I came across this site recently and thought that other list members may be interested http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk it has a lot of photographs and old maps and some interesting other things like a 1797 roll listing those liable for the horse tax, which contains a list of names, addresses and number of horses. So it may prove useful to some list members to have a look. In particular I think Gavin may be interested in http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/hay_shennan/pdfs/aberdeenshire-boundaries.pdf which is the report on the redrawing of parish boundaries for 1892. Although given your interest in old maps Gavin I'd be surprised if you haven't seen this report before. I'll also make a quick mention of http://www.lostcousins.com which is an excellent and quick to use site for matching up people from the 1881 census. Basically you enter anyone in your tree who you have found on the 1881 census and because it asks for a reference from the census eg: district/page number etc which you get from sites such as Scotland's people, Familysearch.org & Ancestry.com etc it can make a 100% definite match up with anyone else who shares the same relative. It's very quick to enter everyone once you get started, and no-one but you ever sees the data you have entered until you make a match. Once a match is found, which is almost instant when you enter the data, it alerts you and the other person there is a match and gives you the opportunity to contact each other. Really useful and 100% matching unlike say "hot matches" on other sites such as Genes Reunited. -- Alexander Bisset IT Administrator Aberdeen Harbour Board ______________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked by Dionach for all known viruses using MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.dionach.com

Hi List, At 04:29 AM 12/16/2009, you wrote: >I'll also make a quick mention of http://www.lostcousins.com which >is an excellent and quick to use site for matching up people from >the 1881 census. I ENTHUSIASTICALLY second Alexander's comments. I was an early member of Lost Cousins, and I have over 200 of my tree members listed. It is what I call a "post and forget" site. Once you post your information, as Alexander stated, you can forget about it. Immediately when someone else enters the same census data you receive an e-mail notification. Based on the way it works using the exact census reference, the only way you can be notified of a false match is if one of you has mistakenly attributed that particular information to your own line. I have exchanged many e-mails with Peter Calver, the site owner and founder. He is quite knowledgeable, and shares information readily. You will also receive his e-mail newsletter, which contains some very useful information. Try it; you'll like it. :-) Joe

Hi Jan,   I figured you had most of the information but I wasn't sure. I did use the freeCen to find out some of the information for you. I could only find two Daniel Robertson's one in Old Macher and one in Aberdeen. There was no other older to find.   Well,Good Luck to you. Vicki --- On Tue, 12/15/09, Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] MILNEs To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2009, 8:30 PM Hi Vicki, thank-you for your reply; yes I do have most of this information. Ray Hennessy kindly sent me much of this, it now remains to try and connect any links if possible. The one thing I have been able to confirm is James ROBERTSON was my G grandfather, on his marriage certificate it shows his parents as Daniel ROBERTSON and Agnes SPOTTISWOOD.  I have been able to find Daniel and Agnes' marriage cert on Scotlands People but shows no further information; they married in 1831, so assuming the information on James marriage cert is correct that confirms his parentage. I cannot find a birth cert or a death certificate for James; he married Martha AITKEN in 1866. I have been checking other marriages for both Daniel and Agnes on the assumption they may have died but with no success. A Daniel ROBERTSON married Elizabeth MILNE in Feb 1839 they had one child, Helen in Apr 1839 and I have since found a death cert for Daniel in 1840 so have put aside. He may be a relative. The timing is about right for him to have married a 2nd time, Agnes could have died and he remarried but it is all conjecture. I am looking at all James ROBERTSON's born in the period abt 1830ish to 1840 or thereabouts. Also Daniel ROBERTSON's in the range of 1790 to 1810 but OPR's are not easy and have had very little success but have eliminated quite a few. Will keep trying. Thank-you for your interest. Regards, Jan                           _________________________________________________________________ A world FIRST in property search has arrived! Check out Domain Radar NOW! http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157631292/direct/01/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Jan   Daniel Robertson married 1.Agnes Spottiswood 1831 Daniel that I found in Old Macher would have been 5 years old.  2.Elizabeth Milne 1839 3.Margaret Diack 1851   is this correct??   I found a Daniel Robertson born to William Robertson and Isabel McKay on 30 Mar 1825 in Old Macher,Aberdeen,Scotland   I found a John Robertson with parents named Daniel Robertson and Mary Milne. John was born on 16 Jan 1846 in Old Macher.   Daniel Robertson(age 25) is listed on the 1851 freecen as unmarried with his son John and his mother(Daniel mother) Isabel/Isobel. Now,this Daniel (age 15 ) is also listed on the 1841 FreeCen as living with his mother Isobel and also with Barbara,James and Robert which are his siblings.   I know that the LDS site shows Elizabeth Milne as married to Daniel?? Also,I should point out that I found that Daniel Robertson married Margaret Diack that it list that they married in Old Macher,Aberdeen and in St.Nicholas,Aberdeen on 19 Jun 1852.   As far as I can find on Daniel Children 1.John Robertson born 16 Jan 1846 to Daniel Robertson & Mary Milne 2.Mary Diack Robertson b. 22 Jan 1854 to Daniel Robertson & Margaret Diack 3.Helen Robertson b.30 Apr 1839 to Daniel Robertson and Elizabeth Milne       Here: Daniel Robertson would have been abt.13 years of age to have a child b.1839.   I hope I gave you enough information but you might have it already.   Could your Daniel be from Ireland because he would have been much older to have married Agnes.     Vicki --- On Sun, 12/13/09, Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Jan Lannan <janlannan@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] MILNEs To: aberdeen@rootsweb.com Date: Sunday, December 13, 2009, 1:52 AM Hi Ray, Thank-you for your reply; my direct connection is James ROBERTSON & Martha AITKEN. On their marriage certificate it shows James parents as Daniel ROBERTSON & Agnes SPOTTISWOOD. I have been unable to find a birth certificate for James but I do have a copy of Daniel’s & Agnes marriage in 1831unfortunately this does not show parents (not uncommon); they are my gg gparents. I have been unable to find any other information on them and wonder if they (or Agnes) may have died young and Daniel remarried. I have started looking at other entries for Daniel ROBERTSON hoping for a connection and Elizabeth MILNE was one I have pursued as on James wedding certificate the witnesses are George MILNE and James MILNE.  I think it has become a question of elimination in the hope I may stumble on that elusive piece of the puzzle. I am trying to track using naming patterns hoping that will shed light but up to now have had no success; ROBERTSON itself is such a common name…….. Thank-you for the other suggestions will look closely at them and continue the search. Regards, Jan                           _________________________________________________________________ A world FIRST in property search has arrived! Check out Domain Radar NOW! http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157631292/direct/01/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

2009/12/13 Schani Biermann <ussenterprise1701@accesscomm.ca> wrote: Hi Schani Problem:#2 > 1!! > (1) A WIDE search across ALL Scotland for a particular surname misses some > records (b/m/d). A search JUST in Aberdeenshire includes some NOT in the > wide search and to further complicate things, sometimes a VERY NARROW search > > JUST IN Old Machar or Aberdeen city > reveals family members NOT in the 2 > other searches!!!! ?? > If you are absolutely certain that you have not changed any other criteria then the third set should be a subset of the second and those a subset of the first set. If you have clear evidence of the Search facility in Scotland's People (ScP) failing this test then you should notify ScP immediately. This would be a serious failure which they would need to analyse. They are generally very helpful and respond quickly to their "Contact Us" inputs. Send the full set of criteria you have used and at least a count of the number of hits you get at each stage. Also some examples of which items you know are missing. Problem:#2 > > (2) Is there a problem of lost records in Aberdeen City itself during > 1770-1830? Many records do not appear in search results and i know my family > and others "existed" at this time. many times i find my "missing" ancestors > in the IGI on the LDS website > and it says it is an "abstracted record". > > do the LDS films for Aberdeen City and area possibly contain records that > Scotslandpeople do not have in therir daatbase? > The LDS OPR films and the IGI are NOT matching sets. Any record that has a Cnnnnnn or Mnnnnnn reference in blue for the Batch number at the foot of the screen should appear on ScP - allowing for transcription and Indexing differences. Again if you find such a record on the IGI and not on ScP AND you have checked it on the film, then you should let ScP know, with evidence. The reason the OPR films and the IGI don't match is that there are lots of LDS Submitted record on the IGI. These have a purely numerical Batch number [nnnnnn] and are submitted by members of the church who have "researched" their family tree and have lodged their ancestors for posthumous incorporation into the church and hence into heaven. Sometimes these records are from family bibles but often they seem to be guided more by wishful thinking. In any case the source data is not available to non-members of the church. As we often say on this List [and elsewhere] you should treat LDS Submitted records with caution unless there is a supporting OPR record because you can't check back to the original source. -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >From Ray Hennessy Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP **********************************************************

Schani Biermann wrote: > > > Also I have proof that many of my ancestors > after 1843 > were members of > some of the "Free/Sucession" churches of the time. These are not the same thing. The "Secession" (not "Succession") is a label applied to the various 18th century splits form the Kirk of Scotland; the "Free Kirk" was formed in 1843. Various of these splits eventually merged, and many re-joined the Kirk, but not until the 20th century. > For instance the > Gilcomston Free church was at the corner of Summer and Union Street and the > "Original Succession church" was located on Skene Terrace near Summer > Street. All my ancestors were living in this immediate area (some south > /some North of area) between 1841-1860. Ministers of baptism/marriage for > ones i have found are from the "Free Church"! Such "nonconformist" registers as have survived are likely to be held by the National Archives of Scotland, and details of them are listed in "Registers of the Secession Churches in Scotland" by Diane Baptie (ISBN 0-874722-16-1). Gavin Bell

Schani Biermann wrote: > ... > > I believe that Christian Garden (above) had a sister, Helen = > unmarried and a brother James from Short Loanings (Gilcomston > parish). Helen was a resident on College Street (Bon Accord) on 1851 > census "Gilcomston Parish" and "Bon Accord" are not very useful concepts. Both were created as "quoad sacra" (ie ecclesiastical) parishes in the course of the 19th century, but neither of them had any significant existence for purposes of BDM registration or Census. In 1828, St Nicholas, the original town parish of Aberdeen was subdivided for pastoral purposes into 6 sub-parishes (North, South, East, West, Greyfriars and St Clements) but none of these ever had their own Registers of baptisms or marriage, and at the start of civil registration in 1855, none of them became civil "Registration Districts". You may find the labels used as geographic subdivisions in some Census Enumerations, but the Census was organised on the basis of the same administrative divisions as BDM registration, namely St Nicholas and Old Machar. Gavin Bell

Schani Biermann wrote: > i seem to be having a problem with my search results on > "Scotlandpeople online" and thought maybe other researchers might be > having the same problem and offer some suggestions. Maybe this > "thread" might benefit others as well > > Problem:#2 I think that is perhaps "Problem: #1"? > (1) A WIDE search across ALL Scotland for a particular surname misses > some records (b/m/d). A search JUST in Aberdeenshire includes some > NOT in the wide search and to further complicate things, sometimes a > VERY NARROW search > JUST IN Old Machar or Aberdeen city > reveals > family members NOT in the 2 other searches!!!! ?? If your "Scotland-wide" search" is for a relatively common name like THOMSON it could well be that, as Laura suggests, you are simply getting too many hits to be displayed - it may be that with a large dataset, some part of the system "time out". > Problem:#2 > > (2) Is there a problem of lost records in Aberdeen City itself during > 1770-1830? No more so than anywhere else. But the problem is unlikely to be "lost" records. By that sort of date, particularly in major urban centres, many records were simply never created in the first place. > Many records do not appear in search results and i know my > family and others "existed" at this time. many times i find my > "missing" ancestors in the IGI on the LDS website > and it says it is > an "abstracted record". Having your baptisms and marriages recorded in the Parish Registers involved a payment to the Session Clerk, and many people reckoned they could spend the money better on the necessities of life. > do the LDS films for Aberdeen City and area possibly contain records > that Scotslandpeople do not have in therir daatbase? This is extremely unlikely. The LDS films are images of the Old Parish Registers which have, since 1855, been lodged with the Registrar General for Scotland, and Scotlandspeople is the official online arm of the Registrar General's office. Their online images were separately generated from the originals, but are taken from exactly the same source. If there is a discrepancy between Scotlandspeople and the IGI, the doubts should generally be aimed in the first instance at the IGI, which is known to contain much that is of dubious validity. That said, both Scotlandspeople and the IGI make use of indexes which have been derived from the original records by people reading the original handwritten (and sometimes unclear) Registers, and it is inevitable that errors will creep in. There are also cases where records have escaped the Registrar General's net (and therefore also failed to be picked up by the IGI) simply because of holes in the legislation under which the Registrar operated. The Act which set up civil recording of BDMs in Scotland in 1855 empowered the Registrar General to collect the registers of the Kirk of Scotland (with whom everyone was *meant* to register their baptisms and marriages) but not to gather in the registers of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, The Roman Catholic church, or the various Presbyterian splinter groups which had, over the previous century or so, operated independently of the Kirk. The Episciopal and RC Registers are still held by the relevant churches, although films of at least the RC Registers are held by the National Archives of Scotland, who also hold most of the Non-Kirk Presbyterian registers. There are also records which escaped the Registrar General because of sloppy wording of the Acts, which empowered the Registrar General to collect registers held by the Kirk's parishes, but not those held elsewhere. I have recently been transcribing a sequence of burial records for St Nicholas (the original town parish of Aberdeen) which were created and held by the Town Council, who as "patrons" of St Nicholas, maintained the church fabric and (by way of compensation) collected the moneys paid in respect of burials. These are available online at: http://www.anesfhs.org.uk/databank/ (click on "St Nicholas Burials"). and while I do not know of any equivalent "missed" records of baptism or marriage, it is not impossible that such are lurking somewhere. Another of the datasets on the above site is labelled "St Nicholas Kirk Session Accounts" and includes some records to do with Fornication and Marriage. I have not checked whether these are all dunplicated in the "official" St Nicholas Registers of Baptism and Marriage, but I would not be surprised to learn of discrepancies Gavin Bell

Hi Ray, Thank-you for your reply; my direct connection is James ROBERTSON & Martha AITKEN. On their marriage certificate it shows James parents as Daniel ROBERTSON & Agnes SPOTTISWOOD. I have been unable to find a birth certificate for James but I do have a copy of Daniel’s & Agnes marriage in 1831unfortunately this does not show parents (not uncommon); they are my gg gparents. I have been unable to find any other information on them and wonder if they (or Agnes) may have died young and Daniel remarried. I have started looking at other entries for Daniel ROBERTSON hoping for a connection and Elizabeth MILNE was one I have pursued as on James wedding certificate the witnesses are George MILNE and James MILNE. I think it has become a question of elimination in the hope I may stumble on that elusive piece of the puzzle. I am trying to track using naming patterns hoping that will shed light but up to now have had no success; ROBERTSON itself is such a common name…….. Thank-you for the other suggestions will look closely at them and continue the search. Regards, Jan _________________________________________________________________ A world FIRST in property search has arrived! Check out Domain Radar NOW! http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157631292/direct/01/

Laura thanks laura for your reply i think i am going to order the LDS films for Aberdeen city for time period mentioned. It is worth a try Also I have proof that many of my ancestors > after 1843 > were members of some of the "Free/Sucession" churches of the time. For instance the Gilcomston Free church was at the corner of Summer and Union Street and the "Original Succession church" was located on Skene Terrace near Summer Street. All my ancestors were living in this immediate area (some south /some North of area) between 1841-1860. Ministers of baptism/marriage for ones i have found are from the "Free Church"! what names are you researching? my Main lines are Thomson, Garden, Reid, Cooper,Chalmers, Gillanders, Coutts in Old machar/Aberdeen City Schani ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron and Laura Bozzay" <rbozzay@earthlink.net> To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] scotslandpeople website > Hi, Schani, > > I have seen what you are describing in #1. I am not sure why... it could > be a data load issue that it can only return an "up to" number of records > per location. But yes, that can be maddening especially when you are > spending money and find data is dropping. I would suggest you send a note > to the contact box and include the parameters you used. Sometimes it is a > spelling issue... something slightly different gets missed. Sometimes > when > an entry is typed it looks perfect on the screen but there can be a stray > space that the eye does not see, but it causes that record to be misread > by > the computer search program. > > The second issue, yes, not everything in LDS or other data based comes > strictly from Census or vital records like birth, marriage and death > official records. Some abstracted data may come out of Kirk session > records or other records that list birth, marriage or death info. And > yes, > I too have missing people from many parts of Scotland during the period of > 1700 - 1830, not just Aberdeen. What I find interesting is that you may > find one record like death or marriage but no birth or vice versa. And in > some cases you find nothing because the name you know the person by is not > the name used in the official record (I have come across this a few > times). > > > Good luck! > > Laura > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Schani Biermann <ussenterprise1701@accesscomm.ca> >> To: <ABERDEEN@rootsweb.com> >> Date: 12/13/2009 12:23:28 PM >> Subject: [ABERDEEN] scotslandpeople website >> >> general query to all Listers >> >> i seem to be having a problem with my search results on "Scotlandpeople > online" and thought maybe other researchers might be having the same > problem and offer some suggestions. Maybe this "thread" might benefit > others as well >> >> Problem:#2 >> >> (1) A WIDE search across ALL Scotland for a particular surname misses > some records (b/m/d). A search JUST in Aberdeenshire includes some NOT in > the wide search and to further complicate things, sometimes a VERY NARROW > search > JUST IN Old Machar or Aberdeen city > reveals family members NOT > in the 2 other searches!!!! ?? >> >> Problem:#2 >> >> (2) Is there a problem of lost records in Aberdeen City itself during > 1770-1830? Many records do not appear in search results and i know my > family and others "existed" at this time. many times i find my "missing" > ancestors in the IGI on the LDS website > and it says it is an "abstracted > record". >> >> do the LDS films for Aberdeen City and area possibly contain records that > Scotslandpeople do not have in therir daatbase? >> >> thanks to anyone replying with their thoughts >> >> Schani Biermann >> Canada >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, Schani, I have seen what you are describing in #1. I am not sure why... it could be a data load issue that it can only return an "up to" number of records per location. But yes, that can be maddening especially when you are spending money and find data is dropping. I would suggest you send a note to the contact box and include the parameters you used. Sometimes it is a spelling issue... something slightly different gets missed. Sometimes when an entry is typed it looks perfect on the screen but there can be a stray space that the eye does not see, but it causes that record to be misread by the computer search program. The second issue, yes, not everything in LDS or other data based comes strictly from Census or vital records like birth, marriage and death official records. Some abstracted data may come out of Kirk session records or other records that list birth, marriage or death info. And yes, I too have missing people from many parts of Scotland during the period of 1700 - 1830, not just Aberdeen. What I find interesting is that you may find one record like death or marriage but no birth or vice versa. And in some cases you find nothing because the name you know the person by is not the name used in the official record (I have come across this a few times). Good luck! Laura > [Original Message] > From: Schani Biermann <ussenterprise1701@accesscomm.ca> > To: <ABERDEEN@rootsweb.com> > Date: 12/13/2009 12:23:28 PM > Subject: [ABERDEEN] scotslandpeople website > > general query to all Listers > > i seem to be having a problem with my search results on "Scotlandpeople online" and thought maybe other researchers might be having the same problem and offer some suggestions. Maybe this "thread" might benefit others as well > > Problem:#2 > > (1) A WIDE search across ALL Scotland for a particular surname misses some records (b/m/d). A search JUST in Aberdeenshire includes some NOT in the wide search and to further complicate things, sometimes a VERY NARROW search > JUST IN Old Machar or Aberdeen city > reveals family members NOT in the 2 other searches!!!! ?? > > Problem:#2 > > (2) Is there a problem of lost records in Aberdeen City itself during 1770-1830? Many records do not appear in search results and i know my family and others "existed" at this time. many times i find my "missing" ancestors in the IGI on the LDS website > and it says it is an "abstracted record". > > do the LDS films for Aberdeen City and area possibly contain records that Scotslandpeople do not have in therir daatbase? > > thanks to anyone replying with their thoughts > > Schani Biermann > Canada > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

interested in communicating with any lister who is researching the name THOMSON in Old Machar parish in the period 1810-1870 i have the marriage of a William Thomson = Christian Garden (ca 1810-1815) > 4 sons known = Andrew, james, William and Joseph On the death record of William Thomson (d. 1862, aged 79, occupation = Linen Weaver ) his father was noted as Andrew Thomson, "Garrier of Coals" > mother not named! On the death record of Christian (Garden) Thomson (d. 1870, aged 79 ) her father was noted as William Garden and mother = Christian (maiden name not noted) I believe that Christian Garden (above) had a sister, Helen = unmarried and a brother James from Short Loanings (Gilcomston parish). Helen was a resident on College Street (Bon Accord) on 1851 census any connection with other researchers? Schani Biermann canada

general query to all Listers i seem to be having a problem with my search results on "Scotlandpeople online" and thought maybe other researchers might be having the same problem and offer some suggestions. Maybe this "thread" might benefit others as well Problem:#2 (1) A WIDE search across ALL Scotland for a particular surname misses some records (b/m/d). A search JUST in Aberdeenshire includes some NOT in the wide search and to further complicate things, sometimes a VERY NARROW search > JUST IN Old Machar or Aberdeen city > reveals family members NOT in the 2 other searches!!!! ?? Problem:#2 (2) Is there a problem of lost records in Aberdeen City itself during 1770-1830? Many records do not appear in search results and i know my family and others "existed" at this time. many times i find my "missing" ancestors in the IGI on the LDS website > and it says it is an "abstracted record". do the LDS films for Aberdeen City and area possibly contain records that Scotslandpeople do not have in therir daatbase? thanks to anyone replying with their thoughts Schani Biermann Canada

Hi all, Re: 100 year limit? - Please, please no more on this subject. Anyone having any complaints regarding this thread please send to admin and not to the list. Many thanks Carol Joint List Admin

Seriously, why do you feel singled out? This is what I don't get. Why are you taking everything so personally, so too heart, why do you feel that people are deliberating singling you out and persecuting you? Really, honestly, truly they are not. I'm very very sorry if things have happened in the past you make you feel that. But truthfully no-one wants to hurt you, single you out or otherwise. Given that there is/was a topic discussing Guy's efforts to make available information to family historians, do you not think that someone could have told him that that was being discussed and even Guy himself stated that he had being informed that "there was some misunderstanding on the list re the 1911 census release." That would suggest that Guy joined to correct that misunderstanding - beneficial to many people (how many are on this list?) - and not that he joined to single you out and he did not in his posting even mention you or quote you and you were not the only person active in the thread. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Janet" <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:27 PM To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit? I really dont need an attack at this time of the year, at any time of the year, so hope you will forgive me for having overlooked posting a significant date to confirm I received an unsolicited approach from him and I dont think any Lister deserves this singling out. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Etchells" <guy.etchells@virgin.net> To: <ABERDEEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit? Sorry this posting is not threaded but I have just subscribed. I was advised of postings on this list by a friend who mentioned there was some misunderstanding on the list re the 1911 census release. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Janet, I was neither nasty, nor was my festive comment cowardly, rather it was genuine - yet another example of you finding some form of personal persecution in everything for some unknown reason. I also didn't say you were the very first person to mention Guy's name, rather I said you had spoken about him before he contacted you and thus the contact was not unsolicited - if you're going to try reading between the lines (even when there is nothing hidden there) please try not to twist one's words or make up your own version. I used your own terminology about "your feathers being ruffled". And yes, I said you do come across at times as snobby or rude, but I also said that you probably don't intend it that way - again don't try to twist things. Plenty of people tell me I'm blunt - that's fine with me, I say what I think and don't have time for sugar coating things - I like out and out honesty. I did not say people are all against you I said they are NOT all against you, although it seems that you think or feel that they are. Yes, you do very frequently dis things that family historians want such as access to records, censuses, etc and other people's opinions. Like I say I can only go by what I see as I do not know you in real life - where you may be a perfectly lovely person. I am quite aware of how one can come across different on the internet, than in real life, where we lack gestures, tone of voice, facial expressions and much more that we rely on for communication. I don't have a hard time understanding you because of that - I have a hard time understanding you period - again please don't twist words. I also said that if I knew you better I might understand you better. I said that I found information passed on by Guy both informative and helpful and that I didn't see why you thought his attitude was "cavalier" for exercising his (our) rights regarding FOI and that I, for one, appreciate his input. I added that if you were not happy about using information that may become available to you because of that, that you didn't have to use it. I also fail to see what you mother's plea to with hold a certain piece of information has to do with my understanding you or not. Being sensitive about the skeletons in the closets of those living/recently deceased is not really the same as gathering the facts about one's family history based on new sources being made available with less than 100 years passing. I said I knew you would think I was trying to argue with you, which I wasn't (although that seems to be your usual opinion in my personal experience) and that I didn't think in even a million years I could make you see different as I didn't think you want to see different (which of course is your personal choice). I spoke about laws becoming outdated and even provided you with a link to a (British, seeing as you were most appalled the last time I provided an American link) newspaper outlining how hundreds of pieces of legislation that were no longer appropriate or applicable were being removed. And I closed with: "With kindest regards and warmest wishes for the holiday season (whatever your personal choice) Kia =)". I'm afraid I do not know, nor do I feel it appropriate to ask most people what their views on the holiday season. Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukah, Diwalii or something different, I do not know and so sent warm wishes for the holiday season (whatever your personal choice). -------------------------------------------------- From: "Janet" <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 8:22 PM To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> Subject: [ABERDEEN] Fw: Fw: OT: Re: 100 year limit? I have just received a quite nasty private mail from a Lister, at some length with a cowardly festive comment. Acid comments because they say I mentioned Mr. Etchells' name, but I wasnt the first to do so. Check back and see that Ray and Andy wrote about the subject and I wrote in between them so I wasnt the first to mention Mr. Etchells's name. Here's some more of the phraseology: My "feathers apparently get ruffled rather frequently, I am very condescending, quite snobby and rude". Further, "People are all against me and this person has a hard time understanding me because I am against everything most family historians want. "I can only go by what I see on the list" they say. How narrow minded and I have helped others. Quite clearly there are people who like picking on individuals they want to hurt. I also wrote from personal experience that my mother had sent me a plea before she died, about information she didnt want others to know, let alone the whole world on the internet. Can you wonder why after this. Here's the header of Mr. Etchells private mail to me, work out the date and time from the archives here. List posts started on 1st December 2009 and I did not start the thread. Mr. Etchells' mail to me was therefore unsolicited. >----Original Message---- >From: guy.etchells@virgin.net >Date: 05/12/2009 21:09 >To: <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> >Subj: Early release of 1911 census ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Candlish" < andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> | Hi | | The early release of the 1911 England & Wales census was achieved because of | an FOI request by a gentleman called Guy Etchells. | | http://www.yourfamilytreemag.co.uk/page/yft?entry=view_the_1911_census_early | | Whilst there was a petition around that time it was the FOI ruling that led | to the early release. | | http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CensusInfoFreed/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" < ray@whatsinaname.net> > > Well, it does, actually, or at least it is supposed to. This is what the > Department of National Statistics website says, quoting from the relevant > Act: > "Personal census information is held securely for 100 years before being > made available to the public." > > The release of the 1911 data 2 years early was a one-off breaking of the > rule and required, I imagine, a special decision by Parliament. There is a > lot of debate behind the scenes about future release dates. With the > population expecting to include thousands of centenarians soon, it is quite > likely that the 100-year embargo will be reinstated. Especially necessary > as the data collected by Census is becoming more and more detailed [and ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ABERDEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I really dont need an attack at this time of the year, at any time of the year, so hope you will forgive me for having overlooked posting a significant date to confirm I received an unsolicited approach from him and I dont think any Lister deserves this singling out. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Etchells" <guy.etchells@virgin.net> To: <ABERDEEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] 100 year limit? Sorry this posting is not threaded but I have just subscribed. I was advised of postings on this list by a friend who mentioned there was some misunderstanding on the list re the 1911 census release.

I have just received a quite nasty private mail from a Lister, at some length with a cowardly festive comment. Acid comments because they say I mentioned Mr. Etchells' name, but I wasnt the first to do so. Check back and see that Ray and Andy wrote about the subject and I wrote in between them so I wasnt the first to mention Mr. Etchells's name. Here's some more of the phraseology: My "feathers apparently get ruffled rather frequently, I am very condescending, quite snobby and rude". Further, "People are all against me and this person has a hard time understanding me because I am against everything most family historians want. "I can only go by what I see on the list" they say. How narrow minded and I have helped others. Quite clearly there are people who like picking on individuals they want to hurt. I also wrote from personal experience that my mother had sent me a plea before she died, about information she didnt want others to know, let alone the whole world on the internet. Can you wonder why after this. Here's the header of Mr. Etchells private mail to me, work out the date and time from the archives here. List posts started on 1st December 2009 and I did not start the thread. Mr. Etchells' mail to me was therefore unsolicited. >----Original Message---- >From: guy.etchells@virgin.net >Date: 05/12/2009 21:09 >To: <wightway@tiscali.co.uk> >Subj: Early release of 1911 census ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Candlish" < andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> | Hi | | The early release of the 1911 England & Wales census was achieved because of | an FOI request by a gentleman called Guy Etchells. | | http://www.yourfamilytreemag.co.uk/page/yft?entry=view_the_1911_census_early | | Whilst there was a petition around that time it was the FOI ruling that led | to the early release. | | http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CensusInfoFreed/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Hennessy" < ray@whatsinaname.net> > > Well, it does, actually, or at least it is supposed to. This is what the > Department of National Statistics website says, quoting from the relevant > Act: > "Personal census information is held securely for 100 years before being > made available to the public." > > The release of the 1911 data 2 years early was a one-off breaking of the > rule and required, I imagine, a special decision by Parliament. There is a > lot of debate behind the scenes about future release dates. With the > population expecting to include thousands of centenarians soon, it is quite > likely that the 100-year embargo will be reinstated. Especially necessary > as the data collected by Census is becoming more and more detailed [and

I didn't want to respond to this thread any more. I'm sorry but you were not subscribed to this list when you wrote to me privately so using the word "offlist" isn't appropriate. It may be splitting hairs but its a fact you joined this list because you knew I was subscribed here. I hope you can see how that looked. Janet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Etchells" <guy.etchells@virgin.net> > I did not wish to start arguements on this list and I would ask all > subscribers not to join in any arguement about this. > > I did politely contact "Janet" offlist but I did not do so to argue with > her if that is the impression she got then again I apologise. > > Cheers > Guy

Janet wrote: > I realise you have the right to speak up. Please accept that I had a right to say what I did too. I was not criticising that Mr. Etchells exercised his rights under the law. > snip > Janet > I did not wish to start arguements on this list and I would ask all subscribers not to join in any arguement about this. I did politely contact "Janet" offlist but I did not do so to argue with her if that is the impression she got then again I apologise. Cheers Guy --