The 22nd edition of the Guild Marriage Index (1837-1911) is available on the web site: http://www.one-name.org/members/GMI/gmi.html We now have well over 1 million entries on line (1117167 to be exact), 1088133 with spouse surname 1064779 with place and GRO page 1035745 with both These represent work from 2102 one-name studies. There are 649254 cardinal points. I am sorry to report that Mary Rix has resigned as Guild Marriage Index Coordinator. I have volunteered to take over, at least on a temporary basis. I think the Guild owes her a huge debt, she has done a great deal to make the GMI as accurate as possible. We have lost expertise and knowledge built up over 10 years. I will do what I can to maintain the standard, but will not have the time for all that Mary was accustomed to do, cleaning up, correcting and adding to the database (she described this as a full-time job). The GMI was never just a store of members' data: it does do that, yes, and connects members' studies where they coincide in a marriage, but what has been created is a valuable resource for locating marriages from just a GRO reference. It is more accurate than commercial databases (for example, did you know they often mis-label PRs? You have to look at the top of the image page to be sure of the church name). I consider the GMI to be a great asset for the Guild, and I am doing this because I think it is worth maintaining. Peter Alefounder.

Re Amazon - free book titles on country sites. I have to shop through Amazon.ca - almost always the deals are the same. In my case, there is a link to Amazon.ca right on the Amazon.com page, but sometimes I do have to search for the title on Amazon.ca. I just 'bought' 2 Kindle genealogy books free. Thanks for the heads up, Ken. Diane R M. Diane Rogers British Columbia, Canada Researching SAGGERS

Thank you Peter, and thanks too to Mary, who has done a sterling job. Paul On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Peter Alefounder via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > The 22nd edition of the Guild Marriage Index (1837-1911) > is available on the web site: > > http://www.one-name.org/members/GMI/gmi.html > > We now have well over 1 million entries on line (1117167 > to be exact), > 1088133 with spouse surname > 1064779 with place and GRO page > 1035745 with both > > These represent work from 2102 one-name studies. > > There are 649254 cardinal points. > > I am sorry to report that Mary Rix has resigned as Guild Marriage > Index Coordinator. I have volunteered to take over, at least on a > temporary basis. I think the Guild owes her a huge debt, she has > done a great deal to make the GMI as accurate as possible. We > have lost expertise and knowledge built up over 10 years. I will > do what I can to maintain the standard, but will not have the > time for all that Mary was accustomed to do, cleaning up, > correcting and adding to the database (she described this as a > full-time job). > > The GMI was never just a store of members' data: it does do that, > yes, and connects members' studies where they coincide in a > marriage, but what has been created is a valuable resource for > locating marriages from just a GRO reference. It is more accurate > than commercial databases (for example, did you know they often > mis-label PRs? You have to look at the top of the image page to > be sure of the church name). I consider the GMI to be a great > asset for the Guild, and I am doing this because I think it is > worth maintaining. > > Peter Alefounder. > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Paul Howes www.howesfamilies.com Researching House, Howes, Hows, Howse & Howze worldwide

Hi Don Many thanks for your interest and assistance. Thomas was certainly not born in Belper according to info received for 1891 1901 and 1911 Census returns. Parents John and Martha Vayro were in West Tanfield (N Yorks) in 1891 and he was a groom on the 191 C in Rugby Area. I agree that he had settled in Belper from 1914 and my assumption is that he may have been posted to Derbyshire before WW1 and decided to marry, stay and have kids. The families you have found would hopefully be from his sons Percy and Norman Vayro, and it is their grandchildren who have made the original contact. There was apparently a third son Dennis who seems to have gone off the radar in about 1970? Anyway I hope to be able to get some details direct about Percy and Norman, but if you could extract anything for me I really would welcome it with open arms. Even if it is the actual years and quarters of registration for the births would be a start. It really is amazing how members have responded to this with bits and pieces Thanks again Rennison Rennison's List on http://www.upperdalesfhg.org.uk/rennisons.htm The Vayro Ancestry on http://www.vayro.name Vayro Database on http://vayro.tribalpages.com Vayro Guild of One-Name Studies Profile http://one-name.org/name_profile/vayro/ http://www.rennisonprimarydesigntechnology.info Searching for VAYRO, VARO, VARAH and variations worldwide

My Dad was a messenger boy in Balham during the blitz, before joinin the RAF in 1941 so it's interesting to see what was happening in that area. And I see the url changes according to zoom level and position, so you can add a link to a particular view in a website etc. which is great (perhaps I'll point it out to the LDS - I love their 1851 map but the big frustration I have with it is not being able to save / send / publish a link to a particular view). Also on the London blitz map I can see the bomb recorded which damaged the house where I grew up in Petts Wood in the 1960s and 70s. Nothing as serious as a hole in the ceiling, but there was a slight bulge in a wall, plus some windows were frosted and had some odd panes - I understood that was due to the bomb damage, an exact match when replacing the broken panes wa snot available. Teresa On 14/12/2014 17:35, Merryl Wells via wrote: > Hi, > I think there are many publications on specific areas/towns regarding not > just the Blitz but generally 2nd World war damage with photographs and maps. > "Somewhere" I have one on Bath, Somerset and some years ago borrowed by > inter-library loan another book on Somerset which apparently covered all > such events including stray bombs in farmyards and fields dealt with by the > Home Guard and ships in Bristol harbour, on the River Severn. > > Being born at the end of the War in a Hertfordshire village the only London > bomb that affected my family and included on this website was one dropped on > a factory behind my Aunt's house in Stag Lane, Kingsbury (off the Edgware > Road in Carlisle Road). Her house received damage through the roof causing > a hole in my young cousins' bedroom ceiling which was adequately patched up > at the time. I lived there 1950 to 1955 and it was not properly > repaired/compensated for until some time after - I was always scared of > being in their bedroom in case the ceiling fell down and would wake > screaming from nightmares in my own room that I'd end up in my mother's bed > downstairs. That bomb missed it's target of a large aircraft factory nearby > in Stag Lane. I had hoped this website would give the date of the event but > it does not appear to be included. > > From > Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. > E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org > GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Leslie Darbyshire via" <goons@rootsweb.com> > To: "NIKKI BROWN" <nikki.wabit@tesco.net>; <goons@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:10 AM > Subject: Re: [G] website on the London bombing blitz of WW2 > > >> There is a book "Safe as Houses - Wimbledon at War 1939-1945" >> published by the Wimbledon Society that goes into great detail about >> all the incidents in Wimbledon Borough right through WW2, so includes >> V1 attacks. The book includes a 6 inch to the mile map which >> distinguishes between the various types of incident - high explosive >> bombs, oil and petrol bombs, incendiary bombs, unexploded bombs, >> misfired anti-aircraft shells, crashed aircraft and V1 flying bombs. >> No V2s fell in the area. >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jim Benedict via" <goons@rootsweb.com> >>> To: goons@rootsweb.com >>> Sent: Saturday, 13 December, 2014 8:07:00 PM >>> Subject: [G] website on the London bombing blitz of WW2 >>> >>> For those with history and ancestors of WW2 and London, this may be >>> useful. >>> Pinpoint bomb drops in your grand/parents neighbourhoods. >>> >>> The site is at: bombsight.org >>> >>> It starts with a map of London, dotted with bomb locations throughout the >>> city. You can zoom in on a street, or for something really scary, zoom >>> out >>> to see southeast England blanketed by red pins. When you zoom in, you >>> can >>> click on a bomb icon for further details. There is usually a "read more" >>> link in the popup, which leads to 1940 photo images from the area, >>> contributed people's stories relating to this area and even more. >>> >>> Jim Benedict > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- ------------------------ Teresa Goatham Sign the petition to open historic BMD registers - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62779 (UK residents / British citizens only)

Could the time bomb have been dropped at some other time during the war - the map only covers 7 Oct 1940 to 06 June 1941? Teresa On 14/12/2014 17:10, JANETHESKI via wrote: > I have a book published by a local historian, 'Surbiton Bombed'. I will > match the information with that on the London Blitz site, but I know of one > bomb that is missing. > > Where my uncle and cousins lived in Tolworth, part of Surbiton, a time > bomb blew up the row of houses in the road that their house backed on to. They > lived in Elmdene and the houses that were demolished were in Knollmead. > > There is no mention of this bomb, so maybe time bombs are not recorded on > the map. The houses were near to the Chessington branch line, which led to > an Ordnance Survey set of offices and probably other government > establishments. The railway line was the target, I have been told, and there were bomb > craters either side of the line. I don't think it was disrupted, other > than that the extension to Leatherhead and beyond was never built. > > Janet Heskins [2281] > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- ------------------------ Teresa Goatham Sign the petition to open historic BMD registers - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62779 (UK residents / British citizens only)

On 16 December 2014 at 09:32, John P Laws <registrar@lawsfamilyregister.org.uk> wrote: > Oh Julie I'm rather like Elizabeth Bennett, "My feelings are quite the opposite" > > "The facility to join and not register a name has always been the case", I seem to remember when I joined in 1984 it was the norm to register a name. > > Why else would one join? Because there maybe an interest in a specific surname - effectively toe dipping to see how others research and conduct a study. Or perhaps it is rather an a specific surname a much broader look at surnames. > As to being elitist isn't that a good thing, aren't we all trying to be the best we can be, I don't believe in dumbing down to be popular. Of course we all striving to be the best we can be, that is perfectly natural, What we don't want to do is give others an impression that we are better than they. We want to be inclusive and welcoming. Collaborating and learning together and sharing that knowledge. > > Is it a fact that many professional groups allow membership in a similar way? > > If I join the Bar Association I need to be a practicing barrister, or the BMA I need to be a medical doctor. You are correct. Those two organisations are specific to those professions and are regulatory. The example I provided was in fact the original professional body for those acting as Apothecaries within the City of London. You can join the the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries as a member if you have an interest in the profession without the need to practice. Being a member does not make you a member of the Worshipful Company though - it is a two step process. If you are a professional practising then there is a professional leadership body and a regulator. Very different. The point I was making is that it is,in my opinion a good thing that we interest and welcome others interested in the field of Surname & One Name Studies whether that is one name such as Orlando, Laws and or Quested, or a more general broader study - such as surnames in the far of Scotland and their links to Norway for example. Clearly you can, as we did register our names, but you could not register a more general study but you can become a member of the Guild because you are interested in the methodology. I can not recall who said she was interested in the name of Quested but it was already registered, quite rightly so we should be welcoming (an perhaps even remember there name and apologies for not doing so), and inclusive of all with an interest. That is the end of the thread for me - some details on the day job need to be worked on! Regards Julie Goucher Guild 3925 > > Why join the SOG unless you are a genealogist or GOONS unless you are undertaking a One-Name study. > > > John P Laws > GOONS 674 > > Registrar > Laws Family Register > Putting Flesh on the Bones of History > > wwww.lawsfamilyregisterr.tribalpages.com > > www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.com > > > > > > > >

John, You said: "Why else would one join?" My response is Then I should "unjoin". My Surname is already spoken for. Russ On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Julie Goucher via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > On 16 December 2014 at 09:32, John P Laws > <registrar@lawsfamilyregister.org.uk> wrote: >> Oh Julie I'm rather like Elizabeth Bennett, "My feelings are quite the opposite" >> >> "The facility to join and not register a name has always been the case", I seem to remember when I joined in 1984 it was the norm to register a name. >> >> Why else would one join? > > Because there maybe an interest in a specific surname - effectively > toe dipping to see how others research and conduct a study. Or perhaps > it is rather an a specific surname a much broader look at surnames. > >> As to being elitist isn't that a good thing, aren't we all trying to be the best we can be, I don't believe in dumbing down to be popular. > > Of course we all striving to be the best we can be, that is perfectly > natural, What we don't want to do is give others an impression that we > are better than they. We want to be inclusive and welcoming. > Collaborating and learning together and sharing that knowledge. >> >> Is it a fact that many professional groups allow membership in a similar way? >> >> If I join the Bar Association I need to be a practicing barrister, or the BMA I need to be a medical doctor. > > You are correct. Those two organisations are specific to those > professions and are regulatory. The example I provided was in fact the > original professional body for those acting as Apothecaries within the > City of London. You can join the the Worshipful Company of > Apothecaries as a member if you have an interest in the profession > without the need to practice. Being a member does not make you a > member of the Worshipful Company though - it is a two step process. If > you are a professional practising then there is a professional > leadership body and a regulator. Very different. > > The point I was making is that it is,in my opinion a good thing that > we interest and welcome others interested in the field of Surname & > One Name Studies whether that is one name such as Orlando, Laws and or > Quested, or a more general broader study - such as surnames in the far > of Scotland and their links to Norway for example. Clearly you can, as > we did register our names, but you could not register a more general > study but you can become a member of the Guild because you are > interested in the methodology. I can not recall who said she was > interested in the name of Quested but it was already registered, quite > rightly so we should be welcoming (an perhaps even remember there name > and apologies for not doing so), and inclusive of all with an > interest. > > That is the end of the thread for me - some details on the day job > need to be worked on! > > Regards > > Julie Goucher > Guild 3925 > >> >> Why join the SOG unless you are a genealogist or GOONS unless you are undertaking a One-Name study. >> >> >> John P Laws >> GOONS 674 >> >> Registrar >> Laws Family Register >> Putting Flesh on the Bones of History >> >> wwww.lawsfamilyregisterr.tribalpages.com >> >> www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- hrworth@gmail.com

I totally agree with everything Corinne says! Fiona On 16 Dec 2014, at 10:00, Corinne Curtis via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I think its great that people can join without having to immediately > take the plunge of registering a name. I would have thought the only > requirement of joining was an interest in one-name studies. Its a > great place to learn what is involved, have a rethink about deviants > and variants and the size of your potential study and what that > involves, get access to the "7 pillars", learn about different ways of > recording your research,etc - and then register a study. I think > there are many other reasons you might want to join the Guild without > having "ownnership" of a one-name study. More important though is if > you do decide to register a study, you think long term about what that > involves and how you will pass it on. What I don't think we should be > encouraging is people registering studies without too much thought, > then deregistering them and having them lost (and worst case,wanting > to remove any material that has been lodged with GOONS) when they have > lost interest or done all they want to do themselves. > > John, I suspect you are finding the new site a lot more difficult than > most people because you have been so familiar with the old one, and > had developed your own understanding of what was actually a very > difficult site for most people to find their way around, so its a big > change for you. For others who weren't so familiar with the old > site, it really is much easier to find things you didn't know about > before. > > Corinne Curtis #5579 > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:50 AM, John P Laws via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Hi One-Namers Everywhere >> >> While I am having a growl, Do Dinosaurs growl or roar GRRR! (a beef >> Whatever?) about the new site. Can I ask - Why is there a link to how to >> join, - inside the pay-wall? >> >> And why is it is NOT necessary to register a study name in order to join? >> (inside the pay-wall), surely that makes us into a general Family History >> Society in competition with many others out there. >> >> Surely it should say (outside the pay-wall) that it IS necessary to register >> a study name in order to join. which makes us what we claim to be a Guild of >> One-Name Studies, nothing less - nothing more. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _____________________________________________ >> >> RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hear, hear. The restriction seems over-protective to me - it would be useful to see all the results, not merely those submitted by other people. Moreover, it's clear from Forum contributions from time to time that a lot of Guild members don't understand how the system works - and if so, it's needlessly mystifying as well as over-protective. Just my opinion: I can see other points of view even though I don't personally agree with them. Geoff 5389

Shirley There are instructions here for setting up a profile page: http://one-name.org/help/website-how-to-pages/managing-your-one-name-study-p rofile-page/ In case the link breaks here is a short URL: http://tinyurl.com/pr9hhy6 The profile pages are very easy to create. If you can use Microsoft Word then you can create and edit a profile page. If you need any help just ask. CP stands for Cardinal Point. You'll find an explanation of how the Cardinal Points work on the Guild Marriage Index page in the Members' Room: http://www.one-name.org/members/GMI/gmi.html There is an additional article explaining how to get the most out of Cardinal Points here: http://www.one-name.org/members/GMI/CardPointNote.html Best wishes Debbie Kennett Member no. 4554 Cruwys/Cruse/Cruise one-name study http://one-name.org/name_profile/cruwys/ >Can someone tell me how to go about doing my profile as I must admit I have been avoiding doing it as I thought it was too difficult. Idiots guide please and then over the Xmas period hopefully I will be able to do it. >Yesterday I found some other studies that had my surname as part of their search  at the side some say CP what exactly does this mean and can I ask for information.

Anne I agree with Paul and Corinne Our profile pages are for members of the public and should reflect the total number of occurrences of our surname in the indexes. Ideally the number should be a combination of the number of entries that we've submitted ourselves and the number of references submitted by other members. I don't understand the concern about stealing data. Why would anyone else other than me want to have access to a list of all Cruse/Cruwys/Cruise marriages in the GMI and the Worldwide Marriage Index? I would actually find it helpful to see all the marriages I've entered, and find it frustrating that I can't generate a list of marriages from the material that I've personally contributed. Even if someone were to extract all the marriages for my surname I don't see why this should be a problem. I've done the research so that it *can* be used. That's how our knowledge is advanced. In most cases people would in any case be much better off contacting me because these are after all only indexes and I generally have much more information (eg, full marriage certificate and accompanying family tree). Best wishes Debbie

Oh, John! Not this old chestnut again! As part of my family history delvings, I became interested in surname (origin) research for some particular unusual names, read as much as I could, went on academic courses, searched the net and found the Guild. So, when I discovered that my chief surname of interest was already registered, I should have been sent away back to the wilderness, to wander alone? Happily, “Not all those who wander are lost.”*; I am glad that was the case as I have benefited enormously from the welcoming seminars, regional meetings, AGMs and the almost universally friendly and helpful GOONS. Best of all, I was lucky in that Helen, the QUESTED study registrant, was keen on collaboration and welcomed my (smaller than she and I hoped.... but watch this space.....) contributions to the study. We have had debates about this several times over the years on the forum. Oh, and I think the new website is a vast improvement. The old site was clunky, old-fashioned and hard to navigate. Penelope Burton GOONS 4896 Interested in QUESTED (and QUERSTED)

John There is a very prominent tab at the top of the Guild website which says "Join Us". It can't be much clearer than that. When you click on the link you are taken to a page with details on how to join the Guild: http://one-name.org/how-to-join/ None of these pages are in the Members' Room. I suspect you are confused because you are looking at these pages while logged in to your Guild account. The Guild's objectives are enshrined in our Constitution: http://www.one-name.org/Constitution.pdf The Constitution clearly states that "Membership shall be open to any individual with a declared interest in one-name studies". There is no reason why you have to register a surname when you join the Guild. This allows multiple people with an interest in a surname to join the Guild and work together collaboratively. There are also many professionals and individuals who want to join the Guild simply because of the wealth of knowledge that our members share. I agree with you that Rootsweb is somewhat antiquated which is why many people now prefer to use Facebook and/or Google Plus where you can upload photos, share links with pictures, only follow threads you are interested in, and not to have to worry about posting in plain text or having links that are too long. However, conversations take place where people want those conversations to take place and the Forum is still the preferred method of communication for many Guild members. The Forum does also have the advantage of having easily searchable archives. There are around 700 members on the Forum, and nearly 400 in the Guild's closed Facebook group. We also have nearly 2500 people following the Guild's page on Facebook. We have 232 Guild members in the Guild's circle on Google+ but only 94 of those members have so far joined the Guild's Google+ community. There are 111 people in the Guild's Surnames Community. Those numbers will no doubt change over time. I find that most of the genealogy and DNA discussions now take place on Facebook rather than on mailing lists, but there is also a core of genealogists, particularly in the US, who like Google+. Many Guild members are also finding that Twitter is a very useful tool and is a good way of picking up the latest genealogy news. There are 194 Guild members who are known to be using Twitter: https://twitter.com/GuildOneName/lists/guild-members/members The Guild has 3618 followers on Twitter. The social media sites serve as a very useful way of spreading awareness of the Guild and publicising our one-name studies. Best wishes Debbie Kennett Member no. 4554 Cruwys/Cruse/Cruise one-name study Social Networking Coordinator Guild of One-Name Studies

I really like the link to the numbers of records held in Guild indexes that has now appeared on our profile pages. However, as these pages are public pages, I wonder if it would be possible to have a further listing: "number of Sennett references submitted to Guild indexes by the Sennett study". Right now, the information is only really useful to me in showing how many other studies have a crossover with mine, and I think it may give a false impression to the public that my study is very limited if a viewer thinks there are only the 14 references that it currently shows. I also wonder whether the search facility that fails to show up references submitted in your study name is now outmoded? It would be great to be able to do both types of searches. I've completely lost track of what I have submitted, and while I know I could ask for a listing, that just makes it that one step more difficult to keep an eye on my submissions. I'd also like to be able to submit material to indexes on other surnames that may not be registered, and I'm not sure if this is allowed? Is it just me, or do others think this way? Corinne Curtis #5579 (Sennett ONS)

I think its great that people can join without having to immediately take the plunge of registering a name. I would have thought the only requirement of joining was an interest in one-name studies. Its a great place to learn what is involved, have a rethink about deviants and variants and the size of your potential study and what that involves, get access to the "7 pillars", learn about different ways of recording your research,etc - and then register a study. I think there are many other reasons you might want to join the Guild without having "ownnership" of a one-name study. More important though is if you do decide to register a study, you think long term about what that involves and how you will pass it on. What I don't think we should be encouraging is people registering studies without too much thought, then deregistering them and having them lost (and worst case,wanting to remove any material that has been lodged with GOONS) when they have lost interest or done all they want to do themselves. John, I suspect you are finding the new site a lot more difficult than most people because you have been so familiar with the old one, and had developed your own understanding of what was actually a very difficult site for most people to find their way around, so its a big change for you. For others who weren't so familiar with the old site, it really is much easier to find things you didn't know about before. Corinne Curtis #5579 On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:50 AM, John P Laws via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hi One-Namers Everywhere > > While I am having a growl, Do Dinosaurs growl or roar GRRR! (a beef > Whatever?) about the new site. Can I ask - Why is there a link to how to > join, - inside the pay-wall? > > And why is it is NOT necessary to register a study name in order to join? > (inside the pay-wall), surely that makes us into a general Family History > Society in competition with many others out there. > > Surely it should say (outside the pay-wall) that it IS necessary to register > a study name in order to join. which makes us what we claim to be a Guild of > One-Name Studies, nothing less - nothing more. > > > > > > > _____________________________________________ > > RootsWeb lists - surnames, regions, software, etc http://lists.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GOONS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi everyone. Not knowing anything about web sites I cannot comment on its efficiency, however it looks good and more imprtantly interesting. Can someone tell me how to go about doing my profile as I must admit I have been avoiding doing it as I thought it was too difficult. Idiots guide please and then over the Xmas period hopefully I will be able to do it. Yesterday I found some other studies that had my surname as part of their search  at the side some say CP what exactly does this mean and can I ask for information. Happy Xmas everyone Shirley Power GRIMMETT 6171

Oh Julie I'm rather like Elizabeth Bennett, "My feelings are quite the opposite" "The facility to join and not register a name has always been the case", I seem to remember when I joined in 1984 it was the norm to register a name. Why else would one join? As to being elitist isn't that a good thing, aren't we all trying to be the best we can be, I don't believe in dumbing down to be popular. Is it a fact that many professional groups allow membership in a similar way? If I join the Bar Association I need to be a practicing barrister, or the BMA I need to be a medical doctor. Why join the SOG unless you are a genealogist or GOONS unless you are undertaking a One-Name study. John P Laws GOONS 674 Registrar Laws Family Register Putting Flesh on the Bones of History wwww.lawsfamilyregisterr.tribalpages.com www.lawsandlawes.blogspot.com

On 16 December 2014 at 00:12, John P Laws via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > The problem is the site, not my computer - the idea Hmmm! It was nice to find a link to the old site though, I do recall when our magazine took it's glossy form from its original matt form, I objected to the change then, so maybe it's just me. > > I'm a bit of a Dinosaurs Rex - big - sharp teeth - small brain and likely to become extinct soon. > > BTW Is it not possible that we could move our forum from antiquated public Rootsweb, and move it to our already up and running private Google plus community > Whilst this forum is not perfect it does provide a good mode of sharing, information and discussion for members. It also enables non members to read the discussion points via the archives and perhaps join us. Effectively this forum is our shop window. A Google+ Community is a good idea, There is already a private Guild Community https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/105192164788119705673 There is also an open to all, Guild owned Surnames Community https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/115248071390369725970 Not everyone uses or understands the promise of Google+ and personally I feel a closed forum is a bit like a shop window that entices people to enter only to find that the door is locked. Wherever the discussion is, this forum or the community via Google the value of those arenas is as good as the conversations taking place. As individuals we only get out what we put in. Regards Julie Goucher Guild Member 3925 Orlando & Worship ONS Regional Rep ~ South Devon

On 16 December 2014 at 00:50, John P Laws via <goons@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi One-Namers Everywhere > > While I am having a growl, Do Dinosaurs growl or roar GRRR! (a beef > Whatever?) about the new site. Can I ask - Why is there a link to how to > join, - inside the pay-wall? > That link is there whether you are logged in or not. A bit like looking at a book with 8 chapters and you only want to read chapter 2. > > And why is it is NOT necessary to register a study name in order to join? > (inside the pay-wall), surely that makes us into a general Family History > Society in competition with many others out there. The facility to join and not register a name has always been the case, or at least it has since I joined in the early part of 2002. We want to be inclusive and encourage members to join us. If they then decide to register a name then great. We are not an elitist group or we certainly should not be. We should be flattered that people want to join us, become confident in conducting a study such as a surname/one name study before registering their chosen surname. > Surely it should say (outside the pay-wall) that it IS necessary to register > a study name in order to join. which makes us what we claim to be a Guild >of One-Name Studies, nothing less - nothing more. Part of the aims of the Guild is to educate others. We in part achieve that by welcoming those who do not want to register a name immediately. In fact many groups, including professional groups allow membership in a similar way. An example can be seen here at the Worshipful Company of Apothecaries which allows members to join without being members of the Worshipful Company http://www.apothecaries.org/faculty-of-the-history-philosophy-of-medicine-parm/become-a-member/ Regards Julie Goucher Guild Member 3925 Orlando & Worship ONS Regional Rep ~ South Devon