darkwing.uoregon.edu ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:12:34 LCL Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Victoria Baker Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian In-Reply-To: <199712152246.OAA03561@pacific.net> Frank wrote: >I personally don't mind the word Indian, but the truth is that most of us >would prefer to be identified with our tribe. It's rathr like the >preference a European might have for the word Italian or Swede. In fact, >most traditional people expect to be asked about their tribe right after >their name. Nice to hear from you, Frank. I recently indexed a scholarly anthropology on the Lakota Sweat Lodge, in which the author (a Jesuit priest) said that since most people on the reservation in question refer to themselves as Indians (after tribal affiliation), he used the term "Indian" in the book. I indexed the book using that term, with a cross reference from Native Americans, which has for a while been what was thought of as the proper way, at least in the circles I move in. The "Indians" main entry was actually quite short, and only contained references about, say, U.S. government policy, or pan-Indian groups, with references out to the structure of the book, but the term was used in wording entries, throughout. Last year I indexed a book on human sexuality in which the author specified that I index specific tribes as, for example, "Lakota Indians." The editor of a junior-high U.S. history book required me to use the plural form of the name for tribes, e.g. Lakotas, Apaches, Missouris. That last entry had a parenthetical (tribe) following, to distinguish for children between the state and the people. In other anthropologies I have used the term people, e.g. Lakota people, but as has been pointed out, that is not strictly correct usage of the term either. However, there are indigenous peoples throughout the world for whom these kinds of identifiers are needed. All of which to say that there is, as Frank says, no rule to follow, and I'm saving his suggestions for future discussions with the authors I work for, all of whom DO have an opinion on what they'd like to see on this. Kara, if you can, I'd talk to the author, because this is nontrivial. Best, Victoria vbaker@pacific.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:17:27 LCL Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Victoria Baker Subject: Re: generic cross-references In-Reply-To: <199712152200.OAA27406@pacific.net> At 04:58 PM 12/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Pam Rider wrote: >> >> To me, >> >> >_See farming headings_ > >What about: > >_See also at_ farming >_See also under_ farming >_See at_ farming >_See under_ farming > >Does anybody use any of the above? I do use them, but only when the information sought is within that particular heading. When referring to a group of main headings such as Kara listed, I use the wording or similar that Pam specifies. Best, Victoria vbaker@pacific.net ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:20:10 LCL Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Victoria Baker Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two In-Reply-To: <199712160337.TAA14502@pacific.net> >How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be written >by someone, according to the author? I don't think that the title, per se, is indexable. Perhaps the subject on which the book should be written is indexable. Best, Victoria vbaker@pacific.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 06:27:47 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Christine Shuttleworth Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two Victoria Baker wrote: <>How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be wri= tten >by someone, according to the author? I don't think that the title, per se, is indexable. Perhaps the subject = on which the book should be written is indexable. I had a similar problem when indexing a biography = of a film director. A long passage concerned a film which reached an advanced stage of production, but was never completed or released. Another film was later = made with the same title, but by a different director = and team. = My brief was to include in the index all films mentioned in the book, with their dates. I therefore included the following entries: NAME OF FILM (1983) NAME OF FILM (planned) (I originally considered "projected" rather than "planned", but this seemed too ambiguous as the subject was films!) I'm still not sure if I could have found a better solution. Christine ************************************************************* Christine Shuttleworth - Indexing and Editorial Services Flat 1, 25 St Stephen's Avenue, London W12 8JB Tel/Fax (+44 181) 749 8797 email ChristineShuttleworth@compuserve.com or 106234.1745@compuserve.com *************************************************************= ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 07:36:38 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Joel S. Berson" Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two Following up on Christine's analogous situation (and I like her solution), how about _title-of-book_ (imagined) or something similar? Christine Shuttleworth wrote: > > Victoria Baker wrote: > > <>How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be wri= > tten > >by someone, according to the author? > > I don't think that the title, per se, is indexable. Perhaps the subject = > on > which the book should be written is indexable. > > I had a similar problem when indexing a biography = > > of a film director. A long passage concerned a film > which reached an advanced stage of production, but was > never completed or released. Another film was later = > > made with the same title, but by a different director = > > and team. = > > My brief was to include in the index all films mentioned > in the book, with their dates. I therefore included the > following entries: > > NAME OF FILM (1983) > NAME OF FILM (planned) > > (I originally considered "projected" rather than "planned", > but this seemed too ambiguous as the subject was films!) > > I'm still not sure if I could have found a better solution. > > Christine > > ************************************************************* > Christine Shuttleworth - Indexing and Editorial Services > Flat 1, 25 St Stephen's Avenue, London W12 8JB > Tel/Fax (+44 181) 749 8797 > email ChristineShuttleworth@compuserve.com > or 106234.1745@compuserve.com > *************************************************************= ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:04:10 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: John and Kara Pekar Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian Thank you to everyone who responded to my inquiry. I found your replies thought-provoking and helpful. Just to let you know, I ended up using the term "Indian" to match the author's use, but I will mention the dilemma in my cover letter, and let the editor decide whether to change it to "people" or "tribe". (There were excellent justifications for using either term, IMO.) Qualifying the place names wouldn't have worked as well. There were a lot of them, and all but one or two were in the same Mexican state, leading to a lot of repetition. Since there were only four or five native groups mentioned, it seemed more expedient to qualify those. Again, thank you. Your replies have given me a number of options to use the next time I encounter this situation. Kara Pekar jkpekar@crosslink.net ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:40:47 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ann Norcross Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two Martha Osgood wrote: > > Hi Indexers - . > > Does anyone know if there is a difference between "inclusive" and > "inclusivistic"? Or "exclusive" and "exclusivistic"? In fact, are the > "-istic" words even words at all? The "-istic" stuff is so ugly, and not > in my dictionaries, yet the (excellent) copyeditor let it pass. Eeeeuuu! > > How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be written > by someone, according to the author? > > Let's say there is not a separate scripture index, and there is a tight > line limit on the index. And let's say that the scriptural quotes which > are to be indexed are only to be indexed by book (i.e., not by verse). Is > it considered horrible form (or even heresy) to index as > > 1 - "John, book of" to distinguish it from John, a person, > 2 - "Bible. See also books of John; Matthew;" > 3 - Would you leave out "books of" in the See also x-ref? Yes, I would leave out "books of" because otherwise I think the reader would look under "B." Other than that change, I would do what you've done in number 4 below. Ann > 4 - Or do something entirely different? See example below: > > Bible, 7-11, 33, 55, 81, 88, 137, 159-162 See also Job; John; Leviticus; Peter... > ... > Job, book of, 121 > John, book of, 122-26, 198 > John, MaryLou Carter, 169-174 > Leviticus, book of, 18,24-26 > Peter (the apostle) 51-52, 116 > Peter, book of, 86, 116-125, 143 > ... > > (Assume I'm trying to avoid listing the Bible books as subentries under the > key word Bible because I want other gates into the index and can't > double-post them due to space issues.) > > Looking forward to your...er...revelation... > > Martha > Back Words Indexing > osgood@darkwing.uoregon.edu ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:51:43 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sharon Wright Subject: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two -Reply My only response to the Bible question is to be careful-- there is more than one book of John in the Bible! :-) Perhaps you should refer to it as the gospel of John (John, gospel of) to distinguish it from the three epistles (I John, II John and III John). Otherwise, the book designation seems like a good and logical one. As a rule, I'm not fond of "see also" entries (which can lead to needless clutter), but the way you have it seems fine. As for "exclusivistic" and "inclusivistic," I'd stick with the simpler yet correct terminology "exclusive" and "inclusive." I don't think that the former are real words! Might be worth a call to the copyeditor if it becomes an issue. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:31:47 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ghg410 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two Martha: For the Bible entries I like John, Gospel According to. This is the actual title of the book as given in the New Testament. If According to makes your line too long use John, Gospel of. For other writings of John you might have John, First Epistle of. This is the title of the book as it appears in the New Testament. For people there might be John, Apostle or John the Baptist . As to inclusivistic, I really dislike these excessivie forms. I sometimes hear orientate for orient as in orientation. Why complicate thongs? My Webster's Ninth (I guess I should get a 10th) doesn't acknowledge the existence of orientate or inclusivistic. Gerri Reference Librarian Baltimore, MD Still working on my USDA course ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:35:52 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Dr DCS Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two Martha, Yes, there is a difference between inclusive and inclusivity and exclusive and exclusivity. Inclusive and exclusive are adjectives (descriptors) while inclusivity and exclusivity are nouns describing the act of being inclusive and exclusive respectively. Dawn Schroeder The Perfect Page ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:51:40 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Jean A. Thompson" Subject: Generic cross references and Indigenous vs. Indian Here's how the Library of Congress solves these problems: 1. Generic cross references See also headings beginning with .... For example: See also headings beginning with "Afro-American" 2. Indigenous vs. Indian LC uses "Indians" to identify individual tribes and a plural of a larger name that includes several tribes. For example: Chichimecs is used instead of Chichimec Indians and includes two tribes: Chichimec-Jonaz Indians Tezcucan Indians which are also included as valid subject headings in the thesaurus. When it comes to other parts of the world, however, where the word Indians has not been used to identify native inhabitants they use headings like: Mfumte (African people) The geographic qualifier is not more specific because the areas groups live in do not coincide necessarily with political boundaries and political boundaries have changed over time and/or the group has changed location. One last caution: LC has not been known for being especially quick to change terms to politically correct ones or current terminology. I remember a while back the change from Negroes to Afro-Americans and Blacks for people of African ancestry in other parts of the world. They will probably never change Afro-American to African American though this is what I hear most often now. Do with this information what you will. I just thought you might like to know how our national library approached these two problems. Hope this helps and good luck. ******************************************************************************** Jean A. Thompson PHONE: (518) 442-3628 Monographic Cataloger FAX: (518) 442-3630 University at Albany/SUNY University Library, B-35 E-MAIL: thompson@cnsvax.albany.edu 1400 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12222 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:54:51 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: DStaub11 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: generic cross-references I use ^See also^ Farming ^headings^. But at my last workshop Marcia Carlson suggested a more elegant wording, which I can't remember! Marcia, are you on here? I'll try and ask her. "See under" usually means "this heading will appear as a subheading under the following main heading"--a different meaning from the one we're discussing. (I don't use See under in a regular index. Do Mi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:54:23 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: DStaub11 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian -Reply I would also advocate following the author's usage if it is consistent. (And actually, some native people these days have gone back to (or never left) a preference for "Indian.") I also use "people" after group names. << "Tribe" was not a term used by the people themselves. There is currently a raging debate in the field of anthropology over this term, as well as over the use of such terms as "primitive" or "simple" in referring to societies. >> Actually, many radical Native American people like the term "nation." (Gives them as much respect as Switzerland, for example!) But I wouldn't use it in an index unless it was the author's usage. Do Mi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:03:55 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two -Reply In-Reply-To: <199712161453.GAA27360@powergrid.electriciti.com> _The Chicago Manual of Style_ specifies roman type for the Bible, as well as for books and divisions/sections. Examples include: Acts; the Acts; Acts of the Apostles 3 John Romans; the Epistle to the Romans Material after semicolons is alternative. Some sorting anomalies might arise from this usage and I would have: Acts John (third book) Romans Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:07:37 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Rebecca Carr Subject: indigenous vs. Indian I agree with Janet and Anne on this one. Apache people, etc. is my preference. Becky ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:22:44 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Christine Shuttleworth Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two Gerri writes: Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jillbarret Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Goodbye to the list Hi everybody, I just wanted to say a goodbye before I sign off the list. I have decided to go back to school for a Masters in Library Science. I will begin a MSLS degree program at The Catholic University this January! Between a full-time job, part-time school, and my family, I don't expect to have any time to read or contribute to postings on this listserv. This list has been an exceptional resource to me as a freelance indexer. My best wishes and thanks to all for your tremendous and professional support! Jill Barrett ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:27:41 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Jean A. Thompson" Subject: Spanish names and companies Pauline asked about the name Patrocinio Gonzalez. I looked him up in the Library of Congress name authority file. He is listed there as: Gonzalez Garrido, Patrocinio with an accent acute on the "a" in Gonzalez. Some of the cross references in the authority record seem to indicate that his full name is Jose Patrocinio Gonzalez Blanco Garrido (diacritics omitted) This last and fullest form of his name was verified in a book entitled: Version magnetofonica del dialogo del ... (diacritics omitted) dated 1991. LC has apparently chosen to use the simpler form of the name as the form of his name that appears in print most often and/or the form by which he is most widely known. I agree with Pauline's analysis of the components of his name. ******************************************************************************** Jean A. Thompson PHONE: (518) 442-3628 Monographic Cataloger FAX: (518) 442-3630 University at Albany/SUNY University Library, B-35 E-MAIL: thompson@cnsvax.albany.edu 1400 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12222 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:10:56 +0000 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Nancy Zibman Subject: Re: Goodbye to the list In-Reply-To: <01IR8V20CPBM8ZKEA0@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> GOOD LUCK JILL!!!!! Nancy ZibmanAt 03:02 PM 12/16/97 -0500, you wrote: >Hi everybody, > >I just wanted to say a goodbye before I sign off the list. I have decided to >go back to school for a Masters in Library Science. I will begin a MSLS >degree program at The Catholic University this January! Between a full-time >job, part-time school, and my family, I don't expect to have any time to read >or contribute to postings on this listserv. > >This list has been an exceptional resource to me as a freelance indexer. My >best wishes and thanks to all for your tremendous and professional support! > >Jill Barrett > Nancy Zibman Brandeis University Library Waltham, MA (617) 736-4685 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:17:09 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian In-Reply-To: <199712160512.XAA12399@mixcom.mixcom.com> >I'm working on a book set in Mexico. There are a number of native groups >mentioned. More often than not, he author refers to them as the >such-and-so Indians. I realize that "Indian" is not a pc term for groups >native to the American continent. Like the author, I've used the terms >"indigenous peoples" and "indigenous lands" as generic labels. However, I >need some way to indicate that these are tribe names rather than place >names (which also abound in the book, and which can look very similar to a >reader unfamiliar with the region.) But I'm not sure of the best way to do >this. Should I follow the author's lead and use the term "Indian"? >Generally, I'm all in favor of following the author's choice of words. But >using this term could conceivable upset some readers, a thing I'd hate to >do. Is there some other clever but pc way of clarifying that these are not >place names, but groups of people? How have other people handled this >situation? When I indexed a book about South American indigenous people, I added the word "people" after the name of the group. Although the author did occasionally use "Indian," in some cases she didn't, perhaps because some of those peoples were a mix of indigenous and Spanish. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:11:37 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two In-Reply-To: <199712160512.XAA12399@mixcom.mixcom.com> >Does anyone know if there is a difference between "inclusive" and >"inclusivistic"? Or "exclusive" and "exclusivistic"? In fact, are the >"-istic" words even words at all? The "-istic" stuff is so ugly, and not >in my dictionaries, yet the (excellent) copyeditor let it pass. Eeeeuuu! I hate to say it, but yes, there is a difference, at least when philosophers do it. This is a bit clunky, but a person who is inclusivistic would be a proponent of that which is inclusive. Such a person would be an inclusivist. I suppose a theory could also be inclusivistic--it isn't itself inclusive but advocates a stance of being inclusive. The "istic" suffix indicates an ideological stance, I would say. And although those two pairs look unfamiliar, "istic" isn't too uncommon an ending: real/realistic; opportune/opportunistic; ideal/idealistic; capital/capitalistic; etc. > >How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be written >by someone, according to the author? Does the author give this book a title? If so, how about this: _Title_ (hypothetical book) If the author doesn't suggest a title, perhaps you could just list it by its subject content. For example, if it's about inclusivism, just list "inclusivism" as a main entry. > >Let's say there is not a separate scripture index, and there is a tight >line limit on the index. And let's say that the scriptural quotes which >are to be indexed are only to be indexed by book (i.e., not by verse). Is >it considered horrible form (or even heresy) to index as > >1 - "John, book of" to distinguish it from John, a person, >2 - "Bible. See also books of John; Matthew;" >3 - Would you leave out "books of" in the See also x-ref? >4 - Or do something entirely different? See example below: > > Bible, 7-11, 33, 55, 81, 88, 137, 159-162 > See also books of Job; John; Leviticus; Peter... > ... > Job, book of, 121 > John, book of, 122-26, 198 > John, MaryLou Carter, 169-174 > Leviticus, book of, 18,24-26 > Peter (the apostle) 51-52, 116 > Peter, book of, 86, 116-125, 143 If you're going to have "book of" in the main entry, then I would include it in the cross-ref.: _See also_ Job, book of; John, book of; Peter, book of. Or if there are a real lot of them, I'd do this: _See also specific books_ Another alternative, which would allow you to drop the "book of" issue, would be this: Bible, 7-11, 33, 55, 81, 88, 137, 159-162 _See also_ Job; John; Leviticus; Peter... ... Job (Bible), 121 John (Bible), 122-26, 198 John, MaryLou Carter, 169-174 Leviticus (Bible), 18,24-26 Peter (the apostle), 51-52, 116 Peter (Bible), 86, 116-125, 143 >Looking forward to your...er...revelation... Cute. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | I'm not into working out. My Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | philosophy: No pain, no pain. Milwaukee, WI | -- Carol Leifer http://www.mixweb.com/Roberts.Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:50:42 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Margaret Stevenson Subject: Re: Goodbye to the list In-Reply-To: <199712162003.PAA11938@camel16.mindspring.com> Good luck, Jill. I hear Catholic U is a good program. Meg At 03:02 PM 12/16/97 EST, you wrote: >Hi everybody, > >I just wanted to say a goodbye before I sign off the list. I have decided to >go back to school for a Masters in Library Science. I will begin a MSLS >degree program at The Catholic University this January! Between a full-time >job, part-time school, and my family, I don't expect to have any time to read >or contribute to postings on this listserv. > >This list has been an exceptional resource to me as a freelance indexer. My >best wishes and thanks to all for your tremendous and professional support! > >Jill Barrett > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:49:20 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lawrenc846@AOL.COM Subject: Re: indigenous vs. Indian -Reply The use of the term tribe is more than a good versus bad issue in Anthropology. This term often has been narrowly defined to indicate a certain kind of economy and society. In one widely used 20th century classificatory system, it means a particular type of sociocultural organization. In other words using the term "tribe" in Anthropological literature can imply other things about the culture of that people. Given all this, I would be very reluctant to use the term "tribe" unless it is already in the text. The term "tribe" is often used in the U.S. to denote a legal entity recognized by the U.S. government, or an ethnic group, but this usage is very different from its use in Anthropology and isn't necessarily true for other countries. Lawrence H. Feldman Lawrenc846@aol.com ------------------- Cynthia Bertelsen wrote: The concept of "tribe" is one that anthropologists in the nineteenth century used to define stateless population groups (usually on an Darwinian scale of evolutionary social progress). "Tribe" was not a term used by the people themselves. There is currently a raging debate in the field of anthropology over this term, as well as over the use of such terms as "primitive" or "simple" in referring to societies. Many anthropologists now suggest that "ethnic group" is the preferred term over "tribe." In fact, "people" is actually a term more closely related to many such groups' self concept (vis a vis their myths of origin, etc.) even though anthropologists do indeed reserve the term "people" for larger cultural groups with subcultures. Along with others on this list, I would use "people" as a qualifier for group names, not "tribes." At 10:19 AM 12/15/97 -0500, Sharon Wright wrote: >I would distinguish the tribal names by referring to them >as tribes, which I believe is standard anthropological >practice. I've never heard of a Native American group >being offeneded by that designation (Navajo tribe, Hopi >tribe, Kwakiutl tribe, etc.). Referring to a group as >"people" usually denotes a broader context than a tribal >one (the Aztec people or Mayan people, for example, >which included several smaller tribes). The place >names you could further distinguish by including the >place name and state name (for instance, Guadalajara, >Jalisco), if necessary. > >Just my two cents... :-) > >-- Sharon W. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 21:54:23 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jillbarret Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Goodbye to the list Thank you, Meg, how kind of you to write. Yes, I also believe they have an exceptional program and I'm looking forward to attending. Best to you also! Jill ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:07:17 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Martha Osgood Subject: Thanks to Eeeuuu-all Virtual Chocolate (again) to you all for providing such a good forum for skill-building -- and especially to Nancy Z, Dawn (the Indexlady), Victoria, Christine (who bemoans the fall thongs) Joel, Kara, Ann, Sharon, Gerri, Dawn (of the Perfect Page), Carol and Pam who helped specifically on these questions. I agree that the name of this particular imaginary book is less important than its subject, and so I indexed only the subject. But using a qualifier [e.g., Mad Dogs and Women of Oregon (proposed)] will go into my file of good indexing ideas from this List. Thanks to Sharon for reminding (saving) me that there is more than one book of John in the Bible. I can go back and verify to which the author was referring. Since there are only 8-9 books of the Bible quoted by the Au, I decided to index each book by name and do a x-ref from Bible Bible, XX, YY, XY, YX. See also Acts; Amos; Exodus; Jeremiah; John, gospel of; Leviticus; Matthew; etc. Carol Roberts pointed out that "inclusivistic" (instead of "inclusive") actually is a real word, used in philosophical writing with a distinct meaning. My Au (PhD) is writing on philosophy of religion, so I will refrain from challenging this issue. (But I don't have to like that awful word, do I?) Thanks, Indexers. You've saved me again. Martha Back Words Indexing Eugene, Oregon... ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 13:07:21 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Julia B. Marshall" Subject: How do I set no mail? In-Reply-To: <199712170341.WAA15878@cap1.CapAccess.org> Dear folks I'll be going away next week for the holidays. Could somebody kindly send me an e-mail giving me instructions for setting INDEX-L to no mail? And then of course instructions for signing back up? Thanks in advance. Regards Julia Marshall ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:20:47 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Michael Brackney Subject: Re: generic cross-references At 01:15 AM 12/15/97 -0500, Kara wrote: > >When it is necessary to cross-reference to a series of headings which all >begin with the same word (more or less), what's the best way to format the >reference? . . . I use the same format (with italics indicated) that Jean Thompson says LC uses: _______, _See also_ _headings beginning with "farming"_ although sometimes I've used "topics" instead of "headings" (probably unnecessarily) for fear of "headings" sounding too much like indexer's jargon. I think a format like _______, _See also_ _"farming" headings_ though nice and succinct, is too vague because readers might well imagine they're being referred to some headings that do not begin with "farming", such as "cattle farming". Do Mi, I look forward to seeing Marcia Carlson's wording! Michael Brackney Indexing Service 134 Kathleen Way Grass Valley, CA 95945 916 272-7088 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 10:20:50 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Michael Brackney Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two One more, Martha! At 07:26 PM 12/15/97 -0800, Martha Osgood wrote: > >Does anyone know if there is a difference between "inclusive" and >"inclusivistic"? Or "exclusive" and "exclusivistic"? In fact, are the >"-istic" words even words at all? The "-istic" stuff is so ugly, and not >in my dictionaries, yet the (excellent) copyeditor let it pass. Eeeeuuu! My old Random House unabridged dictionary lists "exclusivistic" under "exclusivism", "the practice of being exclusive". (Neither "inclusivism" nor "inclusivistic" is listed.) >How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be written >by someone, according to the author? Working from Joel Berson's idea of using the qualifier "(imagined)", you might also try the qualifier "(imagined book)", or the subheading "as imagined by so-and-so". In all of these cases the lack of an author's surname in parentheses behind the title could be taken as an indication of something unusual. In the case of an uncompleted work, such as the film Christine once indexed, "(unfinished)" might work well as a qualifier. >. . . let's say that the scriptural quotes which >are to be indexed are only to be indexed by book (i.e., not by verse). Is >it considered horrible form (or even heresy) to index as . . ."John, book of" >to distinguish it from John, a person (?) Certainly not, in my opinion, but I think you can improve on "John, book of", which doesn't look much like a title. To my eye, "John, Book of" would work better; and "John, Gospel of" would work much better yet. (CMS calls for a capital "g".) Still better might be "John (Gospel of)", which represents the name of the book simply as "John", would sort ahead of inverted names such as "John, Frederick", and might make a good model for formatting the names of other books of the Bible such as "Job (Book of)" and "Romans (Epistle of Paul)". I wonder what other Index-lers who have indexed books of the Bible would think of this suggestion. Regards, Michael Brackney Indexing Service 134 Kathleen Way Grass Valley, CA 95945 916 272-7088 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:21:25 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two In-Reply-To: <199712160337.TAA09803@mail-gw.pacbell.net> At 07:26 PM 12/15/97 -0800, Martha wrote: >Hi Indexers - . > >Does anyone know if there is a difference between "inclusive" and >"inclusivistic"? Or "exclusive" and "exclusivistic"? In fact, are the >"-istic" words even words at all? The "-istic" stuff is so ugly, and not >in my dictionaries, yet the (excellent) copyeditor let it pass. Eeeeuuu! Hi Martha, I've never heard those "istic" terms either. Yuck! How does their use impact your index? Both of them are adjectives and therefore shouldn't stand alone as main headings. If you must make entries for the term(s) they modify, you may be able to avoid the issue altogether by making a main heading only for the noun(s) they modify and not the adjective-noun constructs. Because the concept can be either "exclusive(istic)" or "inclusive(istic)" readers are likely to first look under an entry for the concept itself anyway. If you must make main headings for those words, I'd use them only with the nouns they modify in the headings. (You might not be able to avoid doing this if the concept is well known by the book's intended readership as "ex/incluvistic concept A".) > >How would you index the title of an imaginary book that "should" be written >by someone, according to the author? If the author made such a big deal of it that it belongs in the index, I'd index it as the title of a real book, in italics. I've indexed fictious entities and objects myself (such as fictitious companies in software tutorials) from time to time. IMHO, the fictitious entity or object is as "real" as any other concept as far as that particular book is concerned. I don't believe that it is absolutely necessary to indicate in the index what is actually real or fictitious outside of the mindspace presented by the book. ;-D > >Let's say there is not a separate scripture index, and there is a tight >line limit on the index. And let's say that the scriptural quotes which >are to be indexed are only to be indexed by book (i.e., not by verse). Is >it considered horrible form (or even heresy) to index as > >1 - "John, book of" to distinguish it from John, a person, I'd index it as: John, book of or John, Gospel According to (which is the full title of the book) >2 - "Bible. See also books of John; Matthew;" I'd use: Bible. See also specific books "Specific books" is in italics because it's a general cross reference. Creating this as a general cross reference avoids creating a huge cross reference if the index contains entries for many books of the Bible. If there are only one or two books (which I doubt, given your examples), I'd list them individually, using exactly the same wording as the actual main entries (including "book of"). Using the verbatim text of the target entry tells readers exactly what entry to look for in the index. Some index users might actually look under "books of" if you indexed the targets as above. But because space is an issue and because listing just a few of these lengthy target entries will cause the entry to wrap, I'd use a general cross reference. >3 - Would you leave out "books of" in the See also x-ref? Using "specific books" as a target avoids this issue. ;-D >4 - Or do something entirely different? See example below: > > Bible, 7-11, 33, 55, 81, 88, 137, 159-162 > See also books of Job; John; Leviticus; Peter... > ... > Job, book of, 121 > John, book of, 122-26, 198 > John, MaryLou Carter, 169-174 > Leviticus, book of, 18,24-26 > Peter (the apostle) 51-52, 116 > Peter, book of, 86, 116-125, 143 Book of Peter? Which one? I have a Catholic Bible here in front of me which contains I St. Peter and II St. Peter ("The First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle" and "The Second Epistle...") as separate chapters. (Ditto for John's three epistles.) Does the King James version, or whatever version is addressed in your text, contain two epistles from Peter? I'd designate which epistle of Peter is being referred to in the entry (if the version of the Bible addressed in the text has two epistles). Peter (apostle) Peter, First Epistle of Peter, Second Epistle of BTW, if "apostle" is capitalized in the text, I'd capitalize it within the scope note. I think it usually is. > ... > >(Assume I'm trying to avoid listing the Bible books as subentries under the >key word Bible because I want other gates into the index and can't >double-post them due to space issues.) I agree with not listing individual books as subentries under Bible. In addition to saving space, it can prevent having to use subsubentries and, perhaps, a multi-column listing for "Bible". > >Looking forward to your...er...revelation... LOL! Hope it wasn't ...ahem... apocalyptic and wrecked havoc with your index (if you found any of these suggestions useful). ;-D Lynn ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 15:29:37 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Bookindexr Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: How do I set no mail? Hi Julia, Have a happy holiday. I cut throught the chase and highlighted what you needed in red. To subscribe, send the following message to listserv@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu: subscribe INDEX-L Your Name Use your real name, not your electronic address. When you subscribe, you will receive an email message entitled You are now subscribed to the list. Read and save this message! Among other things, it tells you how to post messages, how to receive a copy of what you post, and how to unsubscribe. This is the letter that INDEX-L sent me when I first signed on: "Your subscription to the INDEX-L list (Indexer's Discussion Group) has been accepted. Please save this message for future reference, especially if you are not familiar with LISTSERV. This might look like a waste of disk space now, but in 6 months you will be glad you saved this information when you realize that you cannot remember what are the lists you are subscribed to, or what is the command to leave the list to avoid filling up your mailbox while you are on vacations. In fact, you should create a new mail folder for subscription confirmation messages like this one, and for the "welcome messages" from the list owners that you are will occasionally receive after subscribing to a new list. To send a message to all the people currently subscribed to the list, just send mail to INDEX-L@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU. This is called "sending mail to the list", because you send mail to a single address and LISTSERV makes copies for all the people who have subscribed. This address (INDEX-L@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU) is also called the "list address". You must never try to send any command to that address, as it would be distributed to all the people who have subscribed. All commands must be sent to the "LISTSERV address", LISTSERV@BINGVMB.BITNET (or LISTSERV@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU). It is very important to understand the difference between the two, but fortunately it is not complicated. The LISTSERV address is like a FAX number, and the list address is like a normal phone line. If you make your FAX call someone's regular phone number by mistake, it will be an unpleasant experience for him but you will probably be excused the first time. If you do it regularly, however, he will probably get upset and send you a nasty complaint. It is the same with mailing lists, with the difference that you are calling hundreds or thousands of people at the same time, so a lot more people get annoyed if you use the wrong number. You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF INDEX-L" command to LISTSERV@BINGVMB.BITNET (or LISTSERV@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU). You can also tell LISTSERV how you want it to confirm the receipt of messages you send to the list. If you do not trust the system, send a "SET INDEX-L REPRO" command and LISTSERV will send you a copy of your own messages, so that you can see that the message was distributed and did not get damaged on the way. After a while you may find that this is getting annoying, especially if your mail program does not tell you that the message is from you when it informs you that new mail has arrived from INDEX-L. If you send a "SET INDEX-L ACK NOREPRO" command, LISTSERV will mail you a short acknowledgement instead, which will look different in your mailbox directory. With most mail programs you will know immediately that this is an acknowledgement you can read later. Finally, you can turn off acknowledgements completely with "SET INDEX-L NOACK NOREPRO". Contributions sent to this list are automatically archived. You can get a list of the available archive files by sending an "INDEX INDEX-L" command to LISTSERV@BINGVMB.BITNET (or LISTSERV@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU). You can then order these files with a "GET INDEX-L LOGxxxx" command, or using LISTSERV's database search facilities. Send an "INFO DATABASE" command for more information on the latter. IMPORTANT: This list is confidential. You should not publicly mention its existence, or forward copies of information you have obtained from it to third parties. Please note that the "GIVE" command is automatically disabled for all archive files. Please note that it is presently possible for other people to determine that you are signed up to the list through the use of the "REVIEW" command, which returns the e-mail address and name of all the subscribers. If you do not want your name to be visible, just issue a "SET INDEX-L CONCEAL" command. More information on LISTSERV commands can be found in the LISTSERV reference card, which you can retrieve by sending an "INFO REFCARD" command to LISTSERV@BINGVMB.BITNET (or LISTSERV@BINGVMB.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU)." Susan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 16:23:52 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Martha Osgood Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two In-Reply-To: <199712171820.KAA26200@darkwing.uoregon.edu> You wrote >One more, Martha! >My old Random House unabridged dictionary lists "exclusivistic" >under >"exclusivism", "the practice of being exclusive". (Neither >"inclusivism" >nor "inclusivistic" is listed.) Thanks, Michael. You and Carol Roberts caught this one, and I'm sure glad it was YOU two rather than my editor. Regarding the title of an imaginary book... Your qualifiers such as (imagined book) or (unfinished), and subentries such as "as imagined by so-and-so" are really very good ideas. I'm going to hold on to all of them, even though I have since decided to index only the topic of this particular imagined book. > I think you can improve on "John, book >of", which doesn't look much like a title. To my eye, "John, Book of" >>would >work better; and "John, Gospel of" would work much better yet. >>(CMS calls for a capital "g".) Still better might be "John (Gospel of)", >which >represents the name of the book simply as "John", would sort ahead >of >inverted names such as "John, Frederick", and might make a good model >>for formatting the names of other books of the Bible such as "Job (Book >>of)" and "Romans (Epistle of Paul)". I like your ideas here a lot. You are distinguishing among the books as books, gospels and epistles (and perhaps other categories). I'm going to see what I can do with this idea (since I still have a couple of hours before I have to ship the index). Appreciate your suggestions, Michael. Martha Osgood Back Words Indexing osgood@darkwing.uoregon.edu ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 11:32:23 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two In-Reply-To: <199712171820.KAA26275@mail-gw2.pacbell.net> At 10:20 AM 12/17/97 -0800, Michael wrote: > >Certainly not, in my opinion, but I think you can improve on "John, book >of", which doesn't look much like a title. To my eye, "John, Book of" would >work better; and "John, Gospel of" would work much better yet. (CMS calls >for a capital "g".) > >Still better might be "John (Gospel of)", which represents the name of the >book simply as "John", would sort ahead of inverted names such as "John, >Frederick", and might make a good model for formatting the names of other >books of the Bible such as "Job (Book of)" and "Romans (Epistle of Paul)". >I wonder what other Index-lers who have indexed books of the Bible would >think of this suggestion. Michael, I haven't indexed any books of the Bible (or religious works) of any sort, but I have to differ a bit with the wording of your suggestion "John (Gospel of)". (Did lack of expertise in an area ever stop me from putting my foot in it? Nahhh. ;-D) This gets a bit tricky because what I'm about to say sounds like a religious objection, which it isn't, but is based on the full title of the book. There may be slight variations between versions of the Bible, but it's probably on the order of "The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ According to St. John" (as in the version I have here but without the "St."). If the version discussed in Martha's book uses a title that refers to the book as being the Gospel of Christ as my version does, it would be inaccurate to use "John (Gospel of)", which implies that it's John's Gospel. I don't think that the author wants to imply that unless that is indeed the stance taken in the text. ;-D I think that "John, Gospel According to" is much safer, even though it is longer. Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:20:48 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lindsay Gower Subject: Re: QUERY - eeeeuuu and a question or two In-Reply-To: <199712181701.JAA04619@firewall.persistence.com> At 11:32 AM 12/17/97 -0800, Lynn Moncrief wrote: > >There may be slight variations between versions of >the Bible, but it's probably on the order of "The Holy Gospel of Jesus >Christ According to St. John" (as in the version I have here but without >the "St."). If the version discussed in Martha's book uses a title that >refers to the book as being the Gospel of Christ as my version does, it >would be inaccurate to use "John (Gospel of)", which implies that it's >John's Gospel. I don't think that the author wants to imply that unless >that is indeed the stance taken in the text. ;-D I think that "John, Gospel >According to" is much safer, even though it is longer. Because there are so many variations between Bibles as to the precise title of the some books, the indexer would need to follow the author's preference. It's the *reader* who needs to accomodate the difference between the *author* using a Bible that says "The Holy Gospel According to St. John" when the reader uses a Bible that calls it "The Gospel of John." The indexer might sensibly choose to index what the author calls "The Holy Gospel According to St. John" as "St. John, Gospel" (under the J's!). And the indexer would use the author's preference for calling John's other writing "letters" or "epistles." It is standard verbal "shorthand" to say John's Gospel or Gospel of John -- meaning the gospel John wrote about Jesus -- so "John, Gospel of" would not be incorrect. 2 cents from -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Lindsay Gower lindsay@persistence.com Techncial Writer (650) 372-3606 Persistence Software www.persistence.com San Mateo, CA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:23:01 -0400 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jackie Janezic Subject: Index L Archives I am a fledgling indexer and have learned a great deal from Index L - so much so that each time I go online I visit the Archives site. I have been working my way through past posts, but recently I have a recieved a message that the connection has been refused by the server. Since I had bookmarked this site, I returned to the ASI homepage to attempt to access it via the link there - with the same result. Does anyone have any ideas or information on the Index L archives gopher site? Thanks. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 13:33:23 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Charlotte Skuster Subject: Re: Index L Archives In-Reply-To: <199712181820.NAA11674@library.lib.binghamton.edu> This happens from time to time. The server never stays down for long. Try again later this afternoon, or tomorrow. Charlotte Skuster Index-l moderator On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Jackie Janezic wrote: > I am a fledgling indexer and have learned a great deal from Index L - so > much so that each time I go online I visit the Archives site. I have been > working my way through past posts, but recently I have a recieved a message > that the connection has been refused by the server. Since I had bookmarked > this site, I returned to the ASI homepage to attempt to access it via the > link there - with the same result. Does anyone have any ideas or > information on the Index L archives gopher site? Thanks. > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:46:46 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sean Lally Subject: JOB with CNET.COM Snap! Online (http://www.snap.com) a property of CNET The Computer Network (http://cnet.com) seeks a highly qualified Web Librarian/Ontologist. This position will be located in our San Francisco HQ. We're looking to hire a full-time and highly qualified Ontologist/Librarian who is an expert in classifying information. We're thinking that the ideal candidate would actually have professional experience and some sort of advanced degree in Information, Library Science or Ontology. Someone who worked as a corporate librarian or municipal librarian might be a good choice, as well as somebody who was going to graduate school in ontology. The person needs to have experience with the Web, and particularly using search engines. I appreciate that this is not much to go on but I wanted to see if there were any subscribers with an immediate interest in exploring opportunities with a recognized leader in new media. I hope to post a more complete position description including required skills and responsibilities in the very near future. Please email resumes or questions to Sean Lally (seanl@cnet.com) for more info please check out our sites: http://www.cnet.com http://www.snap.com http://www.shareware.com http://www.shareware.com http://www.tv.com http://www.mediadome.com http://www.download.com http://www.buydirect.com http://www.search.com http://www.activex.com http://www.gamecenter.com http://www.computers.com - CNET is hiring! http://www.cnet.com/Jobs Sean Lally Director, Corporate Recruiting seanl@cnet.com http://www.cnet.com You're one click away from a totally new Internet. Try CNET's new service: Snap! Online. http://www.snap.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:33:40 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ghg410 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Goodbye to the list Jill: Congratulations on gathering up the courage to go back to school. It is a lot easier to go to work everyday than it is to shut yourself up in your office at home, and there is a lot to be said for paid sick days and vacation with children when you need a steady income. I have been taking the USDA indexing course after being a librarian for many years. I thought that now that my children are grown and gone, working at home might be a possibility. Good luck with your new endeavors. Gerri Gray Reference Librarian Loyola/Notre Dame Library Baltimore, MD ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 23:27:01 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Self-Employment vs Employment One of our Index-L-ers posted the following: << ...... It is a lot easier to go to work everyday than it is to shut yourself up in your office at home, and there is a lot to be said for paid sick days and vacation .......>> I say this is one person's opinion. I can see it from both angles, but for me ......... I wouldn't trade the freedom I have for all the world! I've been there and done that. Yes, paid sick days, vacation, weekends free, etc. That's all true. But with it comes bosses, backbiting, competitiveness, and lots of stuff that brings out the worst in people, not to mention the lack of job security in today's business world. The sense of freedom that comes with self-employment is worth a million to me. I wouldn't even consider giving it up!! With all the deadlines, hard work, and overwork, I'm still a happy person. Very happy. I'm set. I can always find clients. I can always work. My life is in my own hands, not somebody else's. This makes it all worth while! Everybody has to find their ideal situation vis a vis employment vs freelancing/self-employment. I think it is a very individual thing -- based on one's temperament, financial situation, family situation, etc. Janet Perlman +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing 610 East Bell Road, Suite 2-157, Phoenix, AZ 85022 (NOTE THE NEW ADDRESS) (602) 569-7302 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:25:11 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Reina Pennington Subject: Airborne Express In-Reply-To: <01IR57LXFND69CH02U@InfoAve.Net> At 7:00 PM -0500 12/13/97, Heather Jones wrote: >So they checked with Airborne, >who said that they had attempted delivery twice, but were unable to reach us >because we were in a remote area and the weather was bad. . . . >We live in Los Alamos, on a paved and well-plowed road in the middle of a >suburban area. . . . FedEx and UPS have been >by my house daily, with no problems. >So if you live anywhere that could by any stretch of the imagination be >called remote, don't count on Airborne! I LOATHE AND DESPISE Airborne Express. I'm in an area that's really rural -- Lake Wateree, South Carolina, about an hour north of Columbia. I'm on a Rural Route; there's no street name. The first time Airborne had to bring me something, I patiently gave them the rather complicated directions over the phone. When they arrived, I gave them a printed map (which also included precise written directions), and asked them to put it in their files for future reference. The second time Airborne had a package for me, they called for directions. I reminded them that they had a map on file. I gave the directions by phone, again. And I gave them another map. The third time Airborne needed to deliver -- you guessed it. And the 4th, 5th, 18th, and 20th times. No one could EVER find a map, although I gave copies to at least four drivers and mailed copies directly to the supervisor twice. Every time, their excuse was that "it was a new driver who didn't know the route." Haven't these people heard of filing cabinets???? Oddly enough, neither UPS nor FedEx has ever had a bit of trouble finding my house -- and never needed directions, either. Reina Pennington Dept. of History, University of South Carolina (used to live in Pojoaque!) ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 06:05:57 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Christine Shuttleworth Subject: Self-Employment vs Employment Janet Perlman wrote: <......... I wouldn't trade the freedom I have for all the world! I've b= een there and done that. Yes, paid sick days, vacation, weekends free, etc. That's all true. But with it comes bosses, backbiting, competitiveness, = and lots of stuff that brings out the worst in people, not to mention the lac= k of job security in today's business world. Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Ghg410 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment My apologies to everyone for posting my note to Jill to the list. I had not meant to. It is indeed one persons opinion nothing more and a conflicted person at that. I am well aware of the freedom that comes with self employment. Gerri ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:36:04 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: CccJlc Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment In a message dated 97-12-19 08:03:55 EST, you write: > My apologies to everyone for posting my note to Jill to the list. I had not > meant to. It is indeed one persons opinion nothing more and a conflicted > person at that. I am well aware of the freedom that comes with self > employment. > > Gerri Gerri- I have to say I am glad you made this little mistake, because the discussion that followed reminded me why I set out to be a freelancer and boosted my determination to overcome some obstacles. Chris Cccjlc@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:39:00 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment Gerri, I've made the mistake of posting a private note to the list myself. No problem! And I intended no criticism by my note -- just was reacting to your statement. I truly do appreciate your point of view. That security is important for many reasons. And the flip side of the "all of this freedom" coin is what happens to your income when you take a 2-week vacation as we did this year, on top of a bit more than usual conference travel and trips to see adult kids on the other coast. Money was down, not to mention the logistics of some of those trips due to deadlines. So it truly is an individual choice -- it depends what stress you wish to have and when. As I said, though, the freedom in the predominating item for me. Happy Holidays. Janet Perlman +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Janet Perlman ..................... (602) 569-7302 .................. jperlman@aol.com Southwest Indexing 610 East Bell Road, Suite 2-157, Phoenix, AZ 85022 (NOTE THE NEW ADDRESS) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:46:56 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment At 11:27 PM 12/18/97 EST, Janet wrote: >One of our Index-L-ers posted the following: << ...... It is a lot easier to >go to work everyday than it is to shut yourself up in your office at home, and >there is a lot to be said for paid sick days and vacation .......>> > >I say this is one person's opinion. I must have missed the original post, otherwise Janet would never have beaten me with a reply. Easier? In what respect? I spent thirty years in corporate cubicles and have spent the last five in my home office. The home office wins, no contest. I sit here composing this in my bathrobe. The morning news is showing the TrafficCam video of the regular rush hour traffic jam on Interstate 40. I never venture out before 10:00 am, when all that is over. My desk is surrounded by three picture windows looking out onto Carolina pines. I will work whatever hours today that I feel necessary to get the job done. If I feel like it, I will take a break and go to a movie this afternoon. If I am doing reading and markup, I will take it to my local coffee shop and work there for a few hours and have lunch while I work. Paid corporate sick days were nice, but I have found the issue to be moot. In five years, I have never been sick enough to not be able to work. Simple colds and such minor ailments, that would have dissuaded me from making the trek to an office, are no barrier to working at home. Vacations are no problem either, though they are a litlle harder to schedule. I took a ten-day motorcycle trip in August. I've been working constantly since Labor Day, but Monday I will be caught up and have nothing more booked until January 5. Were they "paid" vacations? Sure, I just racked up the pay before taking the vacation. There have also been the odd days here and there between projects. Overall, I probably work fewer total days per year than I did in corporate life. In corporate life, my livelihood was entirely in the hands of someone else. I would work a full year before getting a performance appraisal. Maybe my boss had noticed what I had done, maybe not. Maybe he had understood what I had done, maybe not. Maybe he had money in his budget for my raise, maybe not. Maybe 4-6 months after my appraisal I would get a 4% raise. Bah! I make more now than I did in corporate life. My rewards are immediate. My "performance appraisal" happens every time I bail a client out from a tight deadline. My "raise" is more and more work from grateful clients. To each his own, but I'm firmly in the "work at home" camp. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:00:45 -0700 Reply-To: aelser@uswest.com Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Arthur Elser Organization: U S West Communications Subject: USDA indexing course Gerri, I'm also glad of your post to Jill, even though meant to be private. You mentioned the USDA indexing course. I'd heard about that course years ago, and had completely forgotten about it until you mentioned it. I'm a tech writer and have done indexing in that capacity, but don't feel I'm particularly competent and would like to become more competent. I too have gotten the kids out the door--one, however, has come back with her son, my grandson (we should skip having kids and go directly to having grandchildren)--and I'm looking to retire soon. But I'd like to freelance in my retirement, both writing and indexing. Could you please tell me how to get info on the USDA Indexing course? You can reply privately ;-) TIA, Art Elser -- ================================================================== Art Elser (303) 965-8425 Information Developer aelser@uswest.com U S WEST There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hands. You seek problems because you need their gifts. Illusions Richard Bach =================================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:07:18 -0600 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was maryann@ITASCA.REVISOR.LEG.STATE.MN.US From: Maryann Corbett Organization: Revisor of Statutes Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment I, too, am glad that Gerri started us on a discussion of home versus office indexing employment. Even though I'm no longer chair of the Twin Cities Chapter of ASI, I still get calls from people who are thinking about trying indexing because what they really want is home-based work. While I can say plenty about the craft of indexing, I'm not the best explicator of freelancing because I don't do it. Janet's and Bill's defenses will be just as useful to me as all the past discussion of the effort it takes to start up. Here's another question, though: The great majority of my calls come from women with young children. While I know some people who did succeed at building indexing businesses while their children were small, they are few. Janet and Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there aren't little children in your lives. Those of you who have done it with kids at home: what would you say to the people who call me? -- Maryann Corbett Language Specialist Office of the Revisor of Statutes Minnesota Legislature 612-297-2952 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 07:20:47 -0800 Reply-To: Kari Bero Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kari Bero Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment In-Reply-To: I agree with Janet, to each his/her own. There are advantages and disadvantages to both lifestyles. We all know the advantages to the 9-5 M-F world, and Janet & Richard have outlined the best advantages of being self-employed. Here are my personal thoughts on what I get out of being self-employed that I didn't get in the 9-5... I wouldn't trade my 5am-2p work day for the 9-5. I'm finally on my own schedule. And lunch at one time each day? Forget it, now I can eat when I'm hungry, whether it's 10am or noon or 2pm or all three. I can drink tea all day (which I do in Seattle, as it always feels chilly to me here), but in my 9-5 I used to walk around in cardigan sweaters (even in summer) and still feel cold. I, personally, find it funny to consider "sick days" a benefit in the 9-5 but not in my 5-2 -- I was one of those people who _never_ called in sick. Never once. Yet, I suffer from chronic headaches and migraines. Yes, I used to go in so drugged and out-of-it, or I'd go in with killer, eye-watering, "TURN OUT THE LIGHTS NOW" headaches. To this day I wonder how I did it. Now that I'm self-employed, I can take care of myself. If I have a migraine or bad headache, I can take time out of my day to lay down & get rid of it (with medication when acupuncture doesn't work). If it lasts for several days, I'm okay taking the time to get through it. I always build in an extra day or two into my project schedules for a "headache day". I would not have kept a job if I had used sick days. I've never been healthier or happier, and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the fact that I can listen to my body & deal with it, rather than worry about clocking in or out. Self-employment allows me the _best_ kind of sick days. Years ago, I didn't know I had a choice, but now I couldn't trade my "headache days" for a bag of money (forget it for the amount of money an employer _would_ try to get by bribing me to come in on a headache day). And my view of Puget Sound isn't the best, but if I feel like walking on the beach, I can just put on some walking shoes (and, truth be told, change out of my jammies) and cross the street. On a whim. How many employers allow that kind of behavior? There are benefits for the self-employed, they're just different. They are what money _can't_ buy. 8-) I think this day calls for some Ramones albums. Think I'll start by paying "Not my place in the 9-5 world", anyone remember which album that's on? Cheers -Kari -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Kari J. Bero Bero-West Indexing Services 206-937-3673 3722 Beach Drive SW, Suite 101 bero@cyberspace.com Seattle, WA 98116 http://www.cyberspace.com/~bero/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, JPerlman wrote: > One of our Index-L-ers posted the following: << ...... It is a lot easier to > go to work everyday than it is to shut yourself up in your office at home, and > there is a lot to be said for paid sick days and vacation .......>> > > I say this is one person's opinion. I can see it from both angles, but for me > ......... I wouldn't trade the freedom I have for all the world! I've been > there and done that. Yes, paid sick days, vacation, weekends free, etc. > That's all true. But with it comes bosses, backbiting, competitiveness, and > lots of stuff that brings out the worst in people, not to mention the lack of > job security in today's business world. > > The sense of freedom that comes with self-employment is worth a million to me. > I wouldn't even consider giving it up!! With all the deadlines, hard work, > and overwork, I'm still a happy person. Very happy. I'm set. I can always > find clients. I can always work. My life is in my own hands, not somebody > else's. This makes it all worth while! > > Everybody has to find their ideal situation vis a vis employment vs > freelancing/self-employment. I think it is a very individual thing -- based > on one's temperament, financial situation, family situation, etc. > > Janet Perlman > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Janet Perlman > Southwest Indexing > 610 East Bell Road, Suite 2-157, Phoenix, AZ 85022 (NOTE THE NEW ADDRESS) > (602) 569-7302 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:20:03 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Charlotte Skuster Subject: FAQ--some additions Here is the latest edition of the index-l FAQ. I have added web site=20 addresses for USDA, Susan Holbert, and the Indexing and Abstracting=20 Society of Canada. (Thanks to Rollie Littlewood for suppling this=20 information!) Happy holidays all. Charlotte INDEX-L FAQ=20 Contents: 1. Index-l procedures 2. Netiquette 3. Archives 4. Books on indexing 5. What software do indexers use? 6. Courses or training for indexers (outside of library schools) 7. Professional societies/organizations for indexers 8. Network connections 9. Internet Sites=20 10.Winners of the ASI/H.W. Wilson Company Award for Indexing=20 1. INDEX-L PROCEDURES There are three addresses you need to use for interaction with index-l: To take part in a discussion or send a message to the list (a.k.a. group or subscribers), address your e-mail to index-l@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu To send a message directly to the moderator (a.k.a. Charlotte), address your e-mail to cskuster@library.lib.binghamton.edu or Skuster@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu To send a command to the listserv, address your e-mail to listserv@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu. As subscribers, you are able to send commands to the listserv to see the archives, see a list of subscribers, stop your mail for a while, or a number of other options. To get a list of listserv commands and what they do, send the following message to the listserv:=20 INFO REFCARD Do not sign your name or put anything else in the message. 2. Netiquette Index-l is un-moderated most of the time. This means the listowner does not see the messages before subscribers do. There are +/-800 subscribers to index-l. It is a very diverse group of=20 free-lance indexers, students, academics, in-house indexers, technical writers, editors, and others. The following are guidelines to use when deciding if a posting is appropriate. ---Any topic related to indexing theory or practice or the business of indexing is appropriate. This includes back-of-the- book, periodical, database, electronic, or an indeterminate future form of indexing. It also includes meeting announcements, job postings, training opportunities, and questions/answers about software/equipment. ---Inappropriate postings include messages completely unrelated to indexing. Examples might be: politics, religion, movie recommendations, tricks my cat/child/spouse/dog/neighbor can do, dinner arrangements during a conference. (This list is not exhaustive and if any of the above named topics can be legitimately related to indexing, it may appropriate.) ---Also inappropriate are advertisements or employment wanted messages. --Other guidelines related to keeping the list free of clutter and strife ---Refrain from sending comments without content such as "I agree" or "right on" or "me too", "thanks", or "welcome". This type of message is best sent directly to the person you are responding to. (An exception to this would be a global thanks for information or assistance provided by several people.) ---When surveying the group for information that requires a brief answer, such as "how many of you are librarians?" or "who uses XYZ software?", please invite respondents to reply to you directly and offer to summarize for the list. ---Avoid quoting long messages when responding to a post. Quote segments just long enough to let others know what you are responding to. =20 ---Fire prevention. If possible, try not to respond to postings hastily--take time to edit your message for phrases that may appear harsh or critical. Also count to ten before replying to a message that offends. Chances are no offense was intended. If you still feel offended, reply to the person personally. ---If you are having technical problems, please contact the listowner directly (cskuster@library.lib.binghamton.edu). ---For a more extensive treatment of netiquette issues see the following site on the world wide web: =20 http://www.fau.edu/rinaldi/netiquette.html 3. ARCHIVES There are two ways to look at the archives: ---Received directly from the listserv@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu Send the following message to the listserv: index index-l. You will receive a list of available archives. When you decide what you would like to see, send the following message to the listserv: get log9703a (for the first week in March, for example) ---On the library gopher at Georgia Southern University: Messages are stored here from the start of the listserv in 1992 through the most recent preceding month. A WAIS searching program is available to search through all years at once or through a selected year. =20 The GSU gopher is located through a gopher client at gopher.gasou.edu or by telnet to gsvms2.cc.gasou.edu.=20 public login (INFO), and then look for the gopher program on the the main information services menu.=20 When you reach the gopher take this directory path: =20 /Georgia Southern University/Henderson Library/Other Organizations/Index-L 4. BOOKS ON INDEXING Bonura, L. The Art of Indexing. Wiley, 1994 Knight, G. N. Indexing, The Art Of. Allen & Unwin, 1979.=20 =20 Lancaster, F. W. Indexing and Abstracting in Theory and Practice. U of Illinois Press, 1991.=20 =20 Lancaster, F. W. Vocabulary Control for Information Retrieval,=20 2nd ed. Information resources Press, 1986=20 Mulvany, Nancy C. Indexing Books, University of Chicago Press, 1994. =20 Wellisch, H. Indexing and Abstracting, an International=20 Bibliography ABC-Clio, 1980.=20 =20 Wellisch, H. Indexing from A to Z. H. W. Wilson, 1991.=20 =20 =20 5. WHAT SOFTWARE DO INDEXERS USE? (This is a limited list. See the ASI Web Site for a more extensive listing: http://www.well.com/user/asi) Cindex (DOS, Macintosh, Windows) Indexing Research=20 Box 18609=20 Rochester, NY 14618 (716) 461-5530=20 FAX: (716) 442-3924 info@indexres.com http://www.indexres.com HyperIndex (Macintosh) Andre De Tienne 7590 Harcourt Road #106 Indianapolis, IN 46260 (317) 274-2033 adetienn@iupui.edu =20 IN>SORT (DOS) Kensa Software=20 P.O. Box 4415=20 Northbrook, IL 60065=20 (708) 559-0297=20 info@kensa.com =20 Macrex (DOS) Wise Bytes P.O. Box 3051=20 Daly City, CA 95015-0051=20 (415) 756-0821=20 FAX: (415) 757-1567=20 Macrex@aol.com http://www.cix.co.uk/~hcalvert SKY Index (Windows) SKY Software 4675 York One Rd Lineboro, MD 21102 Voice and FAX: (410) 374-3484=20 email@sky-software.com URL: http://www.sky-software.com wINDEX (DOS) Susan Holbert Indexing Services 24 Harris St. Waltham, MA 02154-6105 (617) 893-0514 FAX: (617) 894-4665 susanh@world.std.com http://www.abbington.com/holbert/windex.html 6. COURSES OR TRAINING FOR INDEXERS (OUTSIDE OF LIBRARY SCHOOLS) Graduate School of the USDA=20 Correspondence Programs, Ag Box 9911=20 Room 1114, South Agriculture Building=20 14th St. and Independence Ave. SW=20 Washington, DC =20 (202) 720-7123 TDD: (202) 690-1516=20 http://grad.usda.gov/corres/edit.html 20250 Tuition: (includes all materials)=20 $281,00--Basic Indexing (beginning) $275.00--Applied Indexing (more advanced) Basic Indexing Skills Video Susan Holbert/Indexing Services 24 Harris St. Waltham, MA 02154-6105 (617) 893-0514 susanh@world.std.com http://www.abbington.com/holbert/learn.html Fee: $149 + $7 shipping + $7.45 tax for MA residents only 7. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES/ORGANIZATIONS FOR INDEXERS =20 American Society of Indexers (ASI)=20 P.O. Box 48267 Seattle, WA 98148-0267 (206) 241-9196 FAX: (206) 727-6430 E-MAIL: asi@well.com http://www.well.com/user/asi/=20 Indexing and Abstracting Society of Canada/ Soci=82t=82 Canadienne pour l'Analyse de Documents (IASC/SCAD) Box 744 Station F=20 Toronto Ontario=20 Canada M4Y 2N6=20 http://tornade.ere.umontreal.ca/~turner/iasc/home.html =20 National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services=20 (NFAIS)=20 1518 Walnut Street Suite 307 Philadelphia PA 19102-3403=20 (215) 893-1561 FAX: (215) 893-1564 E-MAIL: nfais@hslc.org=20 Society of Indexers (SI) Mermaid House 1 Mermaid Court LONDON SE1 1HR United Kingdom +44 (0) 171 4034947 FAX +44 (0) 171 4038988 E-MAIL: 10624.1745@compuserve.com Australian Society of Indexers (AusSI)=20 GPO Box 1251L, Melbourne=20 Victoria 3001, Australia=20 E-MAIL:mindexer@interconnect.com.au http://godzilla.zeta.org.au/~aussi =20 8. NETWORK CONNECTIONS=20 =20 America Online (800) 227-6364=20 =20 CompuServe (800) 848-8199=20 =20 Delphi (800) 495-4005=20 =20 GEnie (800) 638-9636=20 =20 The Well (415) 332-4335=20 =20 Real/Time Communications (512) 459-4391=20 =20 See also.=20 Maren, M. "The Age of E-Mail. Home Office Computing,=20 December, 1993, 63-70.=20 Tetzeli, R. "Is Going On-line Worth the Money?" FORTUNE 129(12):104-105, 108. June 13, 1994. 9. Internet Sites Gopher Index-L Archives gopher eagle1.cc.gasou.edu World Wide Web American Society of Indexers http://www.well.com/user/asi Australian Society of Indexers http://godzilla.zeta.org.au/~aussi Indexing and Abstracting Society of Canada http://tornade.ere.umontreal.ca/~turner/iasc/home.html =20 =20 =20 10. WINNERS OF THE ASI/H.W. WILSON COMPANY AWARD FOR INDEXING=20 =20 1979--Hans H. Wellisch, author and indexer; John Wiley, publisher: The Conversion of Scripts: Its Nature, History and Utilization =20 1980--Linda I. Solow, indexer; M.I.T. Press, publisher: Beyond Orpheus:Studies in Musical Structures.=20 =20 1981--Delight Ansley, indexer; Random House Publisher: Cosmos by Carl Sagan,=20 =20 1982--Catherine Fix, indexer; Wm. Saunders Company, publisher: Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Disorders.=20 =20 1983--Award not given.=20 =20 1984--Trish Yancey, indexer; Information Handling Services, publisher: Index and Directory of U.S. Industry Standards=20 =20 1985--Sydney W. Cohen, indexer; Random House, publisher: The Experts Speak by Cerf and Navasky.=20 =20 1986--Marjorie Hyslop, indexer; American Society for Metals, publisher: Metals Handbook.=20 =20 1987--Award not given.=20 =20 1988--Jeanne Moody, indexer; National Wildlife Institute, publisher: Raptor Management Techniques.=20 =20 1989--Philip James, indexer; Butterworths, publisher: Medicine for the Practicing Physician, 2nd ed..=20 =20 1990--Marcia Carlson, indexer; Cornell University Press, publisher: Strategic Nuclear Arms & Arms Control Debates.=20 =20 1991--Daniels, Nancy L., indexer; Van Nostrand Reinhold, publisher:Beyond Public Architecture: Strategies for Design Evaluation. =20 1992--Johnson, Rachel Jo., indexer; Matthew Bender, publisher: American Law of Real Property.=20 =20 1993--Award not given.=20 1994--Deminna, Patricia, indexer; U. of California, publisher: Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture by Daniel Boyarin 1995--White, Martin L., indexer; University of Chicago Press, publisher; The Promise of Pragmatism: Modernism and the Crisis of Knowledge and Authority. 1996--Award not given 1997--Gillian Northcott and Ruth Levitt, indexers; Grove's Dictionaries in the United States and Macmillan Publishers Ltd. in the United Kingdom; Dictionary of Art, edited by Joan Shoaf Turner.. The Dictionary of Art is made up of 32 volumes. This marks the first time that the Wilson Award has been presented for a multi-volume work. The index, which took 10 years to compile, comprises one volume of the dictionary.=20 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:19:00 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "John R. Sullivan" Subject: Re: self-employment I certainly envy those of you who are self-employed. There are a number of things that bar me from joining your ranks, however (much of this has been brought up at various times before on this list, but I just wanted to throw in my two cents' worth). Regular paychecks (I did a freelance project for a former employer recently and received no payment -- not a dime -- for almost 4 months after the project was complete) Health insurance (including dental and vision), short term disability, long term disability, 401K with company match, life insurance. I pay for some of this, of course, but if I had to cover all of these things on my own, it would be far more difficult. Access to equipment, software, magazines, books, etc. that I would not otherwise have access to except at great cost. Many other company-subsidized benefits too numerous to mention here. Even with all of that, though, I very much resent being at the mercy of upper management. I think I could be more efficient, more productive, and more fulfilled as a freelancer -- unfortunately, I can't afford it. As others have pointed out, all of this depends on your situation. I have three kids to support and eventually put through college. If I were on my own, I'd be much less apprehensive about jumping into the freelance pool. John Sullivan Senior Technical Writer Stratus Computer Marlborough MA ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:43:08 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment Maryann, Good question, about young mothers with children who want to consider indexing. You're right. No kid in my life. Been there, done that. Both are young adults now, one is married. So we are just the 2 of us, and my time is my own. I freelanced when I had just 1 toddler, years ago, and it was do-able, but not on the scale of a fulltime business. I was on what I'd call a limited schedule. I couldn't commit to anything like a full schedule. I used childcare 3 mornings a week to get some work done and get my one toddler into a social situation with other children. I enjoyed that. But the pressure wasn't there to meet fulltime deadines. Some of our fulltimers are also fulltime parents. We need to hear from them. I imagine time management is a major issue. So is setting boundaries around who does what when. It would require major strict discipline on the indexer's part. How one would quiet the mind to concentrate at the required times of day, given the complexities of parenthood and a busy household, is a question I have often pondered. I didn't do it because it seemed out of reach to me. I waited until my nest was almost empty to go to freelancing (the oldest was in college, the youngest a teen). That's my experience. Janet Perlman +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Janet Perlman ..................... (602) 569-7302 .................. jperlman@aol.com Southwest Indexing 610 East Bell Road, Suite 2-157, Phoenix, AZ 85022 (NOTE THE NEW ADDRESS) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:17:45 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Nancy A. Guenther" Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment >Here's another question, though: The great majority of my calls come >from women with young children. While I know some people who did succeed >at building indexing businesses while their children were small, they >are few. Janet and Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there >aren't little children in your lives. Those of you who have done it with >kids at home: what would you say to the people who call me? >-- >Maryann Corbett >Language Specialist >Office of the Revisor of Statutes >Minnesota Legislature >612-297-2952 At the risk of repeating what some have heard before -- I've been freelancing since 1983 when my second child was born. Prior to then I was a community college reference librarian & had created a variety of tools to aid students in their info searches. I never had formal indexing training but 11 years of using books with varying levels of index quality provided the background I needed to get started. For those starting with small children, I'd affirm it is possible. My kids are now 16, 14 & 6. My husband & I separated over 3 years ago; my son is fighting chronic lyme so we have a tutor come to the house rather than him in school. For me indexing was the ideal way to keep intellectually active while caring for preschoolers (I did give up trying to keep a clean house, esp. as jobs became more plentiful. Toys on the floor was the price of my kids playing contentedly.) My children learned they could play quietly in my office. They learned also that by giving me quiet times I could be productive enough to take a break & play at various intervals. Work grew gradually -- patience in building contacts was essential. I can't imagine now how I could have dealt with the last several years with a standard job. I can take proof sheets where I need to be, whether it is doctor's offices or waiting after school while a child sees a teacher. I index a variety of topics & often have multiple jobs simultaneously. While hectic this allows me to schedule my work so the more challenging is done while interruptions are the fewest. For example, I can read & mark text while my girls are in school & the house is quiet. Typing I often leave for the afternoon while they are in & out of my office sharing their day with me. By starting when my children were young, I took the time to build my contact list. It has been several years since I did any mailing but I found now that I still make new contacts based on work I've done previously -- editors move between publishers. ASI membership is a definite advantage as indexers refer projects to me that are out of their expertise. Hope this helps. Nancy Guenther nanguent@chesco.com http://www.chesco.com/~nanguent ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 11:55:51 -0500 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sarah H Lemaire Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment In-Reply-To: <199712191552.AA01114@world.std.com> I'm following this discussion of freelancers with young children with interest. I started editing when my children were 2 and 4. I had three jobs my first year which was fine. Of course, I would send out resumes with my previous experience (as a software engineer) and one or two editing jobs. But I didn't get a lot of response. Mostly I worked for one client. Then I got a semi-permanent, part-time freelance job and said, "Oh, what the heck, I'll try for a baby girl." Well, baby number 3 turned out to be another boy. I was lucky because this job was semi-steady (all I could handle) and the people I worked for were totally understanding about times when I was up all night with ear infections. I was working for an author at a high-tech company, working with her as she wrote, so it wasn't like all the work came at once. Most publishing companies have much tighter deadlines and might be more demanding. I do remember one instance where I was on the phone with the author, typing on the computer trying to fix some technical problem, and I had moved the high chair, with the baby in it, into to the office because he was hungry. These days I'm still probably only working half the time, although all my children (now ages 11, 9, 5) are in some form of day care. I have two or three dependable clients and occasionally new ones pop up here and there. I turned down some work this year with some potentially good new clients, when other jobs arrived at the exact same time. I think working at home with small children is not for everyone. I discovered that this year, when on two separate occasions, I recommended two friends (both of whom claimed to want to work at home) for jobs entering editing changes. Both friends quit their jobs before they were completed, having found working at home with children too demanding. But what I say to people who are considering working at home with children is what I really like about it: It makes me feel like an intelligent, worthwhile human being in a way that changing diapers or doing housework doesn't. It also keeps my hand in the workforce. Someone asked for a copy of my resume yesterday and was pleased with what was on it. That's a very nice feeling. Occasionally I skim the newspaper ads here in Boston and frequently find permanent jobs I could get easily. That's also a good feeling. I was offered a permanent, 20 hour per week job in September. But I would have had to commute an hour a day round trip, work for 50 weeks, and make less than I'd made the previous year working about 30 weeks. Many of my friends would like to something now that their kids are in school and have no current skills. Flexible part-time jobs close to home are hard to come by. I wish I could say that my working makes my boys a bit more independent but that hasn't been the case as much as I'd like. So my conclusion (is there one?) is that working at home with kids doesn't work for everyone but it's worth a try. If you're really motivated and enjoy it and try to accept not being the perfect mother at all times, I think it's a pretty good deal. Sarah ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:54:58 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Jan C. Wright" Subject: self-employment I just have to join in on the theme here. No matter which way you go, employed or self-employed, there's pros and cons. I myself would never go back to full-time employment. I used to use up every bit of vacation and sick time being ill, and worn down, and discouraged, and worried that I would be in the next round of layoffs announced that morning. Full time employment can be mistaken for security, and in the software industry, that just ain't so. You need to evaluate how risky or safe a job really is. Some only look like they are safe. Some are extremely safe. It varies... I always felt so boxed in within my "job description," with no freedom to take off and explore the avenues I wanted to explore. Since I started indexing, I have rarely been ill, can take 8 weeks off each year if I plan things well, and feel more secure than I did when "employed". I work much harder than I did when employed, but it is at times I choose. The health insurance and retirement stuff is worrying - everybody has to find a solution to that one. But that is the biggest problem I face. If I wasn't doing this, I wouldn't have been able to up and move to New Mexico for a year while my spouse took his sabbatical, and still have work. To me, this is the only way to fly! But as several people have mentioned, I do not have children to worry about, and that is a big factor in the choice. The people who ask about indexing who have small children will need to figure out how they can concentrate on work without interruptions. If they can figure that out, perhaps this career would work. Indexing is not easy - it takes a lot to pull off a successful small business. The insurance needs, savings needs, and time needs of children would all need to weighed not only against the freedom indexing can give you, but also against how much time it takes to run a business. My cats do okay while I'm working, but children may not want to wait while you work 12 hours against a deadline... Jan Wright Back in Seattle again ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:10:03 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: RRed0032 Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment As a "newer than newbie" who is still contemplating the viability of working part time at home with two small children (3 and 5), this discussion has been very helpful. I am a former research analyst who has been at home the last three years with the kids. I am thinking of taking the USDA course in 98 and then starting to index part time in 99 when both kids are in school. As such, it would also be very useful to know whether freelance indexing work can be realistically scheduled in 4-5 hour blocks per day, or do the publisher's schedules usually require longer days and nights in order to get the work done. What types of indexing work (if any) lends itself to a more structured pace? Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this! Beth Redmond RRed0032@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:27:14 EST Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Bookindexr Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Subject: Re: Self-Employment vs Employment Maryann, My kids are all almost adults but I would have given anything to have known about freelance indexing when they were young. I hated leaving them at a day care centers. They would cry when I left them and I would cry all the way to work. When my two older children were nearly school age. My husband and I opened a printing company and then came my son (now 15). I couldn't bear to leave him at a nursery so I packed him up and took him with me. Did the whole nine yards from breast feeding to morning walks right there at my office. If I could have done it in very busy public office situation I know I could have done it a lot easier at home. This went great until he reached the terrible twos when this little brilliant future pressman learned to to turn on every press and piece of equipment in the place. Then my fear for his safety out weighed my fear of being separted from him. So thus he too went to the day care center. If I had known about freelance indexing then I would have hopped on the train right then and there. I am sure there are ways of intertaining a toddler by keeping him in the same room with you while you work. I might add the last day I picked up my little 3 year old from the nursey school he looked up at me with tears in his eyes and told me that the day care worker wouldn't let him go to the potty because it wasn't the scheduled time and that it had cause him to have an accident (the whole time he kept looking back at the nursery worker with fear in his eyes) I told my husband that either his mother was going to watch him at home or I was quiting. No more day care centers for me. His mother came over to our house every day until he started to school. (Not to say all day care centers are bad. I am sure there are a lot of good ones and good people, but I would prefer not to take the chance if there is an alternative. I don't believe anyone can take better care of my child than me.) Now that I am a grandma and am the designated day care center for this precious little boy, that I will tear off my right arm for before I would leave in a day care center, I would like to also hear from those that have done it and what tricks of the trade they have learned to make it a lot easier. Susan Wilkerson ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:36:42 -0800 Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sonsie Subject: Re: self-employment I've been freelancing for over 25 years, and I'm very happy with my choice. I started before my son was born and worked right through his infancy and toddler stage (albeit with some paid help and day care), and it worked out fine for me. However, this is such an individual choice, that it is hard to say that one way is better than another. Most of the time I've been freelancing, my husband has been well-employed and earning a reasonable amount of money...plus all the perks of corporate life like life and health insurance, paid vacations, and so on. More than anything, though, we counted on his regular paycheck to counteract the wildly varying amounts I would earn in any one time period. Eight years ago, he lost his job...permanently, as it's turned out...and suddenly there were two of us trying to keep everything together with about half as much money as we were used to earning. He opened his own architectural practice in the middle of the worst building depression in CA history, and simultaneously we had to start paying two self-employment taxes, buying our own health insurance, and so forth. Financial insecurity can make you real crazy, real fast! Overall, I wouldn't change much--if anything--about my work life. But I'd recommend that anybody considering this lifestyle be prepared for whatever can happen when you're thinking about other things, to paraphrase John Lennon. =Sonsie=