Genealogy Chat

Hi, i came back on to check that as i sent private messages saying how sorry i was that my silly mistake had caused an uproar that hopefully i had resolved the situation. I genuinely didnt realise how to add to what i had started but i have read through rules now so can see where i went wrong. I really wanted to find out information on my family, thats all, and i am sorry that i have caused this. Rambling rose i haven't got to certs as my children have all needed me today ( a statement review and my litle one's first full day ) but i have had contact from a cousin of my mother who said great nan was sarah bennett and her fatther did marry elizabeth who had a previous marriage to tory ( lighterman) so i will look into that thank you.

Skipping lightly across thread as I have been away

I hope when Michelle has checked the information already posted, and perhaps has any relevant certs ( not reading back at this point to check which ones have been mentioned ), that she will return to the thread and find it helpful,

if there is a link to lightermen, I will mention this site as being a useful one ( I have lightermen in family)

http://www.parishregister.com/

BTW

John


you got something else wrong


GINS did not ask for an apology


I, Sylvia, suggested that you owed her a major apology.




not the first time that you've accused the wrong person of doing something

John


Your research into trolls was very poor, and needs improvement


A troll in internet circles is someone who adopts an alias, previously unknown on the site, in order to create chaos by calling people names, posting vicious comments, and setting people one against the other.

Then removes himself from the site ...... returning with another alias to cause more chaos.


Trolls are disliked by people on the site, and site managers.





If you had done more learning yourself by reading threads before jumping in with both feet ............. you would know that Gins is, as MC said, one of the most helpful, knowledgeable and courteous members on here


................. and she hasn't paid me to say that either!!!


You really don't know what you are doing or saying much of the time in terms of the social aspects and workings of this site, and its family history help boards.


I really am disappointed in how much you get wrong!





Yes, someone could have c&p'd SOME of the information from that other thread. But only Michelle could delete that thread ............ or this thread for that matter. None of us can delete any one else's thread.




As I said last night, and as MC and Gins have also said ...................... to post the information that there is another earlier thread on the same topic, that may contain information, is commonly done on this site.


and the information is most commonly NOT c&p'd over, unless the OP does it.



If you do not want to do that yourself ............. then that is up to you.


But PLEASE, stop castigating other people for doing things that are accepted by most people.



You also say that you were feeling very pleased with yourself ..................... that is obvious!!! .................... and was waiting for someone to give feedback on what you had found.

Praise?????


You DID get feedback ................. a warning that there was another thread and that there might be information on there.


No-one else gets their knickers in a twist when that happens! Perhaps I should adapt that saying :-D




sylvia


edited ca 20:24 to correct misunderstanding.

Look Gins, just don't go thinking I'm turning all nice or anything.

Aww........thank you MC


x

John, we are in no way unforgiving to newbie helpers! I honestly can't understand why you have taken so personally a link to an existing thread - it is standard practice and done for very good reasons (believe me, those reasons do become apparent).

As you say, feedback from the OP is essential but wouldn't be expected from the other helpers - although we do bounce ideas between us.

And yes, I supported Gins - as you'll see when you look through various postings on the boards she is one of the most helpful, knowledgeable and courteous members on here (and no, she hasn't paid me to say that!)

A 'Troll'

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages


John, you wont get any plaudits for researching!

Marie I found that info about Sarah's mother because of a speculative posting by Rose ( I think). That is what I like most about Genes. One member triggers something in another and we hunt facts (and sometimes probabilities) down. And feedback from OP is essential.

I felt quite proud of myself and was hoping someone would give me some feedback on what I had found. So I was very disappointed by Gins post. I knew with only 2 posts to her name that Michelle was as prone to make mistakes as I still am with the niceties of the guidelines. Nice though that you supported Gins :-D

And you have answered another question for me - what is a troll? I have seen that a number of times. My view as an outsider (still :-0) is that there is a lot of friendliness and banter on Community, but you are sometimes very unforgiving to newbies who would like to join in. :-( And I hate emoticons :-| :-| ;-)

Actually John, Genes have no objection to us mentioning competitor sites (such as Ancestry) as long as it is not with the intention of showing Genes in a derogatory light.

It is widely acknowledged that the members who help on here use a variety of resources. The only people who seem to take exception are the small band of members who trawl (troll?!) these boards with the sole intent of looking for something to report. It perhaps makes them feel like they have a purpose in life.

Michelle, just in case you don't already have it, certificates are easily ordered on-line from General Register Office (GRO) http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/

Back to question asked by Michelle

I think mother of Sarah was Elizabeth Louisa WEAVER. She was a widow with a family when she married her bachelor second husband in 1887. To repeat one of my later contributions before the "spat":

""Elizabeth Louisa WEAVER born 5 July 1851 4 Fuller (?) St, B Green (parents Richard (rag man) and Harriet. Bt 3 Aug 1851 at St Matthias B G.

Md 10 Sept 1871 to Tory METCALF at Stepney St Thomas . Bach & spin of full age (doubt that was true). Think both were 19 or 20).

Tory is lighterman, son of William METCALF, also a lighterman, of Stepney. Elizabeth Louisa WEAVER was also of Stepney, dau of Richard WEAVER, marine store dealer. Wit were Stephen GRANGER and Emma Matilda GRANGER (prob sister and brother in law of bride as they were telling age fibs).""

Certificates are important, Michelle, to confirm all this. But an awful lot of these marriages and baptisms are on A**** (a well known competitor of Genes that should not be mentioned :-) So probably only importnat to line up a couple of certs for your Christmas present list. Far nicer than perfume or a One Direction CD :-D

Am sure I am breaking rules, but have asked and got no reply and feel that having the original info on this thread may help us all. Here it is:

Original thread began by michelle 8 Sep 2012 13:47

Hi was wondering if anyone has any connection to or information about my grandmothers side of the family. Her name was Sarah Perry born 1929 in stepney i think. Her father was joseph perry who married sarah bennett - it is sarah bennett who i am trying to look into as i have no idea who her parents were.

thanks in advance for any help!

michelle

michelle
michelle Report 8 Sep 2012 13:49

If it helps my grandmother sarah perry had brothers joe,arthur and william and sisters betty, charlotte and ethel.

Gins
Gins Report 8 Sep 2012 13:57

London, England, Marriages and Banns, 1754-1921
Name: Sarah Bennett
Age: 22
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1891
Spouse Name: Joseph Perry <<Labourer
Spouse Age: 24
Record Type: Marriage
Event Date: 24 Nov 1913
Parish: Stepney St John the Evangelist
Borough: Tower Hamlets
Father Name: James Bennett <<Carman(Deceased)
Spouse Father Name: Joseph William Perry <<Labourer
Register Type: Parish Register

Address: 3 Mary Ann St

Wit: Hannah Harrison & James Winkles



michelle
michelle Report 8 Sep 2012 16:54

thats great thanks, a great starting point for me.

michelle
michelle Report 8 Sep 2012 17:36

how would i find out who her mother was ? wanted to see what i could find out first but think i may need to order certificates.


No more replies, so following day Michelle began this thread.

Gins Report Edit Delete 12 Sep 2012 09:20


First paragraph of the above posting. Was it too ambiguous or maybe too complicated for you to understand?

Gins I must be particularly thick this morning, but have just reread our "spat" and can find no answer to my question. Only a comment about a link to a previous thread and "against rules". Could you not cut and paste your response and OP cancel first thread. Is it against guidelines? A genuine question.

If you don't want to cut and paste, any objections if I do it. It is a 5 second job, after all and I would like the benefit of your contribution on this thread.

The answer was that no-one was telling what to post and what not to post. If you feel so strongly about cutting and pasting the info then just do it - when you've been around the boards more then you'll see we often do just that. The only person who can delete the first thread is Michelle and that's up to her.

No, we aren't bad-tempered or trying to make everybody fell bad, you have a very distorted view of what happens on here.

Hell will freeze over before you get an apology from me.

I think you might need to re-read my (and your own) posts John!



An apology....for what may I ask?

No answer to my question still. Let me repeat - "Is it not possible to cut a post from a previous thread to this thread and then delete the original thread so we all get the benefit of that contribution"(on the first redundant thread).

What bad-tempered people you seem to be. And no, absolutely no sarcasm or humour of any sort on my part. Am just amazed that you seem to want to make everybody feel bad, apart from your goodselves. It just doesn't work with me, I can stand my corner.

Hope to see an answer from Gins eventually to my genuine (if possibly stupid) question of 2 days ago. And possibly an apology from you both - but otherwise please leave it alone.

John, to be quite honest you're starting to get very irritating - you complain about lack of progress on the thread yet you're the one with plenty to say to deviate from the original purpose of the thread and drag out the argument.

If you genuinely want to help Michelle then shut up and get on with it.

Dear John

Why on earth should I go back and c/p a post from another thread? I already spent time finding the information and used my sub to save the poster money on a certificate....and you actually said 'Shall we cut and paste to previous thread' Which I presume was an attempt at sarcasm?

You said: 'Yes, if I was Gins I would be upset that quite a long thread had then developed on a second thread'

No, not upset at all, just pointing out that there was another thread about the same person


You said: 'But most of us would not have said anything'

Really, how do you know this? Have you read the boards, have you seen how often people point out duplicate threads? Have you seen how many threads have been reported and removed by GR, due to it being a duplicate?


You said: 'SHE expected apologies'

Did I really, did I ask for an apology.....I don’t think so and neither did I want one


You said: 'just a justification of why ‘SHE had stopped the thread in mid flow’

I was taught at University that you should not be 'subjective' in any comment that you make, you should be prepared to back your comment up with underpinning facts and reasoning. Opinions are subjective, unless backed up with ‘facts and evidence’


You said: ‘But always polite’

Unlike your comments to me and your offensive emoticons

Sylvia As a newbie myself, I was trying with others to answer questions that Michelle had asked. No knowledge of any previous thread, which in actual fact was a short reply (a helpful one) from Gins.

Yes, if I was Gins I would be upset that quite a long thread had then developed on a second thread. But most of us would not have said anything. I think we learn that from experience in life, and boards can often not reflect real life.

Refer you to post on 10 Sept at 2310. Made a suggestion to Gins about cutting and pasting the one item from old thread to new thread. No answer, just a justification of why she had stopped the thread in mid flow with something that she expected apologies from. I would like to see Gins original reply to Michelle on this thread without foraging back for an dead thread. Is cut and paste against these obviously very rigid Genes guidelines? :-S :-S Then Michelle could cancel original thread and we would all be happy. Do guidelines not allow for that?

And they are GUIDELINES - not Rules. A very big difference. Guidelines help us, not tell us. And some of these less essential guidelines should lie beneath the surface and not be thrust in the faces of new people on the block, IMHO. Just wait a month or two till we have settled in. You have been here for more than a couple of months yourselves. I don't mind anyone having a go at me now, but a month ago I could not see that, for example, getting my terminology wrong eg threads, posts, boards, chat was any reason for people to shout "read the rules first" and similar. Family history is a hobby. Many years ago, it used to be great fun - and progress was very very slow. But always polite.