On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:49:17 -0600, clifto wrote: > People have lost jobs after being found in usenet saying things that offended > the potential employer, or at least that's the story. Wonder how one would > look that up on snopes? Possibly in the US where there does not seem to me any employment protection legislation and it is still "hire and fire" but just try that sort of thing in Europe! -- Terry

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:46:09 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote: > > It's not what you would say to a prospective employer, but what that > potential employer's Google search of your past newsgroup/Usenet posts could > reveal about YOU. Many employers apparently do that now, and for certain > some applicants are turned down because of a public trail left behind that > came back to bite them. > Bruce Please provide proof. I personally thnk thats a load of bollocks or at the very least an urban myth. May be just a US thing. -- Terry

"Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message news:w0mmj.25724$3b7.25458@newsfe23.lga... > > "Liz_in_Calgary" <misnomer@shaw.ca> wrote in message > news:r8pjp3teofdc88drk8vuri0bj0re0nop35@4ax.com... >> lol... usenet isn't that important. > > Maybe not ten years ago, but today, if you're a person interviewing > for a new job................ Couldn't let this one go! What could you possible say to a prospective employer about usernet that would get you a job?

"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@gmail.com> wrote in message > > no quality newspaper publishes anonymous letters > > Hugh W Please name a 'quality newspaper'. There are none.

"Terry" <Terry234@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:lnn9o3fsx4ge.1rtjy5yoqlf8a$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:46:09 -0500, Bruce Remick wrote: > >> >> It's not what you would say to a prospective employer, but what that >> potential employer's Google search of your past newsgroup/Usenet posts >> could >> reveal about YOU. Many employers apparently do that now, and for >> certain >> some applicants are turned down because of a public trail left behind >> that >> came back to bite them. >> Bruce > > Please provide proof. I personally thnk thats a load of bollocks or at > the > very least an urban myth. May be just a US thing. > > -- > Terry I hope you're better at genealogical deduction. You think it's bollocks and at least an urban myth, but you will accept proof to the contrary. And of course, since you're apparently not in the US, you'll also accept that it well may be the case here, but you don't really know. Have you ever posted any comments in a newsgroup that you'd be at all embarrassed about? You don't rate any proof, IMO. Ignore all I said.

jburns wrote: > I wonder when people were required to get Social Security numbers. I > have a relative born in 1899. He got his first full time job with a > newspaper in Iowa in 1920. After 4 years he moved to Tennessee where he > worked as an advertising manager for a newspaper for 10 years. Then in > 1935 he went to work for a newspaper in Texas. His Social Security > number was issued in Texas-by then he would have been at least 36. > Didn't people need SSNs before 1935 or were certain jobs exempt? > John From the Social Security wwb page, frequently asked questions: Q1: When did Social Security start? A: The Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937 and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. Google can be your friend. Allen

In message <479a20dc$0$47156$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Charani <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> wrote: [snip] > > > Mind you I have a similar problem, cousin Ruth Mary Ann Wall married > > a Russian emigré in 1881 with just a hint of a shotgun. he, > > Constantin Baranoff, then vanishes, possibly to Sacramento. Ruth > > then takes up with a married man, Thomas de Breton Godfrey, and > > they go off to New York in Septemebr 1887, abandoning her son and > > his wife and three children. Come 1899 they get married in Bishop's > > Stortford both claiming to be single. I can't find any trace of > > them in the US, or back in England after the wedding. > > Seven year rule coming into play perhaps in the claim to be single? > > You could have done with the 1890 US census for Ruth the same as I > could for DCA. Couldn't I just! > > People can't just disappear, no matter how much they try to evade and > avoid officialdom. That's what I keep telling myself. > Or is there must be some kind of black hole that > swallows some of our ancestors? Or is it alien abductions? ;)) > I was a little perturbed to find that Reunion has Alien Abductee as a status option. There's a few in my tree that I'm tempted to mark that way. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy>

"Rip" <fake@fake.com> wrote in message news:Jcvmj.536$0o7.181@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net... > > "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message > news:w0mmj.25724$3b7.25458@newsfe23.lga... >> >> "Liz_in_Calgary" <misnomer@shaw.ca> wrote in message >> news:r8pjp3teofdc88drk8vuri0bj0re0nop35@4ax.com... >>> lol... usenet isn't that important. >> >> Maybe not ten years ago, but today, if you're a person interviewing for a >> new job................ > > Couldn't let this one go! What could you possible say to a prospective > employer about usernet that would get you a job? It's not what you would say to a prospective employer, but what that potential employer's Google search of your past newsgroup/Usenet posts could reveal about YOU. Many employers apparently do that now, and for certain some applicants are turned down because of a public trail left behind that came back to bite them. Harder to maintain two separate personalities-- internet and real world-- anymore. You've got to be accountable for both. Bruce

singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > Be that as it may, if I get e-mail from "ghost45@spam.cop" > asking about someone in my genealogy database, he's not > getting an answer until/unless I figure out who he actually IS. Me too, but I do not figure out anything. Such e-mails are deleted without any look into the e-mail's body.

Rip wrote: > "Bruce Remick" <remick@cox.net> wrote in message > news:w0mmj.25724$3b7.25458@newsfe23.lga... >> >> "Liz_in_Calgary" <misnomer@shaw.ca> wrote in message >> news:r8pjp3teofdc88drk8vuri0bj0re0nop35@4ax.com... >>> lol... usenet isn't that important. >> >> Maybe not ten years ago, but today, if you're a person interviewing >> for a new job................ > > Couldn't let this one go! What could you possible say to a > prospective employer about usernet that would get you a job? People have lost jobs after being found in usenet saying things that offended the potential employer, or at least that's the story. Wonder how one would look that up on snopes? -- God help us all, The next President of the United States will be a liberal.

In article <1iback6.3utf6k1rcimv8N%nmetzner@meno.ch>, nmetzner@meno.ch (Norbert Metzner) writes: > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > > >> Be that as it may, if I get e-mail from "ghost45@spam.cop" >> asking about someone in my genealogy database, he's not >> getting an answer until/unless I figure out who he actually IS. > > Me too, but I do not figure out anything. > Such e-mails are deleted without any look into the e-mail's body. Welllllll, dunno - spam.cop may be a bad example, if you're thinking of SpamCop.net. Their raison d'etre is fighting spam and their email accounts, so far as I know, are fee-for- service (Dave Hinz, you reading this?) and somewhat less suspect than, say, gmail or yahoo or msn or hotmail freebie email accounts. Suspicious Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:58:27 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: > On the off-chance he might have gone to Argentina, have a look at > <www.argbrit.org> Thanks :)) There's no one obvious who might be him on a quick search but I'll have a look again later. I'm rather banking on him not changing his given name, only his surname (possibly). > Oh dear! Yes, it is very much "oh dear!"!! :)) > Mind you I have a similar problem, cousin Ruth Mary Ann Wall married > a Russian emigré in 1881 with just a hint of a shotgun. he, > Constantin Baranoff, then vanishes, possibly to Sacramento. Ruth > then takes up with a married man, Thomas de Breton Godfrey, and > they go off to New York in Septemebr 1887, abandoning her son and > his wife and three children. Come 1899 they get married in Bishop's > Stortford both claiming to be single. I can't find any trace of > them in the US, or back in England after the wedding. Seven year rule coming into play perhaps in the claim to be single? You could have done with the 1890 US census for Ruth the same as I could for DCA. People can't just disappear, no matter how much they try to evade and avoid officialdom. Or is there must be some kind of black hole that swallows some of our ancestors? Or is it alien abductions? ;)) -- http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:03:01 -0500, singhals wrote: > And so ol' Uriah would have had Good Counsel on how-to-do-it. > > The answer mydear is obvious -- Uriah went to visit Albert > on his last leave and they rode off into the sunset. (Cue > theme from Good, Bad, Ugly...) > > ;) LOL Twas t'other way about :)) Albert must have gone to visit Uriah to learn the secret as the old man lay a-dying. Only thing was that either Uriah didn't tell Albert everything before he shuffled off this mortal coil or Albert didn't listen too good because we pretty well got him taped in the end :)) I don't think we've deciphered all Albert's clues yet and there's still no indication as to when he left England for North America. -- http://home.comcast.net/~webact1/Collingridge/

In message <18sq8om4a73ml.11xfifiepn9vp.dlg@40tude.net> Terry <Terry234@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:58:27 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Mind you I have a similar problem, cousin Ruth Mary Ann Wall married a > > Russian emigré in 1881 with just a hint of a shotgun. he, Constantin > > Baranoff, then vanishes, possibly to Sacramento. > <snip> > > Funny - I'm having some business dealings with a Baranov in Russia at the > moment - shall I ask him if he had any forbears named Constantin? > > Please do, Constantin was a naturalised British Subject, born Russia about 1857. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy>

Allen Prunty <allen.prunty@derbycitybbs.com.remove-lmn-this> wrote: > .. but for > someone just starting out screen names may be the best way to maintain their > privacy. Implies a strange definition of privacy because privacy is mostly violated "behind the screen" where screen names are irrelevant. - Even if it is not done today it could be done tomorrow.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:58:27 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote: <snip> > > Mind you I have a similar problem, cousin Ruth Mary Ann Wall married a > Russian emigré in 1881 with just a hint of a shotgun. he, Constantin > Baranoff, then vanishes, possibly to Sacramento. <snip> Funny - I'm having some business dealings with a Baranov in Russia at the moment - shall I ask him if he had any forbears named Constantin? -- Terry

In message <4799bea1$0$47158$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Charani <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> wrote: > Uriah ANDOW is lost, stolen or strayed. If anyone can find him, or > his family, I'd be most grateful if they could secure him please. > He's an ex con and a slippery customer it would seem. > [snip] > > So where was he?? He may have headed for America for the 1849 Gold > Rush. He could have gone to South Africa or Canada. On the off-chance he might have gone to Argentina, have a look at <www.argbrit.org> > > Any help in pinning him down would be much appreciated. I just hope > he's not going to be another Dear Cousin Albert!! They are distantly > related by marriage <VBG> > Oh dear! Mind you I have a similar problem, cousin Ruth Mary Ann Wall married a Russian emigré in 1881 with just a hint of a shotgun. he, Constantin Baranoff, then vanishes, possibly to Sacramento. Ruth then takes up with a married man, Thomas de Breton Godfrey, and they go off to New York in Septemebr 1887, abandoning her son and his wife and three children. Come 1899 they get married in Bishop's Stortford both claiming to be single. I can't find any trace of them in the US, or back in England after the wedding. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy>

LOL Actually, when I was in the military, I was good friends with a woman whose last name was Ball. We got a lot of laughs out of that. --Rick http://foosfamily.erienet.net On Jan 7, 12:53 pm, Sir Creep <sircr...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 12:36 am, Rick <r...@erienet.net> wrote: > > > Anyone have any information on the Foos family? > > > If you do, please let me know. > > > The information I have is posted athttp://foosfamily.erienet.net > > > --Rick > > If one of them married a member of the Ball family, they could be the > Foos-Ball clan. > > Hey, I couldn't pass it up. > SC

Mary_Gordon@tvo.org wrote: > OP wrote: > >>Homeownership rate in Minnesota is about 74.5%. Minnesota's vacancy >>rate, including seasonal lodging, is about 8.3%. Average household >>size is 2.52 people.http://www.cnful.cn./mn/index.htm > > > and this has exactly what to do with genealogy??? > > M. > Well, it might be interesting to someone needing info on social conditions in Minnesota? Or someone wondering if a troll through the deeds would be productive? Cheryl

Charani wrote: > Any help in pinning him down would be much appreciated. I just hope > he's not going to be another Dear Cousin Albert!! They are distantly > related by marriage <VBG> And so ol' Uriah would have had Good Counsel on how-to-do-it. The answer mydear is obvious -- Uriah went to visit Albert on his last leave and they rode off into the sunset. (Cue theme from Good, Bad, Ugly...) ;) Cheryl