Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - pharmaT

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 173
1
The Lighter Side / Re: Always expect the unexpected!
« on: Tuesday 14 September 21 14:26 BST (UK)  »
Today I found a probate calendar entry for someone in my tree and I don't recognise the name of the person probate was granted to, investigation time.

2
How to Use RootsChat (Please don't post requests here) / Re: Members ready to help you!
« on: Friday 10 September 21 13:18 BST (UK)  »
Quote
Not at all. How on earth can the user's activity pattern be revealing to complete strangers? If, for example, I'm not online it doesn't mean that I'm away from home. I could be out in the garden, doing housework, making meals, doing something else on my computer or any number of things. It also doesn't mean that my house is empty waiting to be burgled as there are others in the household.

Absolutely true aghadowey - I quite often nip off to do something else for a while then come back and carry on with whatever I was doing on the computer.

i have also used Rc when not at home

3
The Stay Safe Board / Re: Anti-vaxxers' arguments
« on: Friday 03 September 21 17:50 BST (UK)  »
Firstly, this link should allay any questions on the FACT that this IS a medical trial.

https://covid19vaccinetrial.co.uk

Secondly, the link I posted previously,
Very much relevant to medical trials being forced upon human subjects.
Here it is again.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)17619-8/fulltext
Is from THE LANCET.
Lastly, you attempt to tarnish the validity of these MEDICAL AUTHORITY links, with an unreferenced, anonymous quote from a museum spokesperson.
If anyone fails, or ignorantly refuses to see the correlation between history and today, then we are on the road to repeating it.

It is not a fact that this is a trial vaccine, the fact is that there are ongoing trials into the vaccine.  These are not the same things.  The vaccine has met all the testing criteria to be an approved  to the same standard as any other product.  Firstly in use monitoring occurs with absolutely every newly released product.  Secondly when a product receives it's license that license specifies the patient group, the dosage and indications that product can be used under license (any other use would be termed 'off label'.  Once a product has received it's license it is very common for the manufacturer to carry out further testing, more trials so to speak to be able to update guidelines in future and more importantly to hopefully extend the licensing criteria which has profit implications for them.  There are therefore people signed up as trial subjects, some only in retrospective studies (ie have received a dose in accordance with the current licence). Currently trials are looking at extending the patient groups who can be included in the licence and the need for/safety of boosters.  Absolutley NONE of this means people are receiving a trial medication.

4
The Stay Safe Board / Re: Anti-vaxxers' arguments
« on: Thursday 02 September 21 17:44 BST (UK)  »
Withdraw NHS cover for those who will not get the vaccine. Why should stupidity cost the country.


Malky

Because that would be a slippery slope as almost everyone can be considered to take risks with their health.   It's frustrating when people are unvaccinated and subsequently hospitalised but I know i couldn't just not treat them.

5
The Common Room / Re: surmane quandary.
« on: Sunday 29 August 21 15:17 BST (UK)  »

    Hi.  I see your points but also the ancestry researching for distant family relatives
     is not a legal requirment, so precise recording would not be required, like if looking
     close family where the name probably had to be tight, so like Mr Trusler/or and or Mr
     Trussler would probably have to be required,
         In the past the oddity of clergy spelling due to writing what they hear, as against
     the family only knowing what there name sounded like with local dialect, so one BP is with
     'SS' and the next family member recorded is with a single 'S ' does it matter in family
      history that far back were this family is 1700/50 , some thing to mull over possibly...

Not necessarily, I have a marriage certificate where the groom's surname was spelt 5 different ways.

6
The Common Room / Re: Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors
« on: Thursday 19 August 21 16:51 BST (UK)  »
Oops, I've got just over 12,000 on my tree - so I'm in the "one star, and if I could give you zero, I would" category.
 I've been researching since the 1980's and was lucky enough to be given a tree for my maternal grandmother's line which had been very well researched by two distant cousins in the sixties and seventies. I checked it and couldn't find any errors. I could only add very small bits to it when more records came on line. That branch came from a small area in Yorkshire and the name was not common which made it easier, but nevertheless they must have spent weeks if not months in record offices.

These threads make me feel like I have to apologise to proper researchers because i have over 7000 in my tree.  I didn't start researching until the 1990s.

7
The Common Room / Re: Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors
« on: Thursday 19 August 21 12:01 BST (UK)  »
That's a very good point boo, people could mark you down for different reasons.  I mean some people on here would mark me down because I have been researching collateral lines giving me "too many in my tree".  I once had a woman really annoyed with me for researching her 3x grt grandparents, apparently the fact that they were also my 3x grt grandparents was not good enough reason apparently.  Another guy is adamant that my Dad is wrong on my tree, i have the original certificates on that line back to my grt grandfather not just copies that I ordered.  On the flip of that coin i once had someone tell me how wonderful a tree was because it had got back to biblical times.

8
The Common Room / Re: Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors
« on: Thursday 19 August 21 08:26 BST (UK)  »
I was wearing gloves as you normally do when handling original documents, but once got to touch the 1802 removal order for my ancestor and his 2nd wife. The removal order was repealed as his wife was too ill to travel to Redlingfield from Framlingham, Suffolk. She died in October just 3 months later. She was 62.

Yes I got conned into the turn of the century craze of wearing gloves, I am glad it is now recognised that wearing gloves when accessing old paper artifacts destroys more of them than not wearing gloves.
Best practice has reverted to washing hands before touching paper artifacts as the wearing of gloves makes the fingers less nimble and leads to a likelyhood of torn edges.
Cheers
Guy

Back in the days of international travel I went to London Metropolitan Archives to look at a document. It duly arrived in a tray, as a bundle wrapped in parchment. Still covered in the soot from 1795. By the time we (my daughter and I) had managed to open it, desperately trying not to spread soot everywhere, then viewed and photographed it, our hands were BLACK.  Then had to be escorted what seemed like miles (as they donít want water near documents either) with our hands in the air to a place we could wash. (It smelt like the soot from 1795 too  >:().

That is actually really cool. Seeing old documents is amazing but ones that no one appears to have read for so long is even better.

9
The Common Room / Re: Ancestry family trees full of lazy errors
« on: Saturday 14 August 21 00:22 BST (UK)  »
I have been accused of being "just a name collector" because I have "too many people" in my tree.  I like to research collateral branches of my tree (and bring them forward) for the following reasons:

1. I want to learn about the lives of my direct ancestors and I consider how many children or siblings my direct ancestors had to be part of their lives
2. IME researching siblings can help find out information on your directs.  For example my4x grt grandmother was left homeless when my 4x grt grandfather died meaning they lost their tied house.  At the next census she was living in a nice cottage and listed as being of private means.  I only discovered how this came about when I researched one of my 4x grt uncles and found out his mum was awarded his military pension on his death.
3.  I'm addicted to research and researching collateral lines gives me more to research when I hit all the brick walls in my direct line.
4.  I find it fascinating to see how diverse the descendants of my direct ancestors are and selfish though it is I want to remain interested in what is my only hobby.

Disclaimer: these are MY personal reasons for the way I do MY tree, I do not ask that others do their tree the same way but would appreciate not being called names.  I DO NOT research collateral lines to cause offence to others only for my personal enjoyment

This leaves me with a dilemma. I want it to be as accurate as possible but I have a lot of big families in my tree so I can't be accurate AND keep my tree to what people consider an acceptable number of people.  Several times in the past i have come close to deleting my whole tree to appease proper researchers.  However I have not yet been able to bring myself to wipeout over 20 years or work and expense, I realise that is selfish but it it difficult to do all that work then just discard it.  As for numbers, I have over 100s of people without going to the grt grt grandparent level.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 173