Discussion:
OT - Ask umra: "London River"
(too old to reply)
A***@aol.com
2016-01-27 11:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, October 28, 2000 at 5:31:33 PM UTC+1, Stephen wrote:
> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>
> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>
> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
> From the ---- and the ---
> Flow down, O London River,
> To the ---- ---- ---
> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
> Forget your olden name,
> And the ---- and the ----
> And the --- from which you came...
>
> Does anyrat recognise this?
>
> Stephen
>
> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
> Maurice Sendak
We sang this at Torridon Primary School, in 1958/9 I was searching for lyrics and found this page. We also sang the song of the music makers both in a competition in Lewisham Town Hall. Memories eh. Ann Stringer (Nee Baxter).
Nick Odell
2016-01-27 12:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 27/01/16 11:47, ***@aol.com wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2000 at 5:31:33 PM UTC+1, Stephen wrote:
>> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
>> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
>> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>>
>> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>>
>> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
>> From the ---- and the ---
>> Flow down, O London River,
>> To the ---- ---- ---
>> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
>> Forget your olden name,
>> And the ---- and the ----
>> And the --- from which you came...
>>
>> Does anyrat recognise this?
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
>> Maurice Sendak
> We sang this at Torridon Primary School, in 1958/9 I was searching for lyrics and found this page. We also sang the song of the music makers both in a competition in Lewisham Town Hall. Memories eh. Ann Stringer (Nee Baxter).
>
Jolly nice of you to follow this up, Ann. As you can tell from the date,
it's quite a while since Stephen was asking about this and I don't think
he's been seen in this group for quite a while.

If you are interested in The Archers - an everyday story of country folk
on BBC Radio 4 - do stick around. In fact, even if you are not
interested in the Archers, do stick around: there are lots of
non-listeners posting here.

Nick
Btms
2016-01-27 15:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nick Odell <***@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote:
> On 27/01/16 11:47, ***@aol.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 28, 2000 at 5:31:33 PM UTC+1, Stephen wrote:
>>> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
>>> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
>>> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>>>
>>> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>>>
>>> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
>>> From the ---- and the ---
>>> Flow down, O London River,
>>> To the ---- ---- ---
>>> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
>>> Forget your olden name,
>>> And the ---- and the ----
>>> And the --- from which you came...
>>>
>>> Does anyrat recognise this?
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
>>> Maurice Sendak
>> We sang this at Torridon Primary School, in 1958/9 I was searching for
>> lyrics and found this page. We also sang the song of the music makers
>> both in a competition in Lewisham Town Hall. Memories eh. Ann Stringer (Nee Baxter).
>>
> Jolly nice of you to follow this up, Ann. As you can tell from the date,
> it's quite a while since Stephen was asking about this and I don't think
> he's been seen in this group for quite a while.
>
> If you are interested in The Archers - an everyday story of country folk
> on BBC Radio 4 - do stick around. In fact, even if you are not
> interested in the Archers, do stick around: there are lots of
> non-listeners posting here.
>
> Nick
>

Indeed. Do stay. Though originally we were Archers listeners it is now
more accurate to say we are folk who are the sort of folk who used to
listen, still listen, may return to listening but have never restricted our
conversations to folk who fit these categories but wish to talk, ask,
discuss, grumble, share, compare anything that comes to mind. But this is
a bit long as a description. You can ignore the Archers discussions of
course.

And where is that new umrat that appeared before Christmas? I do hope it
wasn't something we said!

--
Editor in Waiting and Btms. aka Dame Jean Harvey
Mike McMillan
2016-01-28 16:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2016-01-27 15:08:04 +0000, Btms said:

> Nick Odell <***@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote:
>> On 27/01/16 11:47, ***@aol.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 28, 2000 at 5:31:33 PM UTC+1, Stephen wrote:
>>>> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
>>>> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
>>>> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>>>>
>>>> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
>>>> From the ---- and the ---
>>>> Flow down, O London River,
>>>> To the ---- ---- ---
>>>> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
>>>> Forget your olden name,
>>>> And the ---- and the ----
>>>> And the --- from which you came...
>>>>
>>>> Does anyrat recognise this?
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
>>>> Maurice Sendak
>>> We sang this at Torridon Primary School, in 1958/9 I was searching for
>>> lyrics and found this page. We also sang the song of the music makers
>>> both in a competition in Lewisham Town Hall. Memories eh. Ann Stringer
>>> (Nee Baxter).
>>>
>> Jolly nice of you to follow this up, Ann. As you can tell from the date,
>> it's quite a while since Stephen was asking about this and I don't think
>> he's been seen in this group for quite a while.
>>
>> If you are interested in The Archers - an everyday story of country folk
>> on BBC Radio 4 - do stick around. In fact, even if you are not
>> interested in the Archers, do stick around: there are lots of
>> non-listeners posting here.
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
> Indeed. Do stay. Though originally we were Archers listeners it is now
> more accurate to say we are folk who are the sort of folk who used to
> listen, still listen, may return to listening but have never restricted our
> conversations to folk who fit these categories but wish to talk, ask,
> discuss, grumble, share, compare anything that comes to mind. But this is
> a bit long as a description. You can ignore the Archers discussions of
> course.
>
> And where is that new umrat that appeared before Christmas? I do hope it
> wasn't something we said!

And then of course there is the invaluable 'Ask Encyclopedia Umratica!
--
Mike McMillan
"Let's all calm down shall we? Let's forget there is a llama in here at all."
(Lynda Snell, 010603)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2016-01-27 22:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <n8abu1$cfp$***@dont-email.me>, Nick Odell
<***@themusicworkshop.plus.com> writes:
>On 27/01/16 11:47, ***@aol.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 28, 2000 at 5:31:33 PM UTC+1, Stephen wrote:
[]
>Jolly nice of you to follow this up, Ann. As you can tell from the
>date, it's quite a while since Stephen was asking about this and I
>don't think he's been seen in this group for quite a while.
>
>If you are interested in The Archers - an everyday story of country
>folk on BBC Radio 4 - do stick around. In fact, even if you are not
>interested in the Archers, do stick around: there are lots of
>non-listeners posting here.
[]
I rather fear this is a posting from someone who doesn't know about
newsgroups, and thought she was posting a private reply. As such, she
probably won't see _your_ reply.

(We get rather a lot of these in the genealogy newsgroup - usually,
though not always, from a gmail address. We think they come via Google
Groups, which though it does have a reply-to-poster option, hides it
very well, and makes the post-followup option look like what they're
after.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Every time I think I know where it's at, they move it.
b***@gmail.com
2018-04-16 14:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Ballad of London River

From the Cotswolds, from the Chilterns, from your fountains and your springs,
Flow down, O London River, to the sea gull's silver wings:
Isis or Ock or Thame,
Forget your olden name,
And the lilies and the willows and the weirs from which you came.

Forgo your crystal shallows and your limpid, lucid wave,
When the swallows dart and glisten, where the purple blooms are brave,
For the city's dust and din,
For the city's slime and sin,
For the toil and sweat of Englishmen with all the world to win.

The stately towers and turrets are the children of a day:
You see them lift and vanish by your immemorial way:
Kate B
2018-04-16 14:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/04/2018 15:27, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> The Ballad of London River
>
> From the Cotswolds, from the Chilterns, from your fountains and your springs,
> Flow down, O London River, to the sea gull's silver wings:
> Isis or Ock or Thame,
> Forget your olden name,
> And the lilies and the willows and the weirs from which you came.
>
> Forgo your crystal shallows and your limpid, lucid wave,
> When the swallows dart and glisten, where the purple blooms are brave,
> For the city's dust and din,
> For the city's slime and sin,
> For the toil and sweat of Englishmen with all the world to win.
>
> The stately towers and turrets are the children of a day:
> You see them lift and vanish by your immemorial way:
>

A swift google reveals uncountable answers, if it was the text you had
forgotten.

--
Kate B
London
Kate B
2018-04-16 15:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 16/04/2018 15:58, Kate B wrote:
> On 16/04/2018 15:27, ***@gmail.com wrote:
>> The Ballad of London River
>>
>>  From the Cotswolds, from the Chilterns, from your fountains and your
>> springs,
>> Flow down, O London River, to the sea gull's silver wings:
>> Isis or Ock or Thame,
>> Forget your olden name,
>> And the lilies and the willows and the weirs from which you came.
>>
>> Forgo your crystal shallows and your limpid, lucid wave,
>> When the swallows dart and glisten, where the purple blooms are brave,
>> For the city's dust and din,
>> For the city's slime and sin,
>> For the toil and sweat of Englishmen with all the world to win.
>>
>> The stately towers and turrets are the children of a day:
>> You see them lift and vanish by your immemorial way:
>>
>
> A swift google reveals uncountable answers, if it was the text you had
> forgotten.
>
Bad form, sorry, pressed send too quickly. I meant to add: Anyway, it
seems that's all the text there is....

--
Kate B
London
c***@gmail.com
2018-05-01 07:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>
> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>
> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
> From the ---- and the ---
> Flow down, O London River,
> To the ---- ---- ---
> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
> Forget your olden name,
> And the ---- and the ----
> And the --- from which you came...
>
> Does anyrat recognise this?
>
> Stephen
>
> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
> Maurice Sendak
c***@gmail.com
2018-05-01 07:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>
> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>
> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
> From the ---- and the ---
> Flow down, O London River,
> To the ---- ---- ---
> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
> Forget your olden name,
> And the ---- and the ----
> And the --- from which you came...
>
> Does anyrat recognise this?
>
> Stephen
>
> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
> Maurice Sendak

Hi Stephen, I dont know when you posted this entry, but for the past few days I have had the first two lines running through my mind. I learnt this song when i was a member of the Mount Gambier High School choir, which is in south australia, the time almost 60 years ago. Our choirmaster was mr Roberts, I beleive he was Welsh.
Chris McMillan
2018-05-01 11:59:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
>> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
>> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>>
>> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>>
>> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
>> From the ---- and the ---
>> Flow down, O London River,
>> To the ---- ---- ---
>> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
>> Forget your olden name,
>> And the ---- and the ----
>> And the --- from which you came...
>>
>> Does anyrat recognise this?
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
>> Maurice Sendak
>
> Hi Stephen, I dont know when you posted this entry, but for the past few
> days I have had the first two lines running through my mind. I learnt
> this song when i was a member of the Mount Gambier High School choir,
> which is in south australia, the time almost 60 years ago. Our
> choirmaster was mr Roberts, I beleive he was Welsh.
>

Welcome to uk media radio archers!

Sincerely Chris
John Finlay
2018-05-01 12:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 01/05/2018 12:59, Chris McMillan wrote:
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>>> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
>>> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
>>> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>>>
>>> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>>>
>>> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
>>> From the ---- and the ---
>>> Flow down, O London River,
>>> To the ---- ---- ---
>>> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
>>> Forget your olden name,
>>> And the ---- and the ----
>>> And the --- from which you came...
>>>
>>> Does anyrat recognise this?
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
>>> Maurice Sendak
>>
>> Hi Stephen, I dont know when you posted this entry, but for the past few
>> days I have had the first two lines running through my mind. I learnt
>> this song when i was a member of the Mount Gambier High School choir,
>> which is in south australia, the time almost 60 years ago. Our
>> choirmaster was mr Roberts, I beleive he was Welsh.
>>
>
> Welcome to uk media radio archers!
>
> Sincerely Chris
>
From the Cotswolds, from the Chilterns, from
your fountains and your springs,
Flow down, O London River, to the sea
gull's silver wings:

Isis or Ock or Thame,
Forget your olden name.
And the lilies and the willows and the weirs
from which you came.


Forgo your crystal shallows and your limpid,
lucid wave.
When the swallows dart and glisten, where
the purple blooms are brave,
For the city's dust and din.
For the city's sHme and sin,
For the toil and sweat of Englishmen with
all the world to win.



The stately towers and turrets are the chil-
dren of a day:

You see them lift and vanish by your im-
memorial way:
Mike
2018-05-01 12:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
John Finlay <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/05/2018 12:59, Chris McMillan wrote:
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>>>> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
>>>> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
>>>> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>>>>
>>>> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
>>>> From the ---- and the ---
>>>> Flow down, O London River,
>>>> To the ---- ---- ---
>>>> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
>>>> Forget your olden name,
>>>> And the ---- and the ----
>>>> And the --- from which you came...
>>>>
>>>> Does anyrat recognise this?
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
>>>> Maurice Sendak
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen, I dont know when you posted this entry, but for the past few
>>> days I have had the first two lines running through my mind. I learnt
>>> this song when i was a member of the Mount Gambier High School choir,
>>> which is in south australia, the time almost 60 years ago. Our
>>> choirmaster was mr Roberts, I beleive he was Welsh.
>>>
>>
>> Welcome to uk media radio archers!
>>
>> Sincerely Chris
>>
> From the Cotswolds, from the Chilterns, from
> your fountains and your springs,
> Flow down, O London River, to the sea
> gull's silver wings:
>
> Isis or Ock or Thame,
> Forget your olden name.
> And the lilies and the willows and the weirs
> from which you came.
>
>
> Forgo your crystal shallows and your limpid,
> lucid wave.
> When the swallows dart and glisten, where
> the purple blooms are brave,
> For the city's dust and din.
> For the city's sHme and sin,
> For the toil and sweat of Englishmen with
> all the world to win.
>
>
>
> The stately towers and turrets are the chil-
> dren of a day:
>
> You see them lift and vanish by your im-
> memorial way:
>

Who needs wikipedia when we have E.U.?

--
Toodle Pip
Penny
2018-05-01 17:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 01 May 2018 12:49:11 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
in the dust...
>
>Who needs wikipedia when we have E.U.?

Which took less than 18 years to come up with the answer ;)
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-01 20:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
<***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
>On Tue, 01 May 2018 12:49:11 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com> scrawled
>in the dust...
>>
>>Who needs wikipedia when we have E.U.?
>
>Which took less than 18 years to come up with the answer ;)

Yes. The person originally (this year anyway) responding (a) had a gmail
address, (b) started with

On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:

and then _his_ (or her) first new line was "Hi Stephen, I dont know when
you posted this entry," so it confirms what we in the genealogy 'group
have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds a post in
Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the date of the post
to which they're responding is hidden from them, or at least not very
obvious.

They also, usually, seem to be under the impression they're sending a
private reply rather than a post to a newsgroup - again, not their fault
but that of a badly-designed user interface. (I suspect they don't know
what a newsgroup is.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You'll need to have this fish in your ear. (First series, fit the first.)
Jenny M Benson
2018-05-01 21:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
> Yes. The person originally (this year anyway) responding (a) had a gmail
> address,

All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses. I rather
resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
that all gmail users are thickos. I am a gmail user (although not very
often)...

(b) started with
>
> On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>
> and then _his_ (or her) first new line was "Hi Stephen, I dont know when
> you posted this entry," so it confirms what we in the genealogy 'group
> have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds a post in
> Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the date of the post
> to which they're responding is hidden from them, or at least not very
> obvious.

I don't think that is so. It seems to me that the date is fairly
visible and once one hits "Reply" the "On Sunday, October ...." appears
at the top of the text box which opens so the person is typing right
underneath it.

I am a member of several mailing lists and a few newsgroups and am
frequently irked by people who address their posts to a specific person
by name. It feels to me as though We are all in the same room, talking
to each other, then one person completely ignores us and behaves as if
only one other person were present. It's rude. Not surprising: so
many people ARE rude these days.

--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-01 23:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Jenny M Benson
<***@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Yes. The person originally (this year anyway) responding (a) had a
>>gmail address,
>
>All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses. I rather
>resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
>that all gmail users are thickos. I am a gmail user (although not very
>often)...

Agreed. I know a few savvy gmail users, and some very intelligent ones.
(Including you, of course.) The fact remains that _all_ the posts of
this nature (possibly except one) that I've seen _have_ come from people
with an @gmail address.
>
> (b) started with
>> On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>> and then _his_ (or her) first new line was "Hi Stephen, I dont know
>>when you posted this entry," so it confirms what we in the genealogy
>>'group have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds a
>>post in Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the date
>>of the post to which they're responding is hidden from them, or at
>>least not very obvious.
>
>I don't think that is so. It seems to me that the date is fairly
>visible and once one hits "Reply" the "On Sunday, October ...." appears
>at the top of the text box which opens so the person is typing right
>underneath it.

As has just been explained on the genealogy 'group. Though the person
explaining did say that if you then scroll down to add your response,
the "On ..." line may disappear off the top.
>
>I am a member of several mailing lists and a few newsgroups and am
>frequently irked by people who address their posts to a specific person
>by name. It feels to me as though We are all in the same room, talking
>to each other, then one person completely ignores us and behaves as if
>only one other person were present. It's rude. Not surprising: so
>many people ARE rude these days.
>
)-: (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!
Penny
2018-05-02 00:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson <***@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>I am a member of several mailing lists and a few newsgroups and am
>frequently irked by people who address their posts to a specific person
>by name. It feels to me as though We are all in the same room, talking
>to each other, then one person completely ignores us and behaves as if
>only one other person were present. It's rude. Not surprising: so
>many people ARE rude these days.

It's a common feature on some forums that clicking on a previous poster's
name makes it appear in bold at the top of the follow-up post - thus making
it clear, sometimes with quoting too, that the reply is to a post from that
person. This has never struck me as rude, just makes it easier to
understand, as a bystander, what is going on. Especially when the post
replied to was made some time ago (yes we have forum threads which go on
for years). If you've used such fora but are unfamiliar with newsgroup
newsreaders and their ability to hide the posts you've read, then posting
the whole of the post you are replying to, followed by your own response in
a separate post would seem quite sensible.

Another gmail user (didn't it used to be AOL users who were disparaged?).
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-02 03:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
<***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
[]
>newsreaders and their ability to hide the posts you've read, then posting
>the whole of the post you are replying to, followed by your own response in
>a separate post would seem quite sensible.

Yes. Or if you are only replying to part of the post, it's even better
if you only quote that part.

However, we sometimes see followups that don't quote _any_ of the
previous post - which, especially if it's years later, can make it very
puzzling what they're on about (-:!
>
>Another gmail user (didn't it used to be AOL users who were disparaged?).

The fact that you're discussing it puts you above many of them.
Actually, it's not so much the gmail users, as the interface Google
shows them.

(Yes, AOL users used to be mocked - equally unfairly! [<AOL> used to be
short for "me too", as well. I guess "+1" is even shorter.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

1974: not one member of the British jury gave the Swedish band a single point.
Fenny
2018-05-02 16:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 04:13:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:

>Yes. Or if you are only replying to part of the post, it's even better
>if you only quote that part.

If only that were the case! It's not just Google groups that seems to
make only quoting the relevant portion impossible.
--
Fenny
Penny
2018-05-02 18:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 04:13:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>Actually, it's not so much the gmail users, as the interface Google
>shows them.

AFAIK google groups is not integrated with gmail so maybe you got your
worms wrong ;)

I've used Agent since I was weaned off Outlook Express by various usenet
users.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Btms
2018-05-02 19:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 04:13:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> Actually, it's not so much the gmail users, as the interface Google
>> shows them.
>
> AFAIK google groups is not integrated with gmail so maybe you got your
> worms wrong ;)
>
> I've used Agent since I was weaned off Outlook Express by various usenet
> users.

I agree google gropes is cr*p.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-02 23:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Penny
<***@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:
>On Wed, 2 May 2018 04:13:49 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>Actually, it's not so much the gmail users, as the interface Google
>>shows them.
>
>AFAIK google groups is not integrated with gmail so maybe you got your
>worms wrong ;)
>
>I've used Agent since I was weaned off Outlook Express by various usenet
>users.

IMO, Outlook Express - at least if used with OE-quotefix - is much
maligned; it wasn't a bad news and email client. OK, especially without
OE-quotefix, it encouraged top-posting, but it wasn't alone in that. It
almost pioneered the default layout of many other clients.

(I never used it at home, but did at work when we still had news access.
[Though it was presented as if it's part of Outlook - which doesn't do
news, it calls OE, though doesn't make that obvious; we learnt not to
say we're using OE if speaking to our helpdesk.] It worked reasonably.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26
Vicky
2018-05-02 06:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 02 May 2018 01:12:09 +0100, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson <***@hotmail.co.uk>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>I am a member of several mailing lists and a few newsgroups and am
>>frequently irked by people who address their posts to a specific person
>>by name. It feels to me as though We are all in the same room, talking
>>to each other, then one person completely ignores us and behaves as if
>>only one other person were present. It's rude. Not surprising: so
>>many people ARE rude these days.
>
>It's a common feature on some forums that clicking on a previous poster's
>name makes it appear in bold at the top of the follow-up post - thus making
>it clear, sometimes with quoting too, that the reply is to a post from that
>person. This has never struck me as rude, just makes it easier to
>understand, as a bystander, what is going on. Especially when the post
>replied to was made some time ago (yes we have forum threads which go on
>for years). If you've used such fora but are unfamiliar with newsgroup
>newsreaders and their ability to hide the posts you've read, then posting
>the whole of the post you are replying to, followed by your own response in
>a separate post would seem quite sensible.
>
>Another gmail user (didn't it used to be AOL users who were disparaged?).

In fb clicking reply to a comment can bring the name of the person who
commented and on a long thread it is useful when it wavers around to
know which person is being replied to.

--

Vicky
John Ashby
2018-05-02 10:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/18 07:59, Vicky wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2018 01:12:09 +0100, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson <***@hotmail.co.uk>
>> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> I am a member of several mailing lists and a few newsgroups and am
>>> frequently irked by people who address their posts to a specific person
>>> by name. It feels to me as though We are all in the same room, talking
>>> to each other, then one person completely ignores us and behaves as if
>>> only one other person were present. It's rude. Not surprising: so
>>> many people ARE rude these days.
>>
>> It's a common feature on some forums that clicking on a previous poster's
>> name makes it appear in bold at the top of the follow-up post - thus making
>> it clear, sometimes with quoting too, that the reply is to a post from that
>> person. This has never struck me as rude, just makes it easier to
>> understand, as a bystander, what is going on. Especially when the post
>> replied to was made some time ago (yes we have forum threads which go on
>> for years). If you've used such fora but are unfamiliar with newsgroup
>> newsreaders and their ability to hide the posts you've read, then posting
>> the whole of the post you are replying to, followed by your own response in
>> a separate post would seem quite sensible.
>>
>> Another gmail user (didn't it used to be AOL users who were disparaged?).
>
> In fb clicking reply to a comment can bring the name of the person who
> commented and on a long thread it is useful when it wavers around to
> know which person is being replied to.
>

Though proper threading would be better. Eventually Mark Z will
re-invent it (together with topic based grouping of posts) and market it
as something new and wonderful, and we'll all sit here saying "it's just
Usenet with cats".

john
Kate B
2018-05-02 11:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 11:56, John Ashby wrote:
> On 02/05/18 07:59, Vicky wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2018 01:12:09 +0100, Penny <***@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>>> <***@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> scrawled in the dust...
>>>
>>>> I am a member of several mailing lists and a few newsgroups and am
>>>> frequently irked by people who address their posts to a specific person
>>>> by name.  It feels to me as though We are all in the same room, talking
>>>> to each other, then one person completely ignores us and behaves as if
>>>> only one other person were present.  It's rude.  Not surprising:  so
>>>> many people ARE rude these days.
>>>
>>> It's a common feature on some forums that clicking on a previous
>>> poster's
>>> name makes it appear in bold at the top of the follow-up post - thus
>>> making
>>> it clear, sometimes with quoting too, that the reply is to a post
>>> from that
>>> person. This has never struck me as rude, just makes it easier to
>>> understand, as a bystander, what is going on. Especially when the post
>>> replied to was made some time ago (yes we have forum threads which go on
>>> for years). If you've used such fora but are unfamiliar with newsgroup
>>> newsreaders and their ability to hide the posts you've read, then
>>> posting
>>> the whole of the post you are replying to, followed by your own
>>> response in
>>> a separate post would seem quite sensible.
>>>
>>> Another gmail user (didn't it used to be AOL users who were
>>> disparaged?).
>>
>> In fb clicking reply to a comment can bring the name of the person who
>> commented and on a long thread it is useful when it wavers around to
>> know which person is being replied to.
>>
>
> Though proper threading would be better. Eventually Mark Z will
> re-invent it (together with topic based grouping of posts) and market it
> as something new and wonderful, and we'll all sit here saying "it's just
> Usenet with cats".
>

Topics is already here on some FB groups. One author's group to which I
subscribe has now (thanks to an upcoming television series) nearly 9000
members all wittering away. Lo and behold, we now have a selection of
'topics' to tag our posts with. It doesn't actually raise the standard
of conversation, alas, but it does mean you can avoid the obvious
witter-posts. It's still in development, it will be interesting to see
if it works.


--
Kate B
London
krw
2018-05-02 20:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 11:56, John Ashby wrote; my response is lower down:
> "it's just Usenet with cats".

I am not keen on cats.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
steveski
2018-05-02 19:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 02 May 2018 01:12:09 +0100, Penny wrote:

> On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson
> <***@hotmail.co.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>I am a member of several mailing lists and a few newsgroups and am
>>frequently irked by people who address their posts to a specific person
>>by name. It feels to me as though We are all in the same room, talking
>>to each other, then one person completely ignores us and behaves as if
>>only one other person were present. It's rude. Not surprising: so
>>many people ARE rude these days.
>
> It's a common feature on some forums that clicking on a previous
> poster's name makes it appear in bold at the top of the follow-up post -
> thus making it clear, sometimes with quoting too, that the reply is to a
> post from that person. This has never struck me as rude, just makes it
> easier to understand, as a bystander, what is going on. Especially when
> the post replied to was made some time ago (yes we have forum threads
> which go on for years). If you've used such fora but are unfamiliar with
> newsgroup newsreaders and their ability to hide the posts you've read,
> then posting the whole of the post you are replying to, followed by your
> own response in a separate post would seem quite sensible.

[]

"Fora" Brava!

--
Steveski
Sid Nuncius
2018-05-03 06:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 20:03, steveski wrote:

> "Fora" Brava!

I loro album secondo era spazzatura.[1]


[1]My apologies to all wincing Italian speakers, of whom I am not one.

--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
steveski
2018-05-03 14:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 03 May 2018 07:20:42 +0100, Sid Nuncius wrote:

> On 02/05/2018 20:03, steveski wrote:
>
>> "Fora" Brava!
>
> I loro album secondo era spazzatura.[1]
>
>
> [1]My apologies to all wincing Italian speakers, of whom I am not one.

:-)

--
Steveski
BrritSki
2018-05-02 06:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 01/05/2018 23:29, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes. The person originally (this year anyway) responding (a) had a
>> gmail address,
>
> All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses.  I rather
> resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
> that all gmail users are thickos.  I am a gmail user (although not very
> often)...

YANAOU. I use Gmail exclusively....
>
>  (b) started with
>>
>> On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> and then _his_ (or her) first new line was "Hi Stephen, I dont know
>> when you posted this entry," so it confirms what we in the genealogy
>> 'group have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds a
>> post in Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the date
>> of the post to which they're responding is hidden from them, or at
>> least not very obvious.
>
> I don't think that is so.

It's not. I just did a Google Gropes search for this thread (not least
to find out who the original Stephen was - Bowden M'Lud) and the dates
are clearly shown in the list to the right of each post in the thread.
krw
2018-05-02 08:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 07:16, BrritSki wrote; my response is lower down:
> Stephen was - Bowden

Ahhh - the infamous Ziggy Boneman.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Sally Thompson
2018-05-02 08:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 07:16, BrritSki wrote; my response is lower down:
>> Stephen was - Bowden
>
> Ahhh - the infamous Ziggy Boneman.
>

How on earth did you know his real name?

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
BrritSki
2018-05-02 09:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 10:50, Sally Thompson wrote:
> krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>> On 02/05/2018 07:16, BrritSki wrote; my response is lower down:
>>> Stephen was - Bowden
>>
>> Ahhh - the infamous Ziggy Boneman.
>>
>
> How on earth did you know his real name?
>
His real name is Stephen Bōden.

It must be true because that is how he os now known on FB.
Penny
2018-05-02 19:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:08:37 +0200, BrritSki <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>On 02/05/2018 10:50, Sally Thompson wrote:
>> krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2018 07:16, BrritSki wrote; my response is lower down:
>>>> Stephen was - Bowden
>>>
>>> Ahhh - the infamous Ziggy Boneman.
>>>
>>
>> How on earth did you know his real name?
>>
>His real name is Stephen B?den.
>
>It must be true because that is how he os now known on FB.

I just messaged him with a link to the post with the whole text (16 April -
thought I'd seen it recently and was confused when it popped up again this
week). He replied:

"Wow. You ask a question of UMRA and the answer comes back, even if it
takes the best part of a generation! Thank you for alerting me to this.
And thanks to the Umrats who contributed."
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
krw
2018-05-02 20:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 09:50, Sally Thompson wrote; my response is lower down:
> krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>> On 02/05/2018 07:16, BrritSki wrote; my response is lower down:
>>> Stephen was - Bowden
>>
>> Ahhh - the infamous Ziggy Boneman.
>>
>
> How on earth did you know his real name?
>
Taps side of nose.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-02 09:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
<***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 01/05/2018 23:29, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>
(>> JPG wrote)
[]
>>>'group have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds a
>>>post in Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the date
>>>of the post to which they're responding is hidden from them, or at
>>>least not very obvious.
>> I don't think that is so.
>
>It's not. I just did a Google Gropes search for this thread (not least
>to find out who the original Stephen was - Bowden M'Lud) and the dates
>are clearly shown in the list to the right of each post in the thread.
>
Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions (I
am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that concept)
seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what they're
responding to is years or decades old - and that they're always from
gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because gmail posters are
dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as the rest of us. (I
think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in computer-savvy-ness.)

Interesting that BrritSki has identified the Stephen in question; the
name sounds familiar, though I presume he's no longer here (in UMRA I
mean).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
Serena Blanchflower
2018-05-02 10:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 10:59, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions (I
> am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that concept)
> seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what they're
> responding to is years or decades old - and that they're always from
> gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because gmail posters are
> dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as the rest of us. (I
> think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in computer-savvy-ness.)

I would assume that retention periods have a lot to do with it. If I
downloaded a fresh copy of umra from any of the main news servers
(certainly from any of the free / almost free) ones I doubt I'd get more
than the past year, if that. Google, on the other hand, makes all, or
most of, the messages from the dawn of usenet available for people to
play with.


--
Best wishes, Serena
The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green
earth, dwelling deeply in the present moment and feeling truly alive.
(Thich Nhat Hanh)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-02 10:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Serena
Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> writes:
>On 02/05/2018 10:59, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions
>>(I am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that
>>concept) seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what
>>they're responding to is years or decades old - and that they're
>>always from gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because
>>gmail posters are dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as
>>the rest of us. (I think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in
>>computer-savvy-ness.)
>
>I would assume that retention periods have a lot to do with it. If I
>downloaded a fresh copy of umra from any of the main news servers
>(certainly from any of the free / almost free) ones I doubt I'd get
>more than the past year, if that. Google, on the other hand, makes
>all, or most of, the messages from the dawn of usenet available for
>people to play with.
>
Which on the whole is a good thing more than a bad thing - I think. It's
just unfortunate that these posts happen. I suppose it's something we
have to tolerate for having the archive available.
>
Perhaps a solution would be an "are you sure? You are responding to a
post, in a newsgroup, that is from ..." (threshold of, say, 3 or 6
months?). But of course Google will not do that - they're impossible to
communicate with as a private individual.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
Serena Blanchflower
2018-05-02 11:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 11:21, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Serena
> Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> writes:
>> On 02/05/2018 10:59, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions
>>> (I  am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that
>>> concept)  seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what
>>> they're  responding to is years or decades old - and that they're
>>> always from  gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because
>>> gmail posters are  dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as
>>> the rest of us. (I  think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in
>>> computer-savvy-ness.)
>>
>> I would assume that retention periods have a lot to do with it.  If I
>> downloaded a fresh copy of umra from any of the main news servers
>> (certainly from any of the free / almost free) ones I doubt I'd get
>> more than the past year, if that.  Google, on the other hand, makes
>> all, or most of, the messages from the dawn of usenet available for
>> people to play with.
>>
> Which on the whole is a good thing more than a bad thing - I think. It's
> just unfortunate that these posts happen. I suppose it's something we
> have to tolerate for having the archive available.

Yes, I certainly wouldn't want to lose the archive. ISTR using it, not
so long ago, to resolve a debate about, IIRC, whether Emma had any
justification for her belief that Ed had been George's dad.

--
Best wishes, Serena
It was such a lovely day I thought it a pity to get up. (W. Somerset
Maugham)
Penny
2018-05-02 19:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:21:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...

> It's
>just unfortunate that these posts happen. I suppose it's something we
>have to tolerate for having the archive available.

I really don't understand why you think it's a problem. Brings a bit of
light relief and sometimes a new poster who hangs around.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-02 22:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02-May-18 20:28, Penny wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:21:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> It's
>> just unfortunate that these posts happen. I suppose it's something we
>> have to tolerate for having the archive available.
>
> I really don't understand why you think it's a problem. Brings a bit of
> light relief and sometimes a new poster who hangs around.
>
I agree, but I might change my mind if there was a lot of such posts.

--
Sam Plusnet
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-02 23:43:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Sam
Plusnet <***@home.com> writes:
>On 02-May-18 20:28, Penny wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:21:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> It's
>>> just unfortunate that these posts happen. I suppose it's something we
>>> have to tolerate for having the archive available.
>> I really don't understand why you think it's a problem. Brings a bit
>>of
>> light relief and sometimes a new poster who hangs around.

Well, it's just a minor irritation to me, but to the person making the
post, (a) they probably won't reach the person they think they are [in
this case s/he was _answering_ a query, but often they are asking
something], (b) they will form an unjustified impression of the person
they think they're addressing if that person doesn't reply.
>>
>I agree, but I might change my mind if there was a lot of such posts.
>
They're actually pretty common (sometimes one or two a day) in the
genealogy 'group. Here, I don't think they'll hang around, as they don't
know to look here again (or even how to), as they think they've emailed
a person - so they won't see the "welcome to UMRA" messages )-:.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26
LFS
2018-05-03 17:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 23:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 02-May-18 20:28, Penny wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:21:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> It's
>>> just unfortunate that these posts happen. I suppose it's something we
>>> have to tolerate for having the archive available.
>>
>> I really don't understand why you think it's a problem. Brings a bit of
>> light relief and sometimes a new poster who hangs around.
>>
> I agree, but I might change my mind if there was a lot of such posts.
>

It can be irritating. Quite a few crop up in a.u.e.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-05 21:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 03-May-18 18:01, LFS wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 23:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 02-May-18 20:28, Penny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:21:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>>> <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>>>
>>>> It's
>>>> just unfortunate that these posts happen. I suppose it's something we
>>>> have to tolerate for having the archive available.
>>>
>>> I really don't understand why you think it's a problem. Brings a bit of
>>> light relief and sometimes a new poster who hangs around.
>>>
>> I agree, but I might change my mind if there was a lot of such posts.
>>
>
> It can be irritating. Quite a few crop up in a.u.e.
>
John (and one or two others) will know better than I, but I think
soc.genealogy.britain gets a lot of these.
People sometimes respond to posts from people who have no doubt become
genealogy themselves, in the intervening decades.

--
Sam Plusnet
Serena Blanchflower
2018-05-06 08:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/05/2018 22:05, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> John (and one or two others) will know better than I, but I think
> soc.genealogy.britain gets a lot of these.
> People sometimes respond to posts from people who have no doubt become
> genealogy themselves, in the intervening decades.


I suspect that the genealogy group will get quite a few visitors who
arrive having been searching for information on a specific name or,
perhaps, event. This is quite likely to bring up a post from years ago
and I can understand why they would consider it worth trying to see if
they can get an answer, even if they have taken in how old it is.

I'm having more difficulty in trying to imagine what our recent visitor
was looking for, when they found Stephen's query!

--
Best wishes, Serena
When the white missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we
had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes.
When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. (Desmond Tutu)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-08 02:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Serena
Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> writes:
>On 05/05/2018 22:05, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> John (and one or two others) will know better than I, but I think
>>soc.genealogy.britain gets a lot of these.
>> People sometimes respond to posts from people who have no doubt
>>become genealogy themselves, in the intervening decades.
>
>
>I suspect that the genealogy group will get quite a few visitors who
>arrive having been searching for information on a specific name or,
>perhaps, event. This is quite likely to bring up a post from years ago
>and I can understand why they would consider it worth trying to see if
>they can get an answer, even if they have taken in how old it is.

Indeed. Unfortunately the search engine they used makes them think
they're sending a private reply (which is what they ought to do),
whereas they're posting in a newsgroup. (And I get the impression they
mostly _don't_ realise how old the post they're replying to, either.)
>
>I'm having more difficulty in trying to imagine what our recent visitor
>was looking for, when they found Stephen's query!
>
Words to the song?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If even one person" arguments allow the perfect to become the enemy of the
good, and thus they tend to cause more harm than good.
- Jimmy Akins quoted by Scott Adams, 2015-5-5
Penny
2018-05-08 05:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 8 May 2018 03:03:21 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> scrawled in the dust...

>In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Serena
>Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> writes:

>>I'm having more difficulty in trying to imagine what our recent visitor
>>was looking for, when they found Stephen's query!
>>
>Words to the song?

Then he should have replied to the chap who posted them a couple of weeks
earlier...
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Serena Blanchflower
2018-05-08 07:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/05/2018 03:03, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Serena
> Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> writes:

>> I'm having more difficulty in trying to imagine what our recent
>> visitor was looking for, when they found Stephen's query!
>>
> Words to the song?

Except he appeared to know those and so was able, somewhat belatedly, to
answer Stephen's query.

--
Best wishes, Serena
I have deja vu and amnesia at once, I've forgotten this before! (anon)
Fenny
2018-05-02 16:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:10:59 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
<***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:

>On 02/05/2018 10:59, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions (I
>> am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that concept)
>> seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what they're
>> responding to is years or decades old - and that they're always from
>> gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because gmail posters are
>> dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as the rest of us. (I
>> think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in computer-savvy-ness.)
>
>I would assume that retention periods have a lot to do with it. If I
>downloaded a fresh copy of umra from any of the main news servers
>(certainly from any of the free / almost free) ones I doubt I'd get more
>than the past year, if that. Google, on the other hand, makes all, or
>most of, the messages from the dawn of usenet available for people to
>play with.

Except where people use the no-archiving field in the headers, as I
have done in the past. There must be huge swathes of posts which were
never picked up by GG.
--
Fenny
Serena Blanchflower
2018-05-02 17:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 17:40, Fenny wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2018 11:10:59 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
> <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 02/05/2018 10:59, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions (I
>>> am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that concept)
>>> seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what they're
>>> responding to is years or decades old - and that they're always from
>>> gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because gmail posters are
>>> dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as the rest of us. (I
>>> think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in computer-savvy-ness.)
>>
>> I would assume that retention periods have a lot to do with it. If I
>> downloaded a fresh copy of umra from any of the main news servers
>> (certainly from any of the free / almost free) ones I doubt I'd get more
>> than the past year, if that. Google, on the other hand, makes all, or
>> most of, the messages from the dawn of usenet available for people to
>> play with.
>
> Except where people use the no-archiving field in the headers, as I
> have done in the past. There must be huge swathes of posts which were
> never picked up by GG.
>

Which was the reason I added "or most of" to my post ;)

--
Best wishes, Serena
If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
conclusion. (George Bernard Shaw)
John Ashby
2018-05-02 10:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/18 10:59, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 01/05/2018 23:29, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>>
> (>> JPG wrote)
> []
>>>> 'group have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds
>>>> a post in Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the
>>>> date of the post to which they're responding is hidden from them, or
>>>> at least not very obvious.
>>>  I don't think that is so.
>>
>> It's not. I just did a Google Gropes search for this thread (not least
>> to find out who the original Stephen was - Bowden M'Lud) and the dates
>> are clearly shown in the list to the right of each post in the thread.
>>
> Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions (I
> am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that concept)
> seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what they're
> responding to is years or decades old - and that they're always from
> gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because gmail posters are
> dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as the rest of us. (I
> think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in computer-savvy-ness.)
>
> Interesting that BrritSki has identified the Stephen in question; the
> name sounds familiar, though I presume he's no longer here (in UMRA I
> mean).

You're just grumpy because you've been out-gillivered.

john
Serena Blanchflower
2018-05-02 11:01:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 11:52, John Ashby wrote:
>
> You're just grumpy because you've been out-gillivered.

<g>

--
Best wishes, Serena
I must confess, I was born at a very early age (Groucho Marx)
Btms
2018-05-02 11:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Serena Blanchflower <***@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 11:52, John Ashby wrote:
>>
>> You're just grumpy because you've been out-gillivered.
>
> <g>
>

And me 😂

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-02 23:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <pcc591$m9h$***@dont-email.me>, John Ashby
<***@yahoo.com> writes:
[]
>You're just grumpy because you've been out-gillivered.
>
>john

<grin!> I now have an expiry of one day on UMRA, and have since I
stopped gillivering. No, I'm sorry for the poster of these messages, so
the only entity I'm grumpy with is whatever it is that makes them (or at
least encourages them to) create those posts rather than emailing the
original poster.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... of the two little boxes in the corner of your room, the one without the
pictures is the one that opens the mind. - Stuart Maconie in Radio Times,
2008/10/11-17
Chris McMillan
2018-05-03 17:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 01/05/2018 23:29, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>>
> (>> JPG wrote)
> []
>>>> 'group have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds a
>>>> post in Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the date
>>>> of the post to which they're responding is hidden from them, or at
>>>> least not very obvious.
>>> I don't think that is so.
>>
>> It's not. I just did a Google Gropes search for this thread (not least
>> to find out who the original Stephen was - Bowden M'Lud) and the dates
>> are clearly shown in the list to the right of each post in the thread.
>>
> Curiouser and curiouser. There must be _some_ reason such submissions (I
> am not calling them "posters" as they're not familiar with that concept)
> seem very often - I'd say usually - not to know that what they're
> responding to is years or decades old - and that they're always from
> gmail users. As has been pointed out, it's not because gmail posters are
> dim: they're a cross-section of society, same as the rest of us. (I
> think UMRA is somewhat _above_ average in computer-savvy-ness.)
>
> Interesting that BrritSki has identified the Stephen in question; the
> name sounds familiar, though I presume he's no longer here (in UMRA I
> mean).

Definitely is Stephen Bowden as we know him. Several umrats follow him on
FB.

Sincerely Chris
Fenny
2018-05-02 16:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson
<***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses. I rather
>resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
>that all gmail users are thickos. I am a gmail user (although not very
>often)...

And not all gmail users use Google groups.

I use gmail and have done for many years.

I have used Google groups for catching up on newsgroups when I didn't
have a subscription to a news server.

--
Fenny
Btms
2018-05-02 19:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fenny <***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson
> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses. I rather
>> resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
>> that all gmail users are thickos. I am a gmail user (although not very
>> often)...
>
> And not all gmail users use Google groups.
>
> I use gmail and have done for many years.
>
> I have used Google groups for catching up on newsgroups when I didn't
> have a subscription to a news server.
>

Husbad likes gmail. Husbad was trained by the descendent boffins of
Bletchley Park. Husbad is not a thicko. Can’t speak for his wofe though.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
LFS
2018-05-03 16:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/2018 17:37, Fenny wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson
> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses. I rather
>> resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
>> that all gmail users are thickos. I am a gmail user (although not very
>> often)...
>
> And not all gmail users use Google groups.

Indeed.

>
> I use gmail and have done for many years.

Me2. IIRC the Omrud got me an invitation in the very early days.

>
> I have used Google groups for catching up on newsgroups when I didn't
> have a subscription to a news server.
>

I have used it occasionally to search for ancient threads.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Mike
2018-05-03 17:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
LFS <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 17:37, Fenny wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses. I rather
>>> resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
>>> that all gmail users are thickos. I am a gmail user (although not very
>>> often)...
>>
>> And not all gmail users use Google groups.
>
> Indeed.
>
>>
>> I use gmail and have done for many years.
>
> Me2. IIRC the Omrud got me an invitation in the very early days.
>
>>
>> I have used Google groups for catching up on newsgroups when I didn't
>> have a subscription to a news server.
>>
>
> I have used it occasionally to search for ancient threads.
>

Chinese silk ones perhaps?

--
Toodle Pip
the Omrud
2018-05-04 08:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 03/05/2018 17:59, LFS wrote:
> On 02/05/2018 17:37, Fenny wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 22:29:59 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> All horses are quadrupeds, not all quadrupeds are horses.  I rather
>>> resent the implication (expressed on SGB rather more often than here)
>>> that all gmail users are thickos.  I am a gmail user (although not very
>>> often)...
>>
>> And not all gmail users use Google groups.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> I use gmail and have done for many years.
>
> Me2. IIRC the Omrud got me an invitation in the very early days.

I have half a dozen Gmail accounts which I use for different purposes.
My main personal address is via my engineering instution, but I redirect
it to Gmail because of the extra services, which include excellent spam
detection and a permanent archive of all mail received and sent.

--
David
Chris J Dixon
2018-05-02 07:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>Yes. The person originally (this year anyway) responding (a) had a gmail
>address, (b) started with
>
>On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>
>and then _his_ (or her) first new line was "Hi Stephen, I dont know when
>you posted this entry," so it confirms what we in the genealogy 'group
>have suspected for a long time: that when a gmail user finds a post in
>Google Groups (as I presume is what happened here), the date of the post
>to which they're responding is hidden from them, or at least not very
>obvious.

At least UMRA does not (yet) suffer from having web sites scrape
postings which they then present in the guise of their own forum.

uk.d-i-y is presented by https://www.homeownershub.com/uk-diy/

This results in a constant stream of replies to long-gone
postings (and sometimes long-gone posters).

Again, the dates are visible, but I presume those searching don't
even think to look at them.

Another characteristic is that these posters never seem to engage
in any further dialogue, simply disappearing into the mist from
whence they came.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-02 09:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
<***@cdixon.me.uk> writes:
[]
>Another characteristic is that these posters never seem to engage
>in any further dialogue, simply disappearing into the mist from
>whence they came.
>
>Chris

Same elsewhere. I think they just don't grasp (and to be fair it must be
at least _partly_ due to the user interface they're seeing) the concept.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's
money."
Jenny M Benson
2018-05-02 14:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02-May-18 10:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
> <***@cdixon.me.uk> writes:
> []
>> Another characteristic is that these posters never seem to engage
>> in any further dialogue, simply disappearing into the mist from
>> whence they came.
>>
>> Chris
>
> Same elsewhere. I think they just don't grasp (and to be fair it must be
> at least _partly_ due to the user interface they're seeing) the concept.

If they think they are corresponding privately with an individual, they
probably expect an e-mail response and if they don't get one, don't
purse the matter.

--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
John Ashby
2018-05-02 14:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 02/05/18 15:16, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 02-May-18 10:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <***@4ax.com>, Chris J Dixon
>> <***@cdixon.me.uk> writes:
>> []
>>> Another characteristic is that these posters never seem to engage
>>> in any further dialogue, simply disappearing into the mist from
>>> whence they came.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> Same elsewhere. I think they just don't grasp (and to be fair it must
>> be at least _partly_ due to the user interface they're seeing) the
>> concept.
>
> If they think they are corresponding privately with an individual, they
> probably expect an e-mail response and if they don't get one, don't
> purse the matter.
>

Just their lips.

john
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-01 17:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 01-May-18 13:49, Mike wrote:
> John Finlay <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 01/05/2018 12:59, Chris McMillan wrote:
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 29, 2000 at 3:01:33 AM UTC+10:30, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> For the past few days some fragments of a song I once sang with my
>>>>> school choir has been knocking around in my head, but I have been
>>>>> unable to track down any details to help settle it down.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the song is called "London River", and it starts:
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Cotswolds and the Chilterns,
>>>>> From the ---- and the ---
>>>>> Flow down, O London River,
>>>>> To the ---- ---- ---
>>>>> Isis, or Ock, or Thame,
>>>>> Forget your olden name,
>>>>> And the ---- and the ----
>>>>> And the --- from which you came...
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyrat recognise this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>
>>>>> "That very night in Max's room a forest grew..."
>>>>> Maurice Sendak
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stephen, I dont know when you posted this entry, but for the past few
>>>> days I have had the first two lines running through my mind. I learnt
>>>> this song when i was a member of the Mount Gambier High School choir,
>>>> which is in south australia, the time almost 60 years ago. Our
>>>> choirmaster was mr Roberts, I beleive he was Welsh.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Welcome to uk media radio archers!
>>>
>>> Sincerely Chris
>>>
>> From the Cotswolds, from the Chilterns, from
>> your fountains and your springs,
>> Flow down, O London River, to the sea
>> gull's silver wings:
>>
>> Isis or Ock or Thame,
>> Forget your olden name.
>> And the lilies and the willows and the weirs
>> from which you came.
>>
>>
>> Forgo your crystal shallows and your limpid,
>> lucid wave.
>> When the swallows dart and glisten, where
>> the purple blooms are brave,
>> For the city's dust and din.
>> For the city's sHme and sin,
>> For the toil and sweat of Englishmen with
>> all the world to win.
>>
>>
>>
>> The stately towers and turrets are the chil-
>> dren of a day:
>>
>> You see them lift and vanish by your im-
>> memorial way:
>>
>
> Who needs wikipedia when we have E.U.?
>
Who needs a time machine when we have Usenet?

--
Sam Plusnet
Loading...