Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Can anyone tell me whether there is an easy way to access Collectanea
Topographica et Genealogica, please? Thank you very much.
Alex
Topographica et Genealogica, please? Thank you very much.
Alex
-
Brad Verity
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
On May 10, 10:44 am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Google Books has Volumes I, II, IV, V, VI, VII & VIII available to
download through its Full View feature.
I don't know why they don't have Volume III.
Cheers, -------Brad
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Can anyone tell me whether there is an easy way to access Collectanea
Topographica et Genealogica, please? Thank you very much.
Alex
Google Books has Volumes I, II, IV, V, VI, VII & VIII available to
download through its Full View feature.
I don't know why they don't have Volume III.
Cheers, -------Brad
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178832872.388883.15700@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
They probably do, Brad, just not catalogued correctly. It took me a day's
effort to find all seven volumes of another set that shows up as only two
volumes in searches on title and author. I had to use text that I knew or
surmised to be in each hidden volume in order to turn them up.
Peter Stewart
news:1178832872.388883.15700@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:44 am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Can anyone tell me whether there is an easy way to access Collectanea
Topographica et Genealogica, please? Thank you very much.
Alex
Google Books has Volumes I, II, IV, V, VI, VII & VIII available to
download through its Full View feature.
I don't know why they don't have Volume III.
They probably do, Brad, just not catalogued correctly. It took me a day's
effort to find all seven volumes of another set that shows up as only two
volumes in searches on title and author. I had to use text that I knew or
surmised to be in each hidden volume in order to turn them up.
Peter Stewart
-
Brad Verity
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
On May 10, 3:15 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Here's a link to Volume IV, Will.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lioEAA ... IV#PPP1,M1
Thanks Brad for pointing that out. I was able to find Vol 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 which I've added to my Sources page herehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/ceci ... es#England
Haven't found 4 yet.
Here's a link to Volume IV, Will.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lioEAA ... IV#PPP1,M1
-
pavel.pokorny@seznam.cz
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Brad Verity napsal:
And here is the missing volume III:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PicAAAAAQAAJ
I would like to thank Mr Verity as well for drawing my attention to
these books at Google.
Best regards,
Pavel
On May 10, 3:15 pm, WJhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Thanks Brad for pointing that out. I was able to find Vol 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 which I've added to my Sources page herehttp://www.countyhistorian.com/ceci ... es#England
Haven't found 4 yet.
Here's a link to Volume IV, Will.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lioEAA ... IV#PPP1,M1
And here is the missing volume III:
http://books.google.com/books?id=PicAAAAAQAAJ
I would like to thank Mr Verity as well for drawing my attention to
these books at Google.
Best regards,
Pavel
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Many thanks for your help.
Alex
Alex
-
John Brandon
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Or "Pennsylmania."
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22 ... s&as_brr=0
And now I'll shut up before I ruin Todd's clever joke by too much
repetition.
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22 ... s&as_brr=0
And now I'll shut up before I ruin Todd's clever joke by too much
repetition.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-FFFDBF.15125011052007@news.west.earthlink.net...
To my mind, making excuses is rather more than being fair to Google Books
and its technicians.
Presumably the volume has a half-title that is plainer to read than the
title page. But in any case it is one of a series, although unconnected to
the rest in the digitised version, and it is presented only in "Snippet
view" despite publication in 1876: WHY? Unless an ill-trained and largely
unsupervised idiot was at work in Oxford on 5 December 2006 when the job was
so badly done.....and if so, WHY?
The number and variety of incomplete series on Google Books is one of many
flagrant disgraces to the project and its management. Apparently the workers
take whatever is in front of them on shelves, in the order or disorder found
on the day, with no attempt to link these to online catalogues of the
supplying libraries where the bibliographic details (usually) make sense.
WHY?
And then many of the idiots can't keep books still and straight in front of
a lens for many pages on end, while taking endless photos of their fingers,
rings and wrinkles to edify future generations. WHY? A surprising number of
these appear to be married women, perhaps re-entering the workforce in any
job available (and this is not a criticism of them for that reason) - but
WHY not give the work to students in the universities, who might be just as
needy while being more engaged in the effort and more conscientious in the
task?
Peter Stewart
news:nathanieltaylor-FFFDBF.15125011052007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1178910085.498255.190070@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
On May 10, 3:01 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Brad Verity" <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I don't know why they don't have Volume III.
They probably do, Brad, just not catalogued correctly. It took me a
day's
effort to find all seven volumes of another set that shows up as only
two
volumes in searches on title and author. I had to use text that I knew
or
surmised to be in each hidden volume in order to turn them up.
Although falling out og the time period, I just came across a perfect
illustration:
http://books.google.com/books?id=onEFAAAAQAAJ
PRUNSYLNANIA ARRHINES By MATTHEW S. QUAY
I pity the fool who is looking for the Pennsylvania Archives.
To be fair, the original TP has one of the worst fake blackletter fonts
I've ever seen.
To my mind, making excuses is rather more than being fair to Google Books
and its technicians.
Presumably the volume has a half-title that is plainer to read than the
title page. But in any case it is one of a series, although unconnected to
the rest in the digitised version, and it is presented only in "Snippet
view" despite publication in 1876: WHY? Unless an ill-trained and largely
unsupervised idiot was at work in Oxford on 5 December 2006 when the job was
so badly done.....and if so, WHY?
The number and variety of incomplete series on Google Books is one of many
flagrant disgraces to the project and its management. Apparently the workers
take whatever is in front of them on shelves, in the order or disorder found
on the day, with no attempt to link these to online catalogues of the
supplying libraries where the bibliographic details (usually) make sense.
WHY?
And then many of the idiots can't keep books still and straight in front of
a lens for many pages on end, while taking endless photos of their fingers,
rings and wrinkles to edify future generations. WHY? A surprising number of
these appear to be married women, perhaps re-entering the workforce in any
job available (and this is not a criticism of them for that reason) - but
WHY not give the work to students in the universities, who might be just as
needy while being more engaged in the effort and more conscientious in the
task?
Peter Stewart
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Peter Stewart wrote:
Hi Peter
To get around this problem go to this website
http://proxy.org/
select a proxy site from the US such as proxify.com then
search for google books and then enter the title and then you
will get a full view.
There is a disparity in copyright laws concerning the length of
protection for US and other countries. US copyright protection is
generally for a shorter fixed period.
Regards
Paul
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-FFFDBF.15125011052007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1178910085.498255.190070@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
taf <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
On May 10, 3:01 pm, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_stew...@msn.com> wrote:
"Brad Verity" <royaldesc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I don't know why they don't have Volume III.
They probably do, Brad, just not catalogued correctly. It took me a
day's
effort to find all seven volumes of another set that shows up as only
two
volumes in searches on title and author. I had to use text that I knew
or
surmised to be in each hidden volume in order to turn them up.
Although falling out og the time period, I just came across a perfect
illustration:
http://books.google.com/books?id=onEFAAAAQAAJ
PRUNSYLNANIA ARRHINES By MATTHEW S. QUAY
I pity the fool who is looking for the Pennsylvania Archives.
To be fair, the original TP has one of the worst fake blackletter fonts
I've ever seen.
To my mind, making excuses is rather more than being fair to Google Books
and its technicians.
Presumably the volume has a half-title that is plainer to read than the
title page. But in any case it is one of a series, although unconnected to
the rest in the digitised version, and it is presented only in "Snippet
view" despite publication in 1876: WHY? Unless an ill-trained and largely
unsupervised idiot was at work in Oxford on 5 December 2006 when the job was
so badly done.....and if so, WHY?
The number and variety of incomplete series on Google Books is one of many
flagrant disgraces to the project and its management. Apparently the workers
take whatever is in front of them on shelves, in the order or disorder found
on the day, with no attempt to link these to online catalogues of the
supplying libraries where the bibliographic details (usually) make sense.
WHY?
And then many of the idiots can't keep books still and straight in front of
a lens for many pages on end, while taking endless photos of their fingers,
rings and wrinkles to edify future generations. WHY? A surprising number of
these appear to be married women, perhaps re-entering the workforce in any
job available (and this is not a criticism of them for that reason) - but
WHY not give the work to students in the universities, who might be just as
needy while being more engaged in the effort and more conscientious in the
task?
Peter Stewart
Hi Peter
To get around this problem go to this website
http://proxy.org/
select a proxy site from the US such as proxify.com then
search for google books and then enter the title and then you
will get a full view.
There is a disparity in copyright laws concerning the length of
protection for US and other countries. US copyright protection is
generally for a shorter fixed period.
Regards
Paul
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"Paul Mackenzie" <paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:46450cde$0$9097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Another misconceived excuse for Google Books - of course I know this, but
I'm afraid it doesn't take account of the utter disarray of the project:
they are busily creating chaos out of order in the world's heritage of
books, that due to their greedy pre-emption from ulterior motives no-one
else will now have the opportunity to do better in digitising.
Needless to say, in Australia I am obliged to use a proxifier much of the
time to access books that are obviously in the public domain, because
Google's operators are too lazy or incompetent to check the status or even
enter the correct publication date of many titles.
However, to take just the Pennsylvania Archives series:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sz0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1855 is available in "Full view" and for download to
non-proxified Australian searches, while
http://books.google.com/books?id=bZgTAA ... ves&pgis=1
published in 1874 is in "Snippet view" and
http://books.google.com/books?id=4z0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1880 has "No preview available".
Many "Full view" books have no download button, presumably from negligence,
while for quite a few the download button fails to work or connects to a
different book altogether - for instance, Kate Norgate's _John Lackland_ has
now been redigitised (at the New York Public Library on 2 March 2007, with
an errata slip obscuring most of page 1) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
sitting alongside the original botched effort (done at Harvard on 13 January
2006) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
that behind completely wrong bibliographic details is actually Arthur Conan
Doyle's _The Great Boer War_.
This is NOT by any means an isolated example - however, it is one of the
VERY few that so far have been rectified (for lucky searchers) by a wasteful
duplication of work.
Peter Stewart
news:46450cde$0$9097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Hi Peter
To get around this problem go to this website
http://proxy.org/
select a proxy site from the US such as proxify.com then
search for google books and then enter the title and then you
will get a full view.
There is a disparity in copyright laws concerning the length of protection
for US and other countries. US copyright protection is generally for a
shorter fixed period.
Another misconceived excuse for Google Books - of course I know this, but
I'm afraid it doesn't take account of the utter disarray of the project:
they are busily creating chaos out of order in the world's heritage of
books, that due to their greedy pre-emption from ulterior motives no-one
else will now have the opportunity to do better in digitising.
Needless to say, in Australia I am obliged to use a proxifier much of the
time to access books that are obviously in the public domain, because
Google's operators are too lazy or incompetent to check the status or even
enter the correct publication date of many titles.
However, to take just the Pennsylvania Archives series:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sz0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1855 is available in "Full view" and for download to
non-proxified Australian searches, while
http://books.google.com/books?id=bZgTAA ... ves&pgis=1
published in 1874 is in "Snippet view" and
http://books.google.com/books?id=4z0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1880 has "No preview available".
Many "Full view" books have no download button, presumably from negligence,
while for quite a few the download button fails to work or connects to a
different book altogether - for instance, Kate Norgate's _John Lackland_ has
now been redigitised (at the New York Public Library on 2 March 2007, with
an errata slip obscuring most of page 1) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
sitting alongside the original botched effort (done at Harvard on 13 January
2006) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
that behind completely wrong bibliographic details is actually Arthur Conan
Doyle's _The Great Boer War_.
This is NOT by any means an isolated example - however, it is one of the
VERY few that so far have been rectified (for lucky searchers) by a wasteful
duplication of work.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:KA81i.36848$M.13494@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Apologies, the links above for Norgate's _John Lackland_ are useless.
The first (NY Public Library, 2 March 2007) is accessible at
http://books.google.com/books?id=s8QsAA ... ate&pgis=1
The second (Harvard, 13 January 2006, actually linking to Conan Doyle's _The
Great Bower War_) is at
http://books.google.com/books?id=GHV21E ... ate&num=50
while a third stab (chronologically first, but why repeated?) at the same
book (Harvard, 22 August 2005) is at
http://books.google.com/books?id=sgvxmh ... ate&num=50
Go figure. Some people are taking home huge salaries from Google for looking
after this mess. Some librarians who should know better are turning a blind
eye & allowing their institutions to be tarnished by the results - for what
in return, I wonder?
Peter Stewart
news:KA81i.36848$M.13494@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Paul Mackenzie" <paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:46450cde$0$9097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Hi Peter
To get around this problem go to this website
http://proxy.org/
select a proxy site from the US such as proxify.com then
search for google books and then enter the title and then you
will get a full view.
There is a disparity in copyright laws concerning the length of
protection for US and other countries. US copyright protection is
generally for a shorter fixed period.
Another misconceived excuse for Google Books - of course I know this, but
I'm afraid it doesn't take account of the utter disarray of the project:
they are busily creating chaos out of order in the world's heritage of
books, that due to their greedy pre-emption from ulterior motives no-one
else will now have the opportunity to do better in digitising.
Needless to say, in Australia I am obliged to use a proxifier much of the
time to access books that are obviously in the public domain, because
Google's operators are too lazy or incompetent to check the status or even
enter the correct publication date of many titles.
However, to take just the Pennsylvania Archives series:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sz0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1855 is available in "Full view" and for download to
non-proxified Australian searches, while
http://books.google.com/books?id=bZgTAA ... ves&pgis=1
published in 1874 is in "Snippet view" and
http://books.google.com/books?id=4z0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1880 has "No preview available".
Many "Full view" books have no download button, presumably from
negligence, while for quite a few the download button fails to work or
connects to a different book altogether - for instance, Kate Norgate's
_John Lackland_ has now been redigitised (at the New York Public Library
on 2 March 2007, with an errata slip obscuring most of page 1) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
sitting alongside the original botched effort (done at Harvard on 13
January 2006) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
that behind completely wrong bibliographic details is actually Arthur
Conan Doyle's _The Great Boer War_.
Apologies, the links above for Norgate's _John Lackland_ are useless.
The first (NY Public Library, 2 March 2007) is accessible at
http://books.google.com/books?id=s8QsAA ... ate&pgis=1
The second (Harvard, 13 January 2006, actually linking to Conan Doyle's _The
Great Bower War_) is at
http://books.google.com/books?id=GHV21E ... ate&num=50
while a third stab (chronologically first, but why repeated?) at the same
book (Harvard, 22 August 2005) is at
http://books.google.com/books?id=sgvxmh ... ate&num=50
Go figure. Some people are taking home huge salaries from Google for looking
after this mess. Some librarians who should know better are turning a blind
eye & allowing their institutions to be tarnished by the results - for what
in return, I wonder?
Peter Stewart
-
Paul Mackenzie
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Peter Stewart wrote:
Hi Peter
Very True. Another annoying feature is when you do a title search under
the advanced feature is does not work!!!!
Paul
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:KA81i.36848$M.13494@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Paul Mackenzie" <paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:46450cde$0$9097$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Hi Peter
To get around this problem go to this website
http://proxy.org/
select a proxy site from the US such as proxify.com then
search for google books and then enter the title and then you
will get a full view.
There is a disparity in copyright laws concerning the length of
protection for US and other countries. US copyright protection is
generally for a shorter fixed period.
Another misconceived excuse for Google Books - of course I know this, but
I'm afraid it doesn't take account of the utter disarray of the project:
they are busily creating chaos out of order in the world's heritage of
books, that due to their greedy pre-emption from ulterior motives no-one
else will now have the opportunity to do better in digitising.
Needless to say, in Australia I am obliged to use a proxifier much of the
time to access books that are obviously in the public domain, because
Google's operators are too lazy or incompetent to check the status or even
enter the correct publication date of many titles.
However, to take just the Pennsylvania Archives series:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sz0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1855 is available in "Full view" and for download to
non-proxified Australian searches, while
http://books.google.com/books?id=bZgTAA ... ves&pgis=1
published in 1874 is in "Snippet view" and
http://books.google.com/books?id=4z0OAA ... a+archives
published in 1880 has "No preview available".
Many "Full view" books have no download button, presumably from
negligence, while for quite a few the download button fails to work or
connects to a different book altogether - for instance, Kate Norgate's
_John Lackland_ has now been redigitised (at the New York Public Library
on 2 March 2007, with an errata slip obscuring most of page 1) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
sitting alongside the original botched effort (done at Harvard on 13
January 2006) at
https://books.google.com=2fbooks=3fid=3 ... as_brr=3d1
that behind completely wrong bibliographic details is actually Arthur
Conan Doyle's _The Great Boer War_.
Apologies, the links above for Norgate's _John Lackland_ are useless.
The first (NY Public Library, 2 March 2007) is accessible at
http://books.google.com/books?id=s8QsAA ... ate&pgis=1
The second (Harvard, 13 January 2006, actually linking to Conan Doyle's _The
Great Bower War_) is at
http://books.google.com/books?id=GHV21E ... ate&num=50
while a third stab (chronologically first, but why repeated?) at the same
book (Harvard, 22 August 2005) is at
http://books.google.com/books?id=sgvxmh ... ate&num=50
Go figure. Some people are taking home huge salaries from Google for looking
after this mess. Some librarians who should know better are turning a blind
eye & allowing their institutions to be tarnished by the results - for what
in return, I wonder?
Peter Stewart
Hi Peter
Very True. Another annoying feature is when you do a title search under
the advanced feature is does not work!!!!
Paul
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Brad Verity wrote in reply to Alex Maxwell Findlater:
<snip>
I am indebted to John Brandon for pointing out the Google version on this
group some time ago. As a result I've been able to resolve some problems
relating to the Woodhalls of Ullock (as I haven't quite got round to
informing John and Evelyn Reedy, who have published about the Woodhalls, I'm
not posting here yet - but will do so at a later stage).
Chris
<snip>
Can anyone tell me whether there is an easy way to access Collectanea
Topographica et Genealogica, please? Thank you very much.
Alex
Google Books has Volumes I, II, IV, V, VI, VII & VIII available to
download through its Full View feature.
snip
I am indebted to John Brandon for pointing out the Google version on this
group some time ago. As a result I've been able to resolve some problems
relating to the Woodhalls of Ullock (as I haven't quite got round to
informing John and Evelyn Reedy, who have published about the Woodhalls, I'm
not posting here yet - but will do so at a later stage).
Chris
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"Paul Mackenzie" <paul.mackenzie@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4645b95b$0$9095$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Here's another instance of the schemozzle - presented as part of the
cartulary of Cockersand abbey, edited by William Farrer
http://books.google.com/books?id=AUIJAA ... Cockersand
it is in fact a quite different publication of the Chetham Society, the
second part of _A Catalogue of Tracts For and Against Popery_ in the Chetham
Library. Anyone wanting the cartulary of Cockersand can gain access to pages
161 to 333 in one file and 531 to 756 in another, but that is all - a third
section has been digitised, at Stanford in April 2006, but perversely this
is not available to view or download.
What kind of purpose and direction could have such results, time and time
again?
Peter Stewart
news:4645b95b$0$9095$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:KA81i.36848$M.13494@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Some people are taking home huge salaries from Google for looking after
this mess. Some librarians who should know better are turning a blind eye
& allowing their institutions to be tarnished by the results - for what
in return, I wonder?
Peter Stewart
Hi Peter
Very True. Another annoying feature is when you do a title search under
the advanced feature is does not work!!!!
Here's another instance of the schemozzle - presented as part of the
cartulary of Cockersand abbey, edited by William Farrer
http://books.google.com/books?id=AUIJAA ... Cockersand
it is in fact a quite different publication of the Chetham Society, the
second part of _A Catalogue of Tracts For and Against Popery_ in the Chetham
Library. Anyone wanting the cartulary of Cockersand can gain access to pages
161 to 333 in one file and 531 to 756 in another, but that is all - a third
section has been digitised, at Stanford in April 2006, but perversely this
is not available to view or download.
What kind of purpose and direction could have such results, time and time
again?
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
What kind of purpose and direction could have such results, time and time
again?
Peter Stewart
You know what they say, though: Beggars can't be choosers. It is
totally free and way more than we had available previously. Whinging
about the fact that series are not properly linked and the huge
salamies of Google execs. is pointless.
-
John Brandon
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
For "huge salamies" substitute "huge salaries," of course.
Proofreading is a concept I don't even understand any more,
apparently. Oddly enough, there was a package of the luncheon meat of
that name on the table beside me. Osmosis ...
Proofreading is a concept I don't even understand any more,
apparently. Oddly enough, there was a package of the luncheon meat of
that name on the table beside me. Osmosis ...
-
Gjest
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
On 13 May, 19:18, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Unlike the rest of us, Freud would have loved you.
What kind of purpose and direction could have such results, time and time
again?
Peter Stewart
You know what they say, though: Beggars can't be choosers. It is
totally free and way more than we had available previously. Whinging
about the fact that series are not properly linked and the huge
salamies of Google execs. is pointless.
Unlike the rest of us, Freud would have loved you.
-
John Brandon
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
Unlike the rest of us, Freud would have loved you.
He was somewhat brighter than most on the newsgroup.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179080286.221989.27870@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
You may be a "begggar" in this context but I am not.
You may think that, as long as there is something in it for you, rank
incompetence should be winked at, but I do not.
You may be pleased to find a US corporation intruding itself into a field
where it has no genuine interest and won't pay to obtain expertise, while
paying ludicrous salaries to its executives who do such a poor job in
return, but I think it is a tawdry shame.
You may be delighted to see some of the great libraries of your country, and
a few others, tarnishing themselves by association with a project so
appallingly mismanaged, but I think they should be held accountable by the
public to force Google into improving their method.
These criticisms are not from self-interest - you may (or may not) have
noticed over the years that I am willing and able find for myself whatever
books and articles I require.
The trouble is that Google from their own self-interest have occupied the
ground of digitising books to the exclusion of anyone else, including the
lower primates, who could do this better. That is a loss to the future, and
to you if you are needy, but not to me. For instance, the complete
Cockersand cartulary is in my local state library, just a few minutes from
my home - Google Books, if it was even a shadow of its own promises, would
be merely an extra convenience for me, not a necessity.
But of course my convenience is NOT the point in my view: unlike you, I do
not exist at the centre of an imaginary world where everything falls in
around my personal wishes and impulses.
Peter Stewart
news:1179080286.221989.27870@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
What kind of purpose and direction could have such results, time and time
again?
Peter Stewart
You know what they say, though: Beggars can't be choosers. It is
totally free and way more than we had available previously. Whinging
about the fact that series are not properly linked and the huge
salamies of Google execs. is pointless.
You may be a "begggar" in this context but I am not.
You may think that, as long as there is something in it for you, rank
incompetence should be winked at, but I do not.
You may be pleased to find a US corporation intruding itself into a field
where it has no genuine interest and won't pay to obtain expertise, while
paying ludicrous salaries to its executives who do such a poor job in
return, but I think it is a tawdry shame.
You may be delighted to see some of the great libraries of your country, and
a few others, tarnishing themselves by association with a project so
appallingly mismanaged, but I think they should be held accountable by the
public to force Google into improving their method.
These criticisms are not from self-interest - you may (or may not) have
noticed over the years that I am willing and able find for myself whatever
books and articles I require.
The trouble is that Google from their own self-interest have occupied the
ground of digitising books to the exclusion of anyone else, including the
lower primates, who could do this better. That is a loss to the future, and
to you if you are needy, but not to me. For instance, the complete
Cockersand cartulary is in my local state library, just a few minutes from
my home - Google Books, if it was even a shadow of its own promises, would
be merely an extra convenience for me, not a necessity.
But of course my convenience is NOT the point in my view: unlike you, I do
not exist at the centre of an imaginary world where everything falls in
around my personal wishes and impulses.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
You may be a "begggar" in this context but I am not.
I don't even know what this means, as I spelled the word with only two
g's. Perhaps one of your retinas is slowly detaching?
You may think that, as long as there is something in it for you, rank
incompetence should be winked at, but I do not.
There's no sense in railing against it, since you can't do anything
about it no matter what you do. Just be grateful for a few freebies
along the way and leave it at that.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
On May 14, 2:24 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You allegedly work (a complete sentence in itself) in a library. I
don't know whether or not you are a qualified librarian, but if you
really can't understand the contempt that profession is bringing on
itself by cooperating negligently with Google you must be a greater
fool than even I take you for.
Imagine if a similar scheme had been undertaken to make photocopies of
books in the public domain available at local depots: if the project
manager had then insulted authors and readers by throwing all the
resulting copies into heaps, with no attempt to catalogue them
sensibly, with volume numbers absent from bindings, with titles often
mangled and sometimes with covers switched, with call numbers that
could not be discovered until the book was already in hand, and then
presented the jumble as a great boon to present and future seekers
after knowledge with some such pretentious blurb as "This is a copy of
a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it
was carefully reproduced by Google as part of a project to make the
world's books available everywhere". These people would deserve scorn
from everyone, and the librarians who provided books as fodder for
their commercial pre-emption would rightly share in the blame.
If the message comes to the profession from enough disgusted users in
enough fields of study, maybe the librarians of Harvard, Stanford,
Michigan, NY Public Library, the Bodleian and elsewhere will find
enough self-respect to stop the rot. Criticism is not pointless just
because it can't have an immediate effect.
This is a forum for voicing views on the study of medieval genealogy,
one of many that is being cheated by Google out of a properly managed
digitisation of source materials.
Peter Stewart
You may be a "begggar" in this context but I am not.
I don't even know what this means, as I spelled the word with only two
g's. Perhaps one of your retinas is slowly detaching?
You may think that, as long as there is something in it for you, rank
incompetence should be winked at, but I do not.
There's no sense in railing against it, since you can't do anything
about it no matter what you do. Just be grateful for a few freebies
along the way and leave it at that.
You allegedly work (a complete sentence in itself) in a library. I
don't know whether or not you are a qualified librarian, but if you
really can't understand the contempt that profession is bringing on
itself by cooperating negligently with Google you must be a greater
fool than even I take you for.
Imagine if a similar scheme had been undertaken to make photocopies of
books in the public domain available at local depots: if the project
manager had then insulted authors and readers by throwing all the
resulting copies into heaps, with no attempt to catalogue them
sensibly, with volume numbers absent from bindings, with titles often
mangled and sometimes with covers switched, with call numbers that
could not be discovered until the book was already in hand, and then
presented the jumble as a great boon to present and future seekers
after knowledge with some such pretentious blurb as "This is a copy of
a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it
was carefully reproduced by Google as part of a project to make the
world's books available everywhere". These people would deserve scorn
from everyone, and the librarians who provided books as fodder for
their commercial pre-emption would rightly share in the blame.
If the message comes to the profession from enough disgusted users in
enough fields of study, maybe the librarians of Harvard, Stanford,
Michigan, NY Public Library, the Bodleian and elsewhere will find
enough self-respect to stop the rot. Criticism is not pointless just
because it can't have an immediate effect.
This is a forum for voicing views on the study of medieval genealogy,
one of many that is being cheated by Google out of a properly managed
digitisation of source materials.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
On May 14, 2:24 pm, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I overlooked this nonsense before - "I don't even know" what to make
of a misplaced letter, indeed. How difficult to reconcile this
infantile jeering by Brandon with his post of the same date:
On May 14, 4:45 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
One standard for himself and another for everyone else....just what is
to be expected from Richardson's claqueur-in-chief.
Peter Stewart
You may be a "begggar" in this context but I am not.
I don't even know what this means, as I spelled the word with only two
g's. Perhaps one of your retinas is slowly detaching?
I overlooked this nonsense before - "I don't even know" what to make
of a misplaced letter, indeed. How difficult to reconcile this
infantile jeering by Brandon with his post of the same date:
On May 14, 4:45 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
For "huge salamies" substitute "huge salaries," of course.
Proofreading is a concept I don't even understand any more,
apparently.
One standard for himself and another for everyone else....just what is
to be expected from Richardson's claqueur-in-chief.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
You may be a "begggar" in this context but I am not.
I don't even know what this means, as I spelled the word with only two
g's. Perhaps one of your retinas is slowly detaching?
I overlooked this nonsense before - "I don't even know" what to make
of a misplaced letter, indeed. How difficult to reconcile this
infantile jeering by Brandon with his post of the same date:
Oh, I thought you were putting "begggar" in quotes because I
misspelled it (which wasn't true), but see now that you originated the
spelling error and had the word in quotes for a different reason. The
thing about the retinas might be worth checking into, however; or was
that an air bubble from your old tumble off the moped?
One standard for himself and another for everyone else....just what is
to be expected from Richardson's claqueur-in-chief.
What is a claqueur? I think I would rather be a liqueur.
Sort of like that other nonsense word, "damp squib," which you are
also fond of over-using.
I'll say it again: I think it is dumb to fuss too much about the
failings of Google Books. I don't see how it reflects poorly on the
libraries who've let their books be copied. Everything is still on
the shelf in the right place in _their_ libraries and cataloged
properly in _their_ catalogs. When Google hires some librarians,
maybe the mess/ jumble will be fixed.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179155092.138813.100430@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You are slow on the uptake - no surprise there. Typos are everyday
occurrences, not always symptoms. My health is none of your business. Get
over it.
One of a set who applaud at the theatre, usually for hire or in return for
favours.
It is not a nonsense term, but has a precise meaning and is used by me when
this is appropriate. If it has been applied to your efforts more than
others, that is not a falut of mine and doesn't reflect on the expression
itself.
The libraries are forever implicated, due to the practice of digitising on
site (recorded by date and place with each book) and the strange decision to
make images of front and back covers as well as every page, even endpapaers
and bookplates that identify the library owning a particular copy. Amazingly
often, these largely worthless identifying features are duplicated, even
triplicated or occasionally quadruplicated, while pages of the author's text
within are just as frequently missing or illegible from poor focus. Claims
by Google to be doing the work "carefully" are outright falsehoods.
The time and effort required to fix problems will be (IF indeed eventuating)
an absurd waste, when the project should have been planned and implemented
sensibly from the start. Creating a virtual library without virtual
librarianship was and remains about as foolish a proceeding as I can
imagine - save for opining over & over again that it is useless to comment
on such corporate stupidity and the complicity of librarians in traducing
the entire purpose of their profession, to order information and make it
accessible.
Peter Stewart
news:1179155092.138813.100430@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You may be a "begggar" in this context but I am not.
I don't even know what this means, as I spelled the word with only two
g's. Perhaps one of your retinas is slowly detaching?
I overlooked this nonsense before - "I don't even know" what to make
of a misplaced letter, indeed. How difficult to reconcile this
infantile jeering by Brandon with his post of the same date:
Oh, I thought you were putting "begggar" in quotes because I
misspelled it (which wasn't true), but see now that you originated the
spelling error and had the word in quotes for a different reason. The
thing about the retinas might be worth checking into, however; or was
that an air bubble from your old tumble off the moped?
You are slow on the uptake - no surprise there. Typos are everyday
occurrences, not always symptoms. My health is none of your business. Get
over it.
One standard for himself and another for everyone else....just what is
to be expected from Richardson's claqueur-in-chief.
What is a claqueur? I think I would rather be a liqueur.
One of a set who applaud at the theatre, usually for hire or in return for
favours.
Sort of like that other nonsense word, "damp squib," which you are
also fond of over-using.
It is not a nonsense term, but has a precise meaning and is used by me when
this is appropriate. If it has been applied to your efforts more than
others, that is not a falut of mine and doesn't reflect on the expression
itself.
I'll say it again: I think it is dumb to fuss too much about the
failings of Google Books. I don't see how it reflects poorly on the
libraries who've let their books be copied. Everything is still on
the shelf in the right place in _their_ libraries and cataloged
properly in _their_ catalogs. When Google hires some librarians,
maybe the mess/ jumble will be fixed.
The libraries are forever implicated, due to the practice of digitising on
site (recorded by date and place with each book) and the strange decision to
make images of front and back covers as well as every page, even endpapaers
and bookplates that identify the library owning a particular copy. Amazingly
often, these largely worthless identifying features are duplicated, even
triplicated or occasionally quadruplicated, while pages of the author's text
within are just as frequently missing or illegible from poor focus. Claims
by Google to be doing the work "carefully" are outright falsehoods.
The time and effort required to fix problems will be (IF indeed eventuating)
an absurd waste, when the project should have been planned and implemented
sensibly from the start. Creating a virtual library without virtual
librarianship was and remains about as foolish a proceeding as I can
imagine - save for opining over & over again that it is useless to comment
on such corporate stupidity and the complicity of librarians in traducing
the entire purpose of their profession, to order information and make it
accessible.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8d52i.37959$M.1571@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
<snip>
For Brandon's benefit, "falut" is a typo for "fault". Rather a good one, in
fact, similar though not in the same league as Richardson's immortal words
of the other day, "We all makes mistakes".
Peter Stewart
news:8d52i.37959$M.1571@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179155092.138813.100430@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Sort of like that other nonsense word, "damp squib," which you are
also fond of over-using.
It is not a nonsense term, but has a precise meaning and is used by me
when this is appropriate. If it has been applied to your efforts more than
others, that is not a falut of mine and doesn't reflect on the expression
itself.
For Brandon's benefit, "falut" is a typo for "fault". Rather a good one, in
fact, similar though not in the same league as Richardson's immortal words
of the other day, "We all makes mistakes".
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
It is not a nonsense term, but has a precise meaning and is used by me when
this is appropriate. If it has been applied to your efforts more than
others, that is not a falut of mine and doesn't reflect on the expression
itself.
One of those ole fuddy-duddy expressions you're strangely fond of ...
Dreadfully upper-crust, not doubt, old chap.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica
On May 15, 8:49 am, John Brandon <starbuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yet again, extemely slow on the uptake but ever so quick to mouth off.
The term "damp squib" is not obsolete or "fuddy-duddy" and has no
class connotations whatsoever.
For straightforward definitions that you could very easily have
checked for yourself, try
http://www.allwords.com/word-damp%20squib.html
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/i ... squib.html
Peter Stewart
It is not a nonsense term, but has a precise meaning and is used by me when
this is appropriate. If it has been applied to your efforts more than
others, that is not a falut of mine and doesn't reflect on the expression
itself.
One of those ole fuddy-duddy expressions you're strangely fond of ...
Dreadfully upper-crust, not doubt, old chap.
Yet again, extemely slow on the uptake but ever so quick to mouth off.
The term "damp squib" is not obsolete or "fuddy-duddy" and has no
class connotations whatsoever.
For straightforward definitions that you could very easily have
checked for yourself, try
http://www.allwords.com/word-damp%20squib.html
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/i ... squib.html
Peter Stewart