LDS Help

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Roger Jensen

LDS Help

Legg inn av Roger Jensen » 17 aug 2004 02:00:00

Is there someone who could help me to verify the data below is correct? I
suspect the date was transcribed incorrectly, the view I had was very
blurred and distorted.


Caple, Littleton
Spouse: Polly Sanders
Marriage Date: Jan 9, 1840
Location: Fayette Co., Tennessee
Source: Family History Library, Salt Lake City, UT
Microfilm: 1003129


Thanks for any help you might can give me.

Roger


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.738 / Virus Database: 492 - Release Date: 8/16/2004

Alan Jones

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Alan Jones » 17 aug 2004 03:32:08

With that film number you can arrange to view it at a
Family History Center close to you.
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library ... et_fhc.asp

Nothing like seeing it yourself.



"Roger Jensen" <rjensen@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4UbUc.8122$EK5.6694@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Is there someone who could help me to verify the data below is correct? I
suspect the date was transcribed incorrectly, the view I had was very
blurred and distorted.


Caple, Littleton
Spouse: Polly Sanders
Marriage Date: Jan 9, 1840
Location: Fayette Co., Tennessee
Source: Family History Library, Salt Lake City, UT
Microfilm: 1003129


Thanks for any help you might can give me.

Roger


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.738 / Virus Database: 492 - Release Date: 8/16/2004


Doug

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Doug » 17 aug 2004 06:19:00

Alan Jones wrote:
With that film number you can arrange to view it at a
Family History Center close to you.
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library ... et_fhc.asp

Nothing like seeing it yourself.



"Roger Jensen" <rjensen@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4UbUc.8122$EK5.6694@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...

Is there someone who could help me to verify the data below is correct? I
suspect the date was transcribed incorrectly, the view I had was very
blurred and distorted.


Caple, Littleton
Spouse: Polly Sanders
Marriage Date: Jan 9, 1840
Location: Fayette Co., Tennessee
Source: Family History Library, Salt Lake City, UT
Microfilm: 1003129


Thanks for any help you might can give me.

Roger


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.738 / Virus Database: 492 - Release Date: 8/16/2004


This illustrates why bottom rather than top posting is the preferred
method on newsgroups. It's a bit hard to tell that the message I am
replying to directly is the first on the page rather than the last.
Also, the virus check message is of little concern on a text-only post.

It is unlikely that looking at the microfilm would be of any benefit.
This is an International Genealogical Index (IGI) entry. The ordinance
index (part of the IGI available only to LDS members) includes the
following message: "Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS
Church to request LDS temple ordinances. No additional information is
available. Ancestral File may list the same family and the submitter."

However ... see 1860 U.S. Census, Alabama, Fayette, Western Division
image attached to direct e-mail.

Doug

Phyllis

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Phyllis » 17 aug 2004 14:03:14

I have often wondered why people use bottom posting at all, since
sometimes the whole, long message is left up there to be seen every time
someone replies. I understand one is supposed to snip, but many don't
and reading the original request 15 times gets to be a bit much.

If one has already read the original post, and is reading replies, why
wade through the original again and again and again? Perhaps I am
outside the norm, and it is my understanding that bottom posting "is the
way it has always been done", but I've never understood what is
efficient about scrolling down to the bottom of something to get past
what has already posted several times with each reply.


This illustrates why bottom rather than top posting is the preferred
method on newsgroups. It's a bit hard to tell that the message I am
replying to directly is the first on the page rather than the last.
Also, the virus check message is of little concern on a text-only post.

It is unlikely that looking at the microfilm would be of any benefit.
This is an International Genealogical Index (IGI) entry. The ordinance
index (part of the IGI available only to LDS members) includes the
following message: "Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS
Church to request LDS temple ordinances. No additional information is
available. Ancestral File may list the same family and the submitter."

However ... see 1860 U.S. Census, Alabama, Fayette, Western Division
image attached to direct e-mail.

Doug

Charani

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Charani » 17 aug 2004 14:15:55

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:03:14 -0400, Phyllis wrote:

I have often wondered why people use bottom posting at all, since
sometimes the whole, long message is left up there to be seen every time
someone replies. I understand one is supposed to snip, but many don't
and reading the original request 15 times gets to be a bit much.

If one has already read the original post, and is reading replies, why
wade through the original again and again and again? Perhaps I am
outside the norm, and it is my understanding that bottom posting "is the
way it has always been done", but I've never understood what is
efficient about scrolling down to the bottom of something to get past
what has already posted several times with each reply.

I'm with you there - all the way :)) I personally prefer top posting

because it makes it so much quicker to get through posts, especially
in a busy groups where there are 500+ posts a day. I'm subbed to 3
like that :))

It annoys me no end to scroll through 5 or 6 previous posts to find
just a smiley or LOL or a couple of words at the end

Ggggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

singhals

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av singhals » 17 aug 2004 14:50:33

Had YOU also top-posted, it wouldn't be an issue.



Doug wrote:

This illustrates why bottom rather than top posting is the preferred
method on newsgroups. It's a bit hard to tell that the message I am
replying to directly is the first on the page rather than the last.

Doug

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Doug » 17 aug 2004 15:18:43

singhals wrote:
Had YOU also top-posted, it wouldn't be an issue.



Doug wrote:

This illustrates why bottom rather than top posting is the preferred
method on newsgroups. It's a bit hard to tell that the message I am
replying to directly is the first on the page rather than the last.



See http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html#3:

"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
.. . .
* If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host
to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing
the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the
entire original!"

If the above advice were taken more often, it wouldn't make too much
difference whether you top or bottom post. The "norm" is bottom posting
in order, I suppose, to keep the text in chronological order so it's
possible to follow. Trimming the excess avoids the issue of having to
scroll through several screens to get the one-line response (which I
didn't do ... sorry ... but the thread wasn't all that long yet).

Doug

Dave Hinz

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 17 aug 2004 17:16:29

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:03:14 -0400, Phyllis <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
I have often wondered why people use bottom posting at all, since
sometimes the whole, long message is left up there to be seen every time
someone replies.

Then your disagreement is with those too lazy to snip, rather than those
answering points in a conversational style. If I save up all my comments
to one place, rather than after the point I'm addressing, it makes it harder
for a reader to understand the flow of what's being said in response to
what.

If one has already read the original post, and is reading replies, why
wade through the original again and again and again? Perhaps I am
outside the norm, and it is my understanding that bottom posting "is the
way it has always been done", but I've never understood what is
efficient about scrolling down to the bottom of something to get past
what has already posted several times with each reply.

See above regarding lazy non-snippers. They exist in both top-posting
and bottom-posting groups. Leave enough in to give context, and
don't snip creatively to make it look like someone said something they
didn't, and put the answers after the questions. It's how we talk,
so why write backwards?

Phyllis

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Phyllis » 17 aug 2004 17:37:39

My only disagreement is in that is "how we talk." When a person asks a
question and is given an answer by more than one person, we do not ask
that person to restate the question before each person answers. In my
humble opinion, if we are "talking" to each other by posting, the same
should be the case. Once the post has been read, it isn't necessary to
re-read it to learn what the other answers were.

If one is unsure, it is easier to scroll through a short answer than a
long question. To each his own I guess.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:03:14 -0400, Phyllis <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote:

It's how we talk,
so why write backwards?

Dave Hinz

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 17 aug 2004 17:53:59

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:37:39 -0400, Phyllis <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote:
My only disagreement is in that is "how we talk." When a person asks a
question and is given an answer by more than one person, we do not ask
that person to restate the question before each person answers.

And yet, in this very case, I don't know you're answering me until I scroll
down, see what I wrote, and scroll back up to answer. How does that
make communication more effective, please?

In my
humble opinion, if we are "talking" to each other by posting, the same
should be the case. Once the post has been read, it isn't necessary to
re-read it to learn what the other answers were.

Not all posts get to the same part of the world in the same order, if they
get there at all. The system is highly fragmented and nearly random in
how messages move around. The surprising thing is that it works as well
as it does, but it's not unusual _at all_ for messages to get to your
server in a different order than they were written, even from the same
person on the same newsserver.

If one is unsure, it is easier to scroll through a short answer than a
long question. To each his own I guess.

The thing is, this was hashed out a long time ago, and language hasn't
changed much in a mere decade or two. People whose messages are inconvenient
to read and/or respond to, are less likely to have what they are saying
read and/or understood. It's your choice, of course, to disregard what
has been found to work, but please at least consider that sometimes the
group's built up wisdom can possibly take things into account that you
are not.

Robert Melson

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Robert Melson » 17 aug 2004 18:21:50

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 17 August 2004 09:53, Dave Hinz wrote:

<snip>

The thing is, this was hashed out a long time ago, and language hasn't
changed much in a mere decade or two. People whose messages are
inconvenient to read and/or respond to, are less likely to have what
they are saying
read and/or understood. It's your choice, of course, to disregard
what has been found to work, but please at least consider that
sometimes the group's built up wisdom can possibly take things into
account that you are not.

I'm admittedly not a good snipper, tho' I don't attempt to be creative
when doing so.

I think what torques me the most about this argument is the implicit
"we've always done it that way" theme. Just because "we've always" or
"we've never" is no good reason for continuing a particular behavior or
for not trying a new approach to something.

In the case of posting and replying to netnews articles, I think it
makes good sense to adhere to the accepted practice of interspersing
comments with original text or to snip and bottom post. It better
captures the flow of thought/conversation, it seems to me, and is much
closer to what we do when we speak -- you don't answer a question
before it's asked or comment on a point before it's made, after all.
But don't justify the practice on the basis of "we've always done it
that way".

Bob

- --
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFBIjCPGX60pjRVDrMRAvt0AJ9+05dxZ0rpUxTbN7jjWUWWiywYKwCfTi7D
UETc/fdSwwvVx5Ygwy8z9PU=
=Rcc4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dave Hinz

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 17 aug 2004 18:36:15

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:21:50 GMT, Robert Melson <melsonr@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:

On Tuesday 17 August 2004 09:53, Dave Hinz wrote:

The thing is, this was hashed out a long time ago, and language hasn't
changed much in a mere decade or two. People whose messages are
inconvenient to read and/or respond to, are less likely to have what
they are saying
read and/or understood.

I think what torques me the most about this argument is the implicit
"we've always done it that way" theme. Just because "we've always" or
"we've never" is no good reason for continuing a particular behavior or
for not trying a new approach to something.

I don't think I'm saying that at all. Long ago it was discovered that
if you stick your hand in fire, it hurts. Saying "Don't do that, because
long ago it was discovered to be a bad thing" isn't saying don't do it
because we've always done it, it's saying don't do that because it hurts.

In the case of posting and replying to netnews articles, I think it
makes good sense to adhere to the accepted practice of interspersing
comments with original text or to snip and bottom post.

I agree.

It better
captures the flow of thought/conversation, it seems to me, and is much
closer to what we do when we speak -- you don't answer a question
before it's asked or comment on a point before it's made, after all.
But don't justify the practice on the basis of "we've always done it
that way".

I don't think I was saying that. More of a "trust me, it works better
because that's how people really talk, and if you want to argue it you're
about a decade or two late for that particular party".

Roger Jensen

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Roger Jensen » 17 aug 2004 22:44:49

Such a helpful group.

Thanks,

Roger


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.738 / Virus Database: 492 - Release Date: 8/16/2004

D. Stussy

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av D. Stussy » 23 aug 2004 10:13:51

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Alan Jones wrote:
With that film number you can arrange to view it at a
Family History Center close to you.
http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library ... et_fhc.asp

Nothing like seeing it yourself.

[Any comments on MIDDLE-POSTING!] :-)

He said that the "image looked blurred." It sounds to me as if he has ALREADY
LOOKED at the film and couldn't read the data from that copy - and is therefore
asking for someone else to look up the same from a different copy of the film,
hoping that it is readable.

"Roger Jensen" <rjensen@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4UbUc.8122$EK5.6694@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Is there someone who could help me to verify the data below is correct? I
suspect the date was transcribed incorrectly, the view I had was very
blurred and distorted.

[Actual data snipped]

D. Stussy

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av D. Stussy » 23 aug 2004 10:18:01

Not another anti-top-posting moron. What you miss there is that it is a
GUIDELINE. I do not see a "should," "shall," or "must" in that text.

When the reply is about 5 lines or less, top-posting is perfectly fine,
especially if the reply content is of greater importance.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Doug wrote:
"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
. . .

kat >^.

(OT) the Top-posting debate --again was Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av kat >^. » 23 aug 2004 17:38:53

Top-posting is a blessing when one has to resort to google.groups. After
any lengthy ms, it insists you "click here to continue reading this message"
or some rot. Major PITA.
And most top-posted messages make sense when following a thread of any
length, since the reader has read the same stuff from the first, second
third and fourth posters several times already.
Of course, the top-poster is wise enough to write so that the reader does
not have to read all of the previous work just to see what he/she is
agreeing/disagreeing/etc. to, and cuts out as much chaff as possible.
kat >^.^<
in Wisconsin
oops- that's seven lines

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.60.0408170449470.74@kd6lvw.ampr.org...
Not another anti-top-posting moron. What you miss there is that it is a
GUIDELINE. I do not see a "should," "shall," or "must" in that text.

When the reply is about 5 lines or less, top-posting is perfectly fine,
especially if the reply content is of greater importance.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Doug wrote:
"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
. . .

Doug

Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Doug » 23 aug 2004 17:59:30

D. Stussy wrote:

Not another anti-top-posting moron. What you miss there is that it is a
GUIDELINE. I do not see a "should," "shall," or "must" in that text.

When the reply is about 5 lines or less, top-posting is perfectly fine,
especially if the reply content is of greater importance.

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Doug wrote:

"3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews
. . .

No, I didn't miss that point at all, but I don't really see any point in
name calling because of a suggestion with which you don't agree.
Personally I like the idea of interspersing replies within a trimmed
version of the post that is being answered (with, possibly, any previous
posts that may be appropriate left intact).

Dave Hinz

Re: (OT) the Top-posting debate --again was Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av Dave Hinz » 24 aug 2004 18:32:30

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:38:53 -0500, kat >^.^< <trompREMOVETHIS@charter.net> wrote:
Top-posting is a blessing when one has to resort to google.groups. After
any lengthy ms, it insists you "click here to continue reading this message"
or some rot. Major PITA.

So learn to snip, and encourage others to do the same.

And most top-posted messages make sense when following a thread of any
length, since the reader has read the same stuff from the first, second
third and fourth posters several times already.

So learn to snip, and encourage others to do the same.

Of course, the top-poster is wise enough to write so that the reader does
not have to read all of the previous work just to see what he/she is
agreeing/disagreeing/etc. to, and cuts out as much chaff as possible.

Just like you just didn't, you mean?

kat >^.

Re: (OT) the Top-posting debate --again was Re: LDS Help

Legg inn av kat >^. » 25 aug 2004 04:40:39

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2p18suFf93reU8@uni-berlin.de...
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:38:53 -0500, kat >^.^
trompREMOVETHIS@charter.net> wrote:


Of course, the top-poster is wise enough to write so that the reader
does
not have to read all of the previous work just to see what he/she is
agreeing/disagreeing/etc. to, and cuts out as much chaff as possible.

Just like you just didn't, you mean?

You didn't understand what I said?

Sorry, Dave. I'll try to write more clearly next time.
kat >^.^<
unrepentant, but bottom posting

Stephen Hayes

LDS Help

Legg inn av Stephen Hayes » 25 aug 2004 22:27:38

FamilyNet Newsgate

Doug wrote in a message to All:

D> No, I didn't miss that point at all, but I don't really see any
D> point in name calling because of a suggestion with which you don't
D> agree. Personally I like the idea of interspersing replies within a
D> trimmed version of the post that is being answered (with, possibly,
D> any previous posts that may be appropriate left intact).

And that, rather than top or bottom posting, is the norm.

Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: hayesmstw@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.

FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.fmlynet.org

Svar

Gå tilbake til «alt.genealogy»