Advice needed

Post by rex
I have traced tow of my wife's ancestors (GGGfather abd GGGmother) back as
far as their trials at the Old Bailey, and I have read the transcrips. I
appear to hsve resched a dead end. I can find no clues as to where the
came from to reach London nor of who their ancestors migh have been. Can
anyone suggest what my next step might be or must I draw a line there?

Were they married before or after? Perhaps you can get a clue from their
marriage (names of witnesses,etc)
Could they have lived in London at the time of a census?
Were the trials reported in the newspaper?

Best wishes
C.Rihan

rex

2008-05-19 11:30:07 UTC

The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY sentanced
1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of just one of them my
problem might have been more obvious. I have traced Joseph Rudd back, in
Australia to his transportation and then obtained transcrips of his
appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old Bailey from their web site. I
have nothing about him (or his common law wife) in England other than his
transportation documents and the afore mentioned transcrips.While I am
serious about my research I am in total ignorance as to what might be
available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some, but
if I don't ask how do I find out?

Rex

Post by C Rihan

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 11:42:25 UTC

While I am serious about my research I am in total ignorance as to what might
be available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some,
but if I don't ask how do I find out?

Ignore the resident 'troll' and certainly don't apologise to him - it's
he that is always so bloody offensive and needs to apologise.

Admittedly your original question didn't tell folks much to be able to
help you but now that you have supplied names and dates who knows what
helpful folk may be able to dig up for you?

--
KH

John Cartmell

2008-05-19 12:50:48 UTC

Post by Keith Henry
he that is always so bloody offensive and needs to apologise

Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for anyone
intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his research then he
won't have been put off by being told that he has started the wrong way; in
fact with the advice he has just received from Don one might claim he has
started the right way and hit the jackpot: a whole chunk of good advice right
at the start! ;-)

--
John

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 13:20:34 UTC

After much thought, on Monday *John Cartmell* disclosed to all and
sundry...

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for anyone
intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his research then he
won't have been put off by being told that he has started the wrong way; in
fact with the advice he has just received from Don one might claim he has
started the right way and hit the jackpot: a whole chunk of good advice right
at the start! ;-)

Don's rant is NOT superb. It is bloody rude and offensive - as always.

Whilst some of what he said may be good advice, where does it state
this in the soc.gen.brit charter?

http://www.woodgate.org/FAQs/socgbrit.html

Don clearly does not read, nor abide by the NG charter himself. It is
not his newsgroup, nor is he the newsgroup moderator - it is an
unmoderated group.

It is because of the likes of Don Moody that many newbies do not post
in here at all, they are too frightened. He is nothing but a *bully*.

--
KH

Richard van Schaik

2008-05-19 13:55:49 UTC

Post by Keith Henry
After much thought, on Monday *John Cartmell* disclosed to all and
sundry...

Don's rant is NOT superb. It is bloody rude and offensive - as always.

Did you read Don's point 9 then? 8-)

Richard

--
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 14:04:00 UTC

Post by Richard van Schaik

Post by Keith Henry
Don's rant is NOT superb. It is bloody rude and offensive - as always.

Did you read Don's point 9 then? 8-)

Blimey! You read down that far? :/

--
KH

Richard van Schaik

2008-05-19 16:08:37 UTC

Post by Richard van Schaik

Post by Keith Henry
Don's rant is NOT superb. It is bloody rude and offensive - as always.

Did you read Don's point 9 then? 8-)

Blimey! You read down that far? :/

If I'm thinking of replying then I always read the complete post. In
this case a reply was not needed anymore however ;-)

Richard

--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/

Martin Brown

2008-05-19 14:08:31 UTC

Post by Keith Henry
After much thought, on Monday *John Cartmell* disclosed to all and
sundry...

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for anyone
intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his research

then he

Post by John Cartmell
won't have been put off by being told that he has started the wrong way; in
fact with the advice he has just received from Don one might claim he has
started the right way and hit the jackpot: a whole chunk of good

advice right

Post by John Cartmell
at the start! ;-)

Don's rant is NOT superb. It is bloody rude and offensive - as always.

For him it is actually quite mild.

Post by John Cartmell
Did you read Don's point 9 then? 8-)

Don's response is pretty typical of his "beat up a newbie" routine.
He will go to almost any lengths to put beginners off genealogy.

He did have a point though - a thread title of "Advice Needed"
practically guarantees that any experts on early records of convictions
leading to Transportation to Australia will be blissfully unaware of the
thread content except by happenstance.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

wdurham

2008-05-19 15:59:29 UTC

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Keith Henry
After much thought, on Monday *John Cartmell* disclosed to all and
sundry...

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for anyone
intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his research

then he

advice right

Post by John Cartmell
at the start! ;-)

Don's rant is NOT superb. It is bloody rude and offensive - as always.

For him it is actually quite mild.

Post by John Cartmell
Did you read Don's point 9 then? 8-)

Don's response is pretty typical of his "beat up a newbie" routine.
He will go to almost any lengths to put beginners off genealogy.
He did have a point though - a thread title of "Advice Needed"
practically guarantees that any experts on early records of convictions
leading to Transportation to Australia will be blissfully unaware of the
thread content except by happenstance.
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Yet another reason why I will help others, but rarely ask for help
here myself. There is bound to be some solecism or error in my
question which will bring down the "wrath of Moody" upon my head.

Does the man NEVER remember that we all had to start somewhere, and
gentle suggestion is much better designed to push a newbie in the
right direction than his often OTT and sometimes absolutely disgusting
tirades?

There are some very kind and helpful people here, to whom I have been
and will probably continue to be very grateful. I do not count Don
Moody amongs them. He is arrogant and bad-tempered, and his attitude
is akin to that of, say, Lewis Hamilton expecting his granny and her
Peugeot 102 to be able to win a Grand Prix just because HE can.

For those that find themselves utterly intimidated by the self-styled
"great man" and his approach, may I suggest Rootschat? People there
actually enjoy helping and guiding even the most raw newbie, and have
endless patience while doing it. Perhaps it's because they remember
when THEY were beginners.

John Prentice

2008-05-19 16:27:11 UTC

Post by wdurham
He is arrogant and bad-tempered, and his attitude
is akin to that of, say, Lewis Hamilton expecting his granny and her
Peugeot 102 to be able to win a Grand Prix just because HE can.

Not fair! Hamilton's an astonishingly nice bloke. Now, if you'd said
Alonso...

John

--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 16:45:34 UTC

Post by wdurham
Yet another reason why I will help others, but rarely ask for help
here myself. There is bound to be some solecism or error in my
question which will bring down the "wrath of Moody" upon my head.

Likewise! I mainly reply direct to posters by email.

Post by wdurham
Does the man NEVER remember that we all had to start somewhere, and
gentle suggestion is much better designed to push a newbie in the
right direction than his often OTT and sometimes absolutely disgusting
tirades?

NO he doesn't!

Post by wdurham
There are some very kind and helpful people here, to whom I have been
and will probably continue to be very grateful. I do not count Don
Moody amongs them. He is arrogant and bad-tempered, and his attitude
is akin to that of, say, Lewis Hamilton expecting his granny and her
Peugeot 102 to be able to win a Grand Prix just because HE can.

There's many kind people in here who enjoy a challenge to help
somebody, newbie or otherwise. Renia is a good example who springs to
mind (apologies to others not mentioned). However, they won't be able
to assist others if the likes of the arrogant bully, Don Moody and his
cohorts, frighten them off.

Post by wdurham
For those that find themselves utterly intimidated by the self-styled
"great man" and his approach, may I suggest Rootschat? People there
actually enjoy helping and guiding even the most raw newbie, and have
endless patience while doing it.

Good point but they should not have to feel intimidated in here. This
is NOT soc.gen.brit.professional nor is it soc.gen.brit.DonMoody - it
is for everybody.

Post by wdurham
Perhaps it's because they remember when THEY were beginners.

Perhaps most other people just have better manners than Don Moody.
;-)

--
KH

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-19 17:28:22 UTC

Likewise! I mainly reply direct to posters by email.

snip

bad idea - archives are as valuable for other rsearchers or in case of
data loss for you

what a load of crybabies :-)

the only way to deal with a playground bully is head on
(kill files are OK too)

I often delete Don unread if his first paragraph fails to grab me

All this is only an illusion
- of letters on the back of a piece of glass (plastic)

BUT when Don was off usenet for months this group was a poorer place

Hugh W

http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 17:39:27 UTC

Likewise! I mainly reply direct to posters by email.

snip
bad idea - archives are as valuable for other rsearchers or in case of data
loss for you

I keep my emails.

what a load of crybabies :-)

It sounds like you're a bully too!

the only way to deal with a playground bully is head on
(kill files are OK too)

Kill files do not stop the bully.

I often delete Don unread if his first paragraph fails to grab me

I often do the same to yours.

All this is only an illusion
- of letters on the back of a piece of glass (plastic)
BUT when Don was off usenet for months this group was a poorer place

When Don was off usenet we didn't get pestered by his rude and abusive
rants.

--
KH

John Cartmell

2008-05-19 19:27:56 UTC

In article

Whilst I have responded to him in his owm way (where I'm right and he is
wrong) and never suffered at all. Were he to (correctly) complain about
missing items in a post of mine I would apologise for (temporarily) acting
like a mere human and supply the missing items. Whilst I can understand the
"don't worry" messages to newbies the continued discussion afterwards does get
tiresome. Drop it?

--
John

Jeff

2008-05-19 22:41:02 UTC

On May 19, 3:08 pm,

Post by Martin Brown
Don's response is pretty typical of his "beat up a newbie" routine.
He will go to almost any lengths to put beginners off genealogy.

What I find most amusing is the amount of verbiage he spills explaining
why he won't help. Funnier still is his frequent contention that the
question cannot be answered when perfectly adequate answers are already
posted in the same thread.

Richard van Schaik

2008-05-19 23:06:44 UTC

I would say pose those questions. My esteem for your searching
capabilities is high (displayed in all answers you gave to others), so
any question you may have must be a difficult one to solve. Those are
the type of question really asking for combined effort. And as for the
"wrath of Moody" as you call it, just read the first lines of any reply
and if not helpfully to your question skip the remainder. Don't be
bothered by such a reply, there are lots on this group that do give (or
try to give) real help on genealogy to any poster regardless of the
awkwardness or expertise shown in such a questioning post. That is I
think what this group is for by the way (and luckily in some answers in
this thread and others I do see that I'm not alone in thinking along
that direction).

And as for mistakes or oversights .... I do make those also, counted at
least two already in my last question (including the added data) posted
here.

Richard

--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/

Renia

2008-05-19 19:52:17 UTC

Post by Keith Henry
he that is always so bloody offensive and needs to apologise

You must be joking.

John Cartmell

2008-05-19 22:08:21 UTC

Post by Keith Henry
he that is always so bloody offensive and needs to apologise

Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for anyone
intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his research
then he won't have been put off by being told that he has started the
wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received from Don one
might claim he has started the right way and hit the jackpot: a whole
chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

--
John

Renia

2008-05-19 22:29:09 UTC

Post by Keith Henry
he that is always so bloody offensive and needs to apologise

Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for anyone
intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his research
then he won't have been put off by being told that he has started the
wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received from Don one
might claim he has started the right way and hit the jackpot: a whole
chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

It's all good advice but none of it is relevant to the OP's question.

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 22:30:05 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for anyone
intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his research
then he won't have been put off by being told that he has started the
wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received from Don one
might claim he has started the right way and hit the jackpot: a whole
chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

Whether the advice is good or not is irrelevant. Don Moody is not the
moderator of this newsgroup.

--
KH

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 09:27:21 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for
anyone intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his
research then he won't have been put off by being told that he has
started the wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received
from Don one might claim he has started the right way and hit the
jackpot: a whole chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

Whether the advice is good or not is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant to my claim that it was good advice. How dare you try to
refute my claim that A was good by insisting that B was bad. Your assumption
that I'm so stupid that I would fall for that pitiful mangling of logic is
something that I find most insulting.

<In addition to noting that your logic is crap, that you blame people for
whatever they say once they are in your 'black book', that this newsgroup is
meant to be about genealogy, &c - you might also note that people are upset by
many things. By all means comfort those that are upset, but don't go around
blaming people (unread!) unless you are sure that you too aren't the cause of
such discomfort.>

--
John

Keith Henry

2008-05-20 11:54:22 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for
anyone intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his
research then he won't have been put off by being told that he has
started the wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received
from Don one might claim he has started the right way and hit the
jackpot: a whole chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

Whether the advice is good or not is irrelevant.
Don Moody is not the moderator of this newsgroup.

I have made no assumption whatsoever! The only person who has assumed
is you.

--
KH

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 13:43:47 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for
anyone intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his
research then he won't have been put off by being told that he has
started the wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received
from Don one might claim he has started the right way and hit the
jackpot: a whole chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

Whether the advice is good or not is irrelevant. Don Moody is not the
moderator of this newsgroup.

I have made no assumption whatsoever! The only person who has assumed is
you.

Reasonable assumption. Reasonably upset. Reasonable complaint? Or perhaps we'd
best drop these repeated complaints and just help newbie's as best we can
whilst taking note of what Don does best (ie the advice - not the tone).

--
John

Bert Weaver

2008-05-20 14:06:20 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for
anyone intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his
research then he won't have been put off by being told that he has
started the wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received
from Don one might claim he has started the right way and hit the
jackpot: a whole chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

Whether the advice is good or not is irrelevant. Don Moody is not the
moderator of this newsgroup.

I have made no assumption whatsoever! The only person who has assumed is
you.

So ... what you're saying here John is you jumped in (to help out a
newsgroup bully who you secretly revere) thinking it was the shallow end.
Oooh, you discovered you'd jumped in the deep end by mistake and you know
you can't actually swim too well so you're heading for the steps.

Am I right so far?

Bert

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 15:04:28 UTC

Post by Bert Weaver
So ... what you're saying here John is you jumped in

Post by Bert Weaver
(to help out a newsgroup bully who you secretly revere)

not having the patience for fools is slightly different from bullying - what
some attempt to do to Don is bullying - and I object strongly to Don's way
with newbies, even though his words are often right and illuminating

Post by Bert Weaver
thinking it was the shallow end.

race you to the harbour mouth. ;-)

Post by Bert Weaver
Oooh, you discovered you'd jumped in the deep end by mistake and you know
you can't actually swim too well so you're heading for the steps.
Am I right so far?

not in anything that I can discover - in fact you appear to be 100% wrong so
far

--
John

Bert Weaver

2008-05-20 12:02:00 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
Don's latest offering is superb and should be required reading for
anyone intending to ask questions here. If Rex is serious about his
research then he won't have been put off by being told that he has
started the wrong way; in fact with the advice he has just received
from Don one might claim he has started the right way and hit the
jackpot: a whole chunk of good advice right at the start! ;-)

You must be joking.

You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

Nice try, John. Your blustering pseudo-indignation and selective snipping of
the post you apparently take umbrage with, constitutes a classic 'straw man'
argument. The portion you snipped reads: "Don Moody is not the moderator of
this newsgroup."

In response to Keith Henry's accurate observation that the troll Moody is
"offensive and needs to apologise", you respond: "Don's latest offering is
superb and should be required reading for anyone intending to ask questions
here."

Moody's offering is in no way superb. It is his usual vitriolic put-down of
a person asking advice and is yet another example of, as one poster so
descriptively puts it, his "mental incontinence". The man is obviously
incapable of respect or common courtesy. He is incapable of even a juvenile
level of self-control, and is obviously a social incompetent whose only
brush with manhood is the ‘virtual reality’ he achieves on the end of a
keyboard. He is incapable of biting his acerbic tongue, even though he is
well aware of the disruption it repeatedly causes to this newsgroup. Moody
is an emotionally unstable bully, a mental cripple, and an embarrassment to
this newsgroup.

You do yourself no favours by scraping the bottom of the barrel in your
attempt to defend him.

Bert

Steve

2008-05-19 23:12:30 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

You miss the point.

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing this particular offering from Dr Moody
as I killfiled him a while ago, but I have seen enough of his posts in the
past to be able to imagine what it was like.

The point, which has been made time and time again but still doesn't seem to
have got through to some people, is that the manner and tone of people's
responses is more important than the content. It doesn't matter whether or
not a post contains "good advice" if it is expressed in an offensive manner
that puts people's backs up. Advice of this kind will at best provoke a
hostile or dismissive response, and at worst (as seems to happen regularly
on this NG) puts off newbies.

Try imagining what it would be like if people addressed other people face to
face in the way Dr Moody does here. It is highly unlikely that anyone would
respond with gratitude for the good advice given: a more likely response
would be anger and indignation, and sooner or later anyone who behaves like
this is likely to be at the receiving end of someone's fist.

What I find saddening is the damage that this does to what could be, and
often still is, a valuable resource for genealogy. It is not so much Dr
Moody's own behaviour that is the problem, but the fact that others are
always ready to spring to his defence. Were his behaviour to be generally
condemned (as happens with others such as the notorious DSH) then there
would not be a problem. As it is, the impression is given that this group
condones bullying, which apart from anything else does nothing for the
reputation of professional genealogists for those new to the field, given
that as much as anything this is seen as a forum for the profession.

Steve

Anne Chambers

2008-05-19 23:19:10 UTC

Steve wrote:

Snip

Post by Steve
As it is, the impression is given that this group
condones bullying, which apart from anything else does nothing for the
reputation of professional genealogists for those new to the field, given
that as much as anything this is seen as a forum for the profession.
Steve

Well said.

--
Anne Chambers,
South Australia
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-20 00:37:57 UTC

Post by Anne Chambers
Snip

As it is, the impression is given that this group condones bullying,
which apart from anything else does nothing for the reputation of
professional genealogists for those new to the field, given that as
much as anything this is seen as a forum for the profession.
Steve

Well said.

no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Hugh W

--
For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and
district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/

http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks

GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

John Prentice

2008-05-20 08:39:08 UTC

no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup". Which is what s.g.b (along with all of Usenet, and other
netnews groups - yes, there are non-Usenet newsgroups) is.

John

--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address

Martin Brown

2008-05-20 09:36:50 UTC

no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup". Which is what s.g.b (along with all of Usenet, and other
netnews groups - yes, there are non-Usenet newsgroups) is.

Usenet is in effect a Virtual Club where regulars, lurkers and
occassional visitors can meet and discuss a common or not so common
shared interest. Membership is free and posting should be mostly on
topic - some groups are better at maintaining this than others.

Sci.astro.* for instance has a lot trouble with US religious nutters.

It does the image of UK genealogy no good at all to have a self
appointed netcop beating people over the head with a lead pipe for
daring to ask an ill posed question. It is even worse when he sends his
copyrighted offensive private emails to (perceived) newbies.

The OP's original thread title and initial posting were exceptionally
badly phrased and uninformative, but that does not excuse rudeness.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Peter Goodey

2008-05-20 09:55:06 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup".

He knows that. He's complaining about using "group" (or "newsgroup") as if
it were a group of people. It isn't.

--
Family History Research in London & Kent
http://www.goodey.me.uk

John Prentice

2008-05-20 09:59:55 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup".

He knows that. He's complaining about using "group" (or "newsgroup") as if
it were a group of people. It isn't.

It is! (Unless most of the posters are robots. I know groups like that,
but this ain't one.) The newsgroup's just where they convene.

John

--
LOOK OUT, SPAM BLOCK AHEAD!
If you want to email me, remove ".invalid" from the email address

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-20 12:19:38 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup".

He knows that. He's complaining about using "group" (or "newsgroup") as if
it were a group of people. It isn't. thank you

not complaining
waste of time
this thread is full of deaf ears
and little popes ponificating their boring old ideas instead of doing
genealogy

Hugh W

Bert Weaver

2008-05-20 12:41:51 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup".

He knows that. He's complaining about using "group" (or "newsgroup") as
if it were a group of people. It isn't. thank you

not complaining
waste of time
this thread is full of deaf ears
and little popes ponificating their boring old ideas instead of doing
genealogy
Hugh W

But a couple of hours ago, before embarking upon the the tsk-tsk, *you* were
the one who began this whole discussion about the use of the word "group"!!
Sure, it was an attempt to divert discussion from our resident troll Moody,
but you must surely recall that _it was you_ who initiated the
pontificating of boring old ideas etc, etc.

Strange lad.

Bert

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-20 12:16:53 UTC

As it is, the impression is given that this group condones bullying,
which apart from anything else does nothing for the reputation of
professional genealogists

*they* have no time for usenet

for those new to the field, given that as

much as anything this is seen as a forum for the profession.

no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup". Which is what s.g.b (along with all of Usenet, and other
netnews groups - yes, there are non-Usenet newsgroups) is.

this group des not have a group poicy
even the FAQ has been killed off by newbies

Hugh W

Martin Brown

2008-05-20 12:30:48 UTC

As it is, the impression is given that this group condones
bullying, which apart from anything else does nothing for the
reputation of professional genealogists

*they* have no time for usenet

for those new to the field, given that as

much as anything this is seen as a forum for the profession.

no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Sorry, Hugh, you're wrong in this case. "Group" is shorthand for
"newsgroup". Which is what s.g.b (along with all of Usenet, and other
netnews groups - yes, there are non-Usenet newsgroups) is.

this group des not have a group poicy
even the FAQ has been killed off by newbies

Rubbish. The FAQ is no longer actively maintained but is still available
and in the same place as it was in 1999. And you cannot blame this on
the newbies either - they cannot hope to maintain a FAQ.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/by-newsgroup/soc/soc.genealogy.britain.html
(and links therein)

Perhaps it is time for old hands to add a few extra answers to the FAQ?

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 14:17:26 UTC

Post by Martin Brown
Perhaps it is time for old hands to add a few extra answers to the FAQ?

Certainly it's time for it to be dragged up to date and posted here monthly.

--
John

Jeff

2008-05-20 12:35:08 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
this group des not have a group poicy

It does. It is called a Charter

Post by Hugh Watkins
even the FAQ has been killed off by newbies

How in Heaven's name can anybody "kill off" FAQs?

Post by Hugh Watkins
Hugh W

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-20 17:41:08 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
this group des not have a group poicy

It does. It is called a Charter

Post by Hugh Watkins
even the FAQ has been killed off by newbies

How in Heaven's name can anybody "kill off" FAQs?

If you don't know you must be a newbie

the FAQ used to be posted as a text monthly to the newsgroup
also for revision and comment

until some newbies made such a fuss that the FAQ maintainer stopped
doing all that work

Hugh W

Jeff

2008-05-20 18:52:55 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
this group des not have a group poicy

It does. It is called a Charter

Post by Hugh Watkins
even the FAQ has been killed off by newbies

How in Heaven's name can anybody "kill off" FAQs?

If you don't know you must be a newbie
the FAQ used to be posted as a text monthly to the newsgroup
also for revision and comment
until some newbies made such a fuss that the FAQ maintainer stopped
doing all that work

I'm far from a newbie

One newbie (as I recall Rob Burns) did indeed upset Barry Ruck to the
point where he ceased to maintain his FAQs, but that is a million miles
from "FAQ has been killed off by newbies"

So, what is your solution? ban newbies?

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-20 20:56:57 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
this group des not have a group poicy

It does. It is called a Charter

Post by Hugh Watkins
even the FAQ has been killed off by newbies

How in Heaven's name can anybody "kill off" FAQs?

If you don't know you must be a newbie
the FAQ used to be posted as a text monthly to the newsgroup
also for revision and comment
until some newbies made such a fuss that the FAQ maintainer stopped
doing all that work

I'm far from a newbie
One newbie (as I recall Rob Burns) did indeed upset Barry Ruck to the
point where he ceased to maintain his FAQs, but that is a million miles
from "FAQ has been killed off by newbies"
So, what is your solution? ban newbies?

ignore posts which disturb or annoy me

be more annoying tham annoyed:-)

Hugh W

Hugh W

Bert Weaver

2008-05-21 08:46:44 UTC

[snip]>

Post by Hugh Watkins
ignore posts which disturb or annoy me

Excellent advice, Hugh. Pity you don't follow it yourself. And if Moody
followed your advice, there wouldn't be the repetetive disruptions to this
group ... err, make that 'newsgroup' to clarify things for JC.

Tell you what, I'll remind you of your advice next time you fan the flames.

Bert

Anne Chambers

2008-05-20 08:49:09 UTC

Post by Anne Chambers
Snip

Well said.

no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet
Hugh W

Rubbish - this is a news*group*

--
Anne Chambers,
South Australia
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

Peter Goodey

2008-05-20 10:02:23 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet
Hugh W

Rubbish - this is a news*group*

He's right. You're wrong. "Newsgroup" or "Group" is the medium not the
participants.

--
Family History Research in London & Kent
http://www.goodey.me.uk

Anne Chambers

2008-05-20 10:16:30 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet
Hugh W

Rubbish - this is a news*group*

He's right. You're wrong. "Newsgroup" or "Group" is the medium not the
participants.

Nonsense.

--
Anne Chambers,
South Australia
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

Renia

2008-05-20 10:25:28 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet
Hugh W

Rubbish - this is a news*group*

He's right. You're wrong. "Newsgroup" or "Group" is the medium not the
participants.

Nonsense.

Quite. Does the Stamp Collectors' Club comprise only the stamps or the
people who collect them and wish to join up with others of like mind?

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 10:40:54 UTC

Post by Peter Goodey
He's right. You're wrong. "Newsgroup" or "Group" is the medium not the
participants.

Nonsense.

I don't think this is the place to discuss the sociology of group behaviour or
the correct application of the word 'group' or the philosophical distinction
between a group and a set of individuals who comprise that group. Suffice to
say that, in this group, we act as individuals, in response to other
individuals and also exhibit typical group behaviour.

--
John

Bert Weaver

2008-05-20 12:32:59 UTC

Post by Peter Goodey
He's right. You're wrong. "Newsgroup" or "Group" is the medium not the
participants.

Nonsense.

John, John, John ... we are getting ourselves a little out of our depth here
don't you think? Let's dissect your verbose obfuscation.

Post by John Cartmell
I don't think this is the place to discuss the sociology of group
behaviour

Nobody is discussing sociology here, especially the sociology of group
behaviour - it's more about semantics. The use of the term "group" as a
shortened term for "usenet newsgroup", which Hugh (tsk tsk) ostensibly
thought was a group of appointed members. He can be forgiven this error of
supposition, given the dynamics of the Moody support team. Time of day and
intake of beverage is not his excuse this time, I don't think.

Post by John Cartmell
or the correct application of the word 'group'

Well, give us your tuppensworth. What do you consider the "correct
application" of the word 'group'?

Post by John Cartmell
or the philosophical distinction

Gotta laugh. Go on, give us a "philosophical distinction". I challenge you
:)

Post by John Cartmell
between a group and a set of individuals who comprise that group.

Post by John Cartmell
Suffice to say that, in this group,

But is it a "group" ... or is it a "group"? Please, would you qualify this
with your "philosophical distinction"?

Post by John Cartmell
we act as individuals, in response to other individuals and also exhibit
typical group behaviour.

Now that really covers all bases, but doesn't really say anything, does it?
Explain (in 25 words or less) "typical group behaviour". Face it John,
you're trying it on for size. And it ain't fitting.

Bert

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 14:41:19 UTC

Post by Peter Goodey
He's right. You're wrong. "Newsgroup" or "Group" is the medium not the
participants.

Nonsense.

I don't think this is the place to discuss the sociology of group
behaviour or the correct application of the word 'group' or the
philosophical distinction between a group and a set of individuals who
comprise that group. Suffice to say that, in this group, we act as
individuals, in response to other individuals and also exhibit typical
group behaviour.

John, John, John ... we are getting ourselves a little out of our depth here
don't you think? Let's dissect your verbose obfuscation.

Last time I checked I was quite happy at whatever depth! ;-)

Post by John Cartmell
I don't think this is the place to discuss the sociology of group
behaviour

Sociology,
Sematics, and
Philosophy.

I'm happy at discussing all of them at any level (depth?!) down to postgrad.

Post by John Cartmell
or the correct application of the word 'group'

Well, give us your tuppensworth. What do you consider the "correct
application" of the word 'group'?

This is *not* the place!

Post by John Cartmell
or the philosophical distinction

Gotta laugh. Go on, give us a "philosophical distinction". I challenge you
:)

OK.
Q1. You are a bundle of cells and cell parts that are clearly derived from
individual entities (in the first place bacteria) with their own
individualities including (in the case of mitochondria) their own mean of
passing on their genetic information quite separate from that of the nuclear
DNA. So explain what it is that makes you think that you are:
a. One individual, or
b. a collection of separate entities.
Are you sure? Why are you sure?
Does your argument apply to the set of yourself + many others like yourself
taking part in a joint or parallel task? If not why not?

Q2. With reference to the Blue & Brown Books and Philosophical Investigations
explain how Wittgenstein might have described the word 'group' with its
multiplicity of meanings.

Post by John Cartmell
between a group and a set of individuals who comprise that group.

Post by John Cartmell
Suffice to say that, in this group,

But is it a "group" ... or is it a "group"? Please, would you qualify this
with your "philosophical distinction"?

Q3. Taking the discussion between Alice and the White Knight in Alice Through
the Looking Glass as your model, apply the distinctions between forms of names
to compare and contrast the logical differences between a group and a set of
individuals who comprise that group.

Post by John Cartmell
we act as individuals, in response to other individuals and also exhibit
typical group behaviour.

Now that really covers all bases, but doesn't really say anything, does it?
Explain (in 25 words or less) "typical group behaviour". Face it John,
you're trying it on for size. And it ain't fitting.

Q4. When did you stop beating your wife? Explain away the question in less
than 25 words.

Answer on one side of a sheet of paper (except for Q4 which is obviously
impossible) stating which questions you have failed to answer because you
don't understand that they are real questions - and which because you are too
busy laughing at the fact that they really are real questions - of philosophy
& logic.

References:
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Blue & Brown Books - taken from lecture notes (lecturer L. Wittgenstein).
Philosophical Investigations - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There - Lewis Carroll

Keep swimming! ;-)

--
John

Bert Weaver

2008-05-20 15:33:20 UTC

Post by Peter Goodey
He's right. You're wrong. "Newsgroup" or "Group" is the medium not the
participants.

I don't think this is the place to discuss the sociology of group
behaviour or the correct application of the word 'group' or the
philosophical distinction between a group and a set of individuals who
comprise that group. Suffice to say that, in this group, we act as
individuals, in response to other individuals and also exhibit typical
group behaviour.

[snip]

Post by Bert Weaver
Nobody is discussing sociology here, especially the sociology of group
behaviour - it's more about semantics. The use of the term "group" as a
shortened term for "usenet newsgroup", which Hugh (tsk tsk) ostensibly
thought was a group of appointed members. He can be forgiven this error of
supposition, given the dynamics of the Moody support team. Time of day and
intake of beverage is not his excuse this time, I don't think.

Sociology,
Sematics, and
Philosophy.
I'm happy at discussing all of them at any level (depth?!) down to postgrad.

So ...? Go ahead. You're the one who purports to be able to discuss these
issues *in the context* of the discussion of this thread. Please, discuss
all, at all levels. In the context of the original post. (note to yourself -
you may have to review this thread to see where you diverted from the
original topic, but you must tell yourself it's well within your
capabilities).

Post by John Cartmell
or the correct application of the word 'group'

Well, give us your tuppensworth. What do you consider the "correct
application" of the word 'group'?

This is *not* the place!

Aaah, OK - in other words, you can't. Fair enough - I realise you would find
this a difficult task. For future reference, it's probably better to just
say "I wish I hadn't used that expression because I'm not really sure what
it means."

Post by John Cartmell
or the philosophical distinction

Gotta laugh. Go on, give us a "philosophical distinction". I challenge you
:)

OK.
Q1. You are a bundle of cells and cell parts that are clearly derived from
individual entities (in the first place bacteria) with their own
individualities including (in the case of mitochondria) their own mean of
passing on their genetic information quite separate from that of the nuclear
a. One individual, or
b. a collection of separate entities.
Are you sure? Why are you sure?
Does your argument apply to the set of yourself + many others like yourself
taking part in a joint or parallel task? If not why not?
Q2. With reference to the Blue & Brown Books and Philosophical
Investigations
explain how Wittgenstein might have described the word 'group' with its
multiplicity of meanings.

Post by John Cartmell
between a group and a set of individuals who comprise that group.

Post by John Cartmell
Suffice to say that, in this group,

But is it a "group" ... or is it a "group"? Please, would you qualify this
with your "philosophical distinction"?

Post by John Cartmell
we act as individuals, in response to other individuals and also exhibit
typical group behaviour.

Now that really covers all bases, but doesn't really say anything, does it?
Explain (in 25 words or less) "typical group behaviour". Face it John,
you're trying it on for size. And it ain't fitting.

Q4. When did you stop beating your wife? Explain away the question in less
than 25 words.
Answer on one side of a sheet of paper (except for Q4 which is obviously
impossible) stating which questions you have failed to answer because you
don't understand that they are real questions - and which because you are too
busy laughing at the fact that they really are real questions - of philosophy
& logic.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Blue & Brown Books - taken from lecture notes (lecturer L.
Wittgenstein).
Philosophical Investigations - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There - Lewis Carroll
Keep swimming! ;-)
--
John

And this (obvious cut 'n paste from other source) verbosity is - please tell
me I'm wrong - your definition of this newsgroup? As in your "group" vs
"group"?? Cells, mitochondria, DNA, wife beating ... jeeeez!! Please. In
fact, please - please re-read previous posts, and see if you think your
response is appropriate. And what do you conclude ...?

I rest my case. Go sit alongside Mad Moody.

Bert

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 16:34:54 UTC

Post by Bert Weaver
And this (obvious cut 'n paste from other source) verbosity

Following the analogy of before - you have just committed suicide by drowning.
I would be very ashamed at myself if I wasn't capable of producing sample
questions at the drop of a hat around the philosophy and logic of Wittgenstein
and Carroll - having completed a post graduate degree on the work of the
former and be devising a game based on three, four, or five* books of the
latter.

BTW Your *obvious* cut 'n paste is original and all my own work of just a few
moments. Your assumptions are far more insulting than any that you complain
about from Don so, before you do any more damge to what may remain of your
reputation, I'd suggest an apology to him and to myself for those insults -
and to the rest of the group for wasting their time.

*A trilogy in five parts and a number of fits may (or may not - it depends on
just how far you have sunk) make sense to you.

--
John

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-20 17:43:03 UTC

Post by Bert Weaver
And this (obvious cut 'n paste from other source) verbosity

are you fluent in german?

Hugh W

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 23:05:34 UTC

Post by Bert Weaver
And this (obvious cut 'n paste from other source) verbosity

are you fluent in german?

Would that have helped with the Blue & Brown Books? ;-)

The only German I know is of the words and phrases that don't translate
consistently in Wittgenstein - and I did use the parallel translations.
Whichever route I took to understand his philosophies (pl?) I would have had
to draw up the ladder behind me in order to see the world aright.

--
John

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-21 08:17:28 UTC

Post by Bert Weaver
And this (obvious cut 'n paste from other source) verbosity

are you fluent in german?

Would that have helped with the Blue & Brown Books? ;-)
The only German I know is of the words and phrases that don't translate
consistently in Wittgenstein - and I did use the parallel translations.
Whichever route I took to understand his philosophies (pl?) I would have had
to draw up the ladder behind me in order to see the world aright.

then may be you don't understand how clear W's thoughts are in German
the original english translation is fusty, academic and dated
As a case language german is more succinct than english

If you read a german philospher in Copenhagen U., you are expected to
discuss him in German

My german is purely passive
and (like my dutch) I read it as a variation of danish
just now I am watching Eurosport in german, Giro d'Italia daily, and
day by day I understand more and more.

eurosport.yahoo.com is their new host but the radio stream in english
is broken

Zapping last noght I ended the day with WDR from Wuppertal and three
restored films forom 1948 to 1951 of Toscannini conducting Wagner -
incredibly fine orchestral playing with wonderful srings - I only knew
his 78rpm recordings with the BBC symphony

back on topic
I was hoping you might be a useful helper for some more enquiries about
anglo-prussian ancestors - the records may well be in Poland today but
will be in german - or latin.

Hugh W

John Cartmell

2008-05-21 11:00:17 UTC

Post by Bert Weaver
And this (obvious cut 'n paste from other source) verbosity

are you fluent in german?

Would that have helped with the Blue & Brown Books? ;-)
The only German I know is of the words and phrases that don't translate
consistently in Wittgenstein - and I did use the parallel translations.
Whichever route I took to understand his philosophies (pl?) I would have
had to draw up the ladder behind me in order to see the world aright.

then may be you don't understand how clear W's thoughts are in German the
original english translation is fusty, academic and dated As a case
language german is more succinct than english

Which translation?
I studied the Tractatus, Blue & Brown Books, Philosophical Investigations, On
Certainty, and Zettel.

If you read a german philospher in Copenhagen U., you are expected to
discuss him in German

If you limited yourself to the German language for Wittgenstein you would miss
much of what he intended as his teaching and development of his philosophy was
in English to an English audience - ignoring his often overlooked discussions
with the Vienna School. Discussing the two major developments of 20th century
English Language Philosophy in German seems to be missing the point! ;-)

back on topic I was hoping you might be a useful helper for some more
enquiries about anglo-prussian ancestors - the records may well be in
Poland today but will be in german - or latin.

I'm afraid my German has gaps where all the common words would appear. ;-(

--
John

Jenny M Benson

2008-05-20 10:12:20 UTC

Post by Hugh Watkins
no such thing as "this group"
this is not a club but usenet

Collectively, the people who read these posts may be referred to as a
group. It is a fluid group as people "join" and "leave" but at any one
time there is a collection of people united by their reading of and/or
contributing to these messages.

--
Jenny
"I always like to have the morning well-aired before I get up."
(Beau Brummel, 1778-1840)

John Cartmell

2008-05-20 09:19:23 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
You could point out which of the paragraphs isn't good advice.

The point is that Renia rejected my description of that one posting. As you
didn't read that posting you cannot comment on the matter.

[Snip]

--
John

Steve

2008-05-21 10:46:52 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
The point is that Renia rejected my description of that one posting. As you
didn't read that posting you cannot comment on the matter.

My point was a general one, based on previous experience of Moody's posts.
As a matter of fact I have read some of this one, from various bits quoted,
enough to get a sense of the general tone. It's not a question of picking
out specific paragraphs and deciding which do or don't give good advice.
It's sufficient that others who have read the entire post find its tone
offensive: if so, then any "good advice" included in it is unlikely to be
well received. Yes, it is theoretically possible that the parts of this
particular post of Moody's that I haven't seen are expressed in moderate,
polite language, and that those who objected to it were being
hypersensitive, but somehow I doubt this.

Steve

John Cartmell

2008-05-21 11:29:07 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
The point is that Renia rejected my description of that one posting. As
you didn't read that posting you cannot comment on the matter.

My point was a general one, based on previous experience of Moody's posts.

In short: "I don't know what it said but it was wrong." Your comment is
without any foundation and therefore fit only to be discarded. Now can we
please get back to genealogy?

--
John

Renia

2008-05-21 12:21:29 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
The point is that Renia rejected my description of that one posting. As
you didn't read that posting you cannot comment on the matter.

My point was a general one, based on previous experience of Moody's posts.

In short: "I don't know what it said but it was wrong." Your comment is
without any foundation and therefore fit only to be discarded. Now can we
please get back to genealogy?

Why don't you go and read a book on genealogy before demanding to do
genealogy here?

John Cartmell

2008-05-21 13:08:05 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
The point is that Renia rejected my description of that one posting. As
you didn't read that posting you cannot comment on the matter.

My point was a general one, based on previous experience of Moody's posts.

In short: "I don't know what it said but it was wrong." Your comment is
without any foundation and therefore fit only to be discarded. Now can we
please get back to genealogy?

Why don't you go and read a book on genealogy before demanding to do
genealogy here?

??

Which book were you thinking of - and why? The Local Historian's Handbook,
Classification of Occupations and Directory of Occupational Titles (volume 1),
Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans, various genealogy articles that
I've published - and more awaiting publication, and much, much more is on my
shelves and desk and has been read.

Now can we please get back to genealogy? This *is* a genealogy newsgroup!

--
John

Renia

2008-05-21 14:46:19 UTC

Post by John Cartmell
The point is that Renia rejected my description of that one posting. As
you didn't read that posting you cannot comment on the matter.

My point was a general one, based on previous experience of Moody's posts.

In short: "I don't know what it said but it was wrong." Your comment is
without any foundation and therefore fit only to be discarded. Now can we
please get back to genealogy?

Why don't you go and read a book on genealogy before demanding to do
genealogy here?

Only giving you the kind of feedback that Don gives others.

Post by John Cartmell
Which book were you thinking of - and why? The Local Historian's Handbook,
Classification of Occupations and Directory of Occupational Titles (volume 1),
Paternal and maternal lineages in the Balkans, various genealogy articles that
I've published - and more awaiting publication, and much, much more is on my
shelves and desk and has been read.
Now can we please get back to genealogy? This *is* a genealogy newsgroup!

John Cartmell

2008-05-21 15:56:56 UTC

Post by Renia
Only giving you the kind of feedback that Don gives others.

But he gets the context right!! ;-)

--
John

Don Moody

2008-05-19 12:20:25 UTC

Post by rex
The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY
sentanced 1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of
just one of them my problem might have been more obvious. I have
traced Joseph Rudd back, in Australia to his transportation and then
obtained transcrips of his appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old
Bailey from their web site. I have nothing about him (or his
common law wife) in England other than his transportation documents
and the afore mentioned transcrips.While I am serious about my
research I am in total ignorance as to what might be available
beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some, but
if I don't ask how do I find out?

1. Get out of the stupid practice of top posting.

2. Get into the sensible practice of lurking before asking.

3. Get down to the hard work of following up the leads you can
easily find by lurking in or searching the archives of a group.

4. Read books on genealogy, free in your local library..

5. Read the Newbie's Guide on the web on a site I won't tell you
how to find. If you can't find it you are NOT 'serious' about
genealogy.

6. Realise that asking others to do the work for you is NOT the
answer. There are plenty of ways of learning without asking questions
which only betray your own ignorance.

7 Genealogy is not a freebie and the right of everybody. If it is
to be done it requires a lot of work and some money. Those with a vast
heap of money can get it done by hiring a pro, but no pro can bring to
the study the knowledge of family styories and artefacts that the
person themselves has - if only they realised it.

8. There is no quick fix and no certainty. A chance discovery years
or decades on can add or chop off entire branches of the carefully
constructed family tree. All genealogy is a work in progress. The
'chance'isn't a real chance. It is the product of a lot of work and
detailed attention over very long times. All alleged quick fixes are
garbage or con tricks.

9. What newsgroups are really about. There is vastly more knowledge
held in human heads than is ever going to appear on the internet. If
you can access it on the net, it is down to you to do so. When you
can't find it that way, then you tap the collective non-Net knowledge
of all in a newsgroup relevant to the subject. There is no system in
this form of tapping and no guatrantee that someone reading your post
happens to be the one person with the non-Net knowledge you need. But
this is the point, and not until this point, when 'if you don't ask
you don't get.'

10. If you do 1-9, then the possibility arises that you will
yourself be a contributor of non-Net knowledge. That is you are
potentially a valuable member of the collective. No one will keep
count, but knowing you occasionally provide answers to others'
questions will generate more answers to your questions. What gets
short shrift on newsgroups is the person who is all take and no give.

Don

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 12:42:57 UTC

Post by rex
The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY sentanced
1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of just one of them my
problem might have been more obvious. I have traced Joseph Rudd back, in
Australia to his transportation and then obtained transcrips of his
appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old Bailey from their web site. I
have nothing about him (or his common law wife) in England other than his
transportation documents and the afore mentioned transcrips.While I am
serious about my research I am in total ignorance as to what might be
available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some,
but if I don't ask how do I find out?

1. Get out...

<The rest of Don Moody's ignorant waffle snipped out>

How many times do you need telling that YOU are not this newsgroup
moderator? It is an unmoderated group!

READ the charter and abide by it like most other posters in here do.
http://www.woodgate.org/FAQs/socgbrit.html#FAQ20

By the way Don, you wrote...
viz.
6. Realise that asking others to do the work for you is NOT the answer.

Rex did NOT ask for anybody to do any work for him, he merely asked for
suggestions.

--
KH

Renia

2008-05-19 19:50:45 UTC

Post by Don Moody

1. Get out of the stupid practice of top posting.

Get out of the stupid practice of responding to posts you have no answer to.

Martin Brown

2008-05-19 12:22:24 UTC

Post by rex
The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY sentanced
1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of just one of them my
problem might have been more obvious. I have traced Joseph Rudd back, in
Australia to his transportation and then obtained transcrips of his
appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old Bailey from their web site. I
have nothing about him (or his common law wife) in England other than his
transportation documents and the afore mentioned transcrips.While I am
serious about my research I am in total ignorance as to what might be
available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some, but
if I don't ask how do I find out?

It is possible that there was something in the court proceedings
reporting of The Times on or about the week/month of their convictions.
You can do this search of the Times archives for free from some
libraries or during US National Library week. What did the transcripts
you have found say about their crimes and/or place of abode in London?

Their convictions seem a long way - 15 years apart. Any idea how old
each of them was? That would go a long way towards thinning down the
number of hits. IGI shows a few candidate Rudds, but Dockerty will
probably get far too many matches unless some extra data is available.

Did either of them have a trade or skill that might narrow the field?

Good luck.

Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

rex

2008-05-19 13:34:33 UTC

Thanks for the helpful hints. I will need to digest the replies and see
what I can discover.

Rex

Lesley Robertson

2008-05-19 13:43:18 UTC

Post by rex
Thanks for the helpful hints. I will need to digest the replies and see
what I can discover.

You will also find a mine of useful information on GENUKI, here
http://www.genuki.org.uk/
Lesley Robertson

rex

2008-05-20 00:04:03 UTC

Post by rex
Thanks for the helpful hints. I will need to digest the replies and see
what I can discover.
Rex

I had hoped that this reply would have terminated the debate as I had no
wish to perpetuate the dissention in the group.

I have seen their convict records and indeed have photo copies. As
indicated earlier they were never married allthough they did apply for
permission. RUDD's death certificate was typical of the eara when
informants often knew little of the facts about a deceased. Again I am
thankfull for all the posts which provided help and advice, even negative.

Rex

Richard van Schaik

2008-05-20 00:25:08 UTC

Post by rex
I had hoped that this reply would have terminated the debate as I had no
wish to perpetuate the dissention in the group.

The debate is ended when the group decides ...... that is always the
advantage and at the same time disadvantage of posting in an unmoderated
usenet group.

Post by rex
I have seen their convict records and indeed have photo copies. As
indicated earlier they were never married allthough they did apply for
permission. RUDD's death certificate was typical of the eara when
informants often knew little of the facts about a deceased. Again I am
thankfull for all the posts which provided help and advice, even negative.

OK, so not married as far as you could find (missed that part in earlier
posts), probably then after transport connected together in some way.
Now the data as far as you can give (and as enhanced by others) is more
complete to search. Please don't be surprised if based on all posts
before (can't you make a compilation of known facts thusfar (you are the
expert on this family!)?) some lead is found. I do hope it will be found
(or at least a direction to search for)!

Do not look at the posts OT to your question, they are just internal
group struggling with no justification to your posted question.

Regards,
Richard

--
Richard van Schaik
***@THISwanadoo.nl
http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/

C Rihan

2008-05-20 08:01:55 UTC

Post by rex
I have seen their convict records and indeed have photo copies. As
indicated earlier they were never married allthough they did apply for
permission.

It surprises me that they asked for permission which was denied.
Perhaps that was before they had children.
Is it possible that they could have married after they had children?
Or after their sentences were over?

Post by rex
RUDD's death certificate was typical of the eara when informants often knew
little of the facts about a deceased. Again I am thankfull for all the
posts which provided help and advice, even negative.

As you say you have photocopies, you may not have seen this site
http://www.oldbaileyonline.org.uk/

Looking at that, Elizabeth King had said her sister (that would be Elizabeth
Murrell) was coming from Norwich.
She also said Rudd was her brother-in-law.
It could have been lies, of course, and probably a bit of a long shot,but
you
could try looking in Norwich to see if you can see anything there combining
two of those surnames in marriage or baptised in the same parish.

There are other Rudds mentioned too, who may or may not be connected ,
and other Dockertys.(and Dohertys)

It's possible that they may have called their children after family members
left in England.

Best wishes
C.Rihan

C Rihan

2008-05-19 17:06:34 UTC

Post by rex
The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY
sentanced 1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of just one
of them my problem might have been more obvious. I have traced Joseph
Rudd back, in Australia to his transportation and then obtained
transcrips of his appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old Bailey from
their web site. I have nothing about him (or his common law wife) in
England other than his transportation documents and the afore mentioned
transcrips.While I am serious about my research I am in total ignorance
as to what might be available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my
ignorance offends some, but if I don't ask how do I find out?

It is possible that there was something in the court proceedings reporting
of The Times on or about the week/month of their convictions

See
http://archive.timesonline.co.uk/tol/archive/

If you have other names/or date from the court cases you may be able to
look those up too, and possibly find some clue in the report of the 'crime'
soon after it happened.

Best wishes
C.Rihan

CWatters

2008-05-19 16:38:12 UTC

Post by rex
The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY
sentanced 1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of just one
of them my problem might have been more obvious. I have traced Joseph
Rudd back, in Australia to his transportation and then obtained transcrips
of his appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old Bailey from their web
site. I have nothing about him (or his common law wife) in England other
than his transportation documents and the afore mentioned transcrips.While
I am serious about my research I am in total ignorance as to what might be
available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some,
but if I don't ask how do I find out?

The transcripts tells you Joseph was 19 in 1817 so born circa 1798 and that
there might be a connection with the Norwich area. Mary was 17 in 1832 so
born sometime around 1815. Thats a bit of an age difference but I assume you
are sure about the dates they were transported.

Hugh Watkins

2008-05-19 17:20:11 UTC

Post by CWatters

Post by rex
The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY
sentanced 1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of just one
of them my problem might have been more obvious. I have traced Joseph
Rudd back, in Australia to his transportation and then obtained transcrips
of his appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old Bailey from their web
site. I have nothing about him (or his common law wife) in England other
than his transportation documents and the afore mentioned transcrips.While
I am serious about my research I am in total ignorance as to what might be
available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some,
but if I don't ask how do I find out?

or one of them is a mismatch

what were their ages at death in Australia ?

Occupations in Australia?
locations?

Hugh W

Renia

2008-05-19 22:05:09 UTC

Post by rex
The two people were Joseph RUDD, sentanced 1817 and Mary DOCKERTY sentanced
1832 May be if I had framed the question in terms of just one of them my
problem might have been more obvious. I have traced Joseph Rudd back, in
Australia to his transportation and then obtained transcrips of his
appearances January 15th 1817 in the Old Bailey from their web site. I
have nothing about him (or his common law wife) in England other than his
transportation documents and the afore mentioned transcrips.While I am
serious about my research I am in total ignorance as to what might be
available beyond what I know. I am sorry if my ignorance offends some, but
if I don't ask how do I find out?

Don't mind Moody. He's moody.

The NSW and Tasmania Convict Musters (incomplete at Ancestry.com) say
that Joseph Rudd was a 20-year-old bricklayer at the time he was
sentenced (to 7 years) in 1817. It also says he was a "native of
London". Others on the page are said to be natives of Manchester or
Maidstone, etc, so it looks like London was where he was from, at least
as far as he knew at the time.

In 1841 there were 2, 542 people called Rudd living in England, 1,231 of
them males. Of those male Rudds:
316 living in Norfolk
140 living in Lancashire
130 living in Yorkshire
121 in London
61 in Devon
57 in Suffolk
25 in Hertfordshire
24 in County Durham
22 in Herefordshire
6 were born in Scotland
3 were born in Ireland
etc

Looks like a Norfolk name! Though your Joseph or his ancestors could
have left there generations before.

e***@varneys.org.uk

2008-05-19 23:40:16 UTC

Post by Renia
In 1841 there were 2, 542 people called Rudd living in England,

1,231

Post by Renia
of them males. Of those male Rudds: 316 living in Norfolk 140 living
in Lancashire 130 living in Yorkshire 121 in London 61 in Devon 57 in
Suffolk 25 in Hertfordshire 24 in County Durham 22 in Herefordshire 6
were born in Scotland 3 were born in Ireland etc

And one at least in Bucks, who seems to have been ignored. That is
why my road is called Rudds Lane. Not that he was a proper local
man - came from 10 miles away on the other side of Aylesbury.

Post by Renia
Looks like a Norfolk name! Though your Joseph or his ancestors could
have left there generations before.

Every family gets into london sooner or later.

Anne Chambers

2008-05-19 10:54:41 UTC

Give us more details - you never know what the people in this group can
find out!

--
Anne Chambers,
South Australia
anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com

Don Moody

2008-05-19 11:09:40 UTC

Post by rex
I have traced tow of my wife's ancestors (GGGfather abd GGGmother)
back as far as their trials at the Old Bailey, and I have read the
transcrips. I appear to hsve resched a dead end. I can find no
clues as to where the came from to reach London nor of who their
ancestors migh have been. Can anyone suggest what my next step
might be

Learn how to put sensible questions to genealogy newsgroups.

It is a topic which has been gone over ad nauseam. If you, putting
yourself forward as a competent searcher, cannot be bothered to search
for how to put questions, then sure as hell I am not bothered to
answer in detail your incompetence.

Don

Keith Henry

2008-05-19 11:33:40 UTC

Post by Don Moody
Learn how to put sensible questions to genealogy newsgroups.
It is a topic which has been gone over ad nauseam. If you, putting yourself
forward as a competent searcher, cannot be bothered to search for how to put
questions, then sure as hell I am not bothered to answer in detail your
incompetence.

Hmmm, just as I thought would happen. Another question that you cannot
answer so you simply reply in your usual rude manner.

Larn how to read the charter of this newsgroup - it is unmoderated!
http://www.woodgate.org/FAQs/socgbrit.html#FAQ20

This has been explained to you umpteen times before.
If you don't like the question, don't answer it.

--
KH

willers

2008-05-19 19:48:46 UTC

Post by Don Moody

Learn how to put sensible questions to genealogy newsgroups.
It is a topic which has been gone over ad nauseam. If you, putting
yourself forward as a competent searcher, cannot be bothered to search for
how to put questions, then sure as hell I am not bothered to answer in
detail your incompetence.
Don

And for that let us all be forever thankful. Mental incontinence is such a
dreadful affliction.

Bill

Renia

2008-05-19 19:49:07 UTC

Post by Don Moody

Post by rex
I have traced tow of my wife's ancestors (GGGfather abd GGGmother)
back as far as their trials at the Old Bailey, and I have read the
transcrips. I appear to hsve resched a dead end. I can find no
clues as to where the came from to reach London nor of who their
ancestors migh have been. Can anyone suggest what my next step
might be

Learn how to put sensible questions to genealogy newsgroups.
It is a topic which has been gone over ad nauseam. If you, putting
yourself forward as a competent searcher, cannot be bothered to search
for how to put questions, then sure as hell I am not bothered to
answer in detail your incompetence.

Then don't bother to answer at all, you fool.

Don Aitken

2008-05-19 17:23:51 UTC

Among the rants, I don't think anyone has pointed out that the Old
Bailey was a *local* court. It heard two kinds of cases: city cases,
where the offence was committeed in the City of London, and Middlesex
cases, where it was elsewhere in the county. The transcript should
make it clear which yours were; each jury heard only one or other type
of case. The defendants would almost certainly have been resident
locally. Of course, it doesn't follow that they *originated* there -
the rapid increase in London's population, at a time when the death
rate far exceeded the birth rate, was only made possible by continuous
immigration, most of which came from the neighbouring counties,
although some was from all parts of the British Isles, including
Ireland - Dockerty looks like an Irish name, and Rudd might well be.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Charles Ellson

2008-05-19 18:42:20 UTC

Post by Don Aitken

Among the rants, I don't think anyone has pointed out that the Old
Bailey was a *local* court.

Only until 1834, the OP hasn't given the date relevant to the case and
transportation continued until 1868 in theory or 1857 in practice.

Post by Don Aitken
It heard two kinds of cases: city cases,
where the offence was committeed in the City of London, and Middlesex
cases, where it was elsewhere in the county. The transcript should
make it clear which yours were; each jury heard only one or other type
of case. The defendants would almost certainly have been resident
locally. Of course, it doesn't follow that they *originated* there -
the rapid increase in London's population, at a time when the death
rate far exceeded the birth rate, was only made possible by continuous
immigration, most of which came from the neighbouring counties,
although some was from all parts of the British Isles, including
Ireland - Dockerty looks like an Irish name, and Rudd might well be.

The jurisdiction of the Old Bailey was extended in 1834 to include
Middlesex and parts of adjoining counties for which it became the
Central Criminal Court. The Court's jurisdiction now extends to all of
England and Wales.

John Hill

2008-05-20 09:59:08 UTC

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Don Aitken
Among the rants, I don't think anyone has pointed out that the Old
Bailey was a *local* court.

Only until 1834, the OP hasn't given the date relevant to the case and
transportation continued until 1868 in theory or 1857 in practice.

I don't know if this remark applied only to the Old bailey, but a member
of my family was transported to Swan River (Fremantle) on 17 April 1866
on the Belgravia.

--
Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Charles Ellson

2008-05-20 20:20:15 UTC

Post by John Hill

Post by Charles Ellson

Post by Don Aitken
Among the rants, I don't think anyone has pointed out that the Old
Bailey was a *local* court.

Only until 1834, the OP hasn't given the date relevant to the case and
transportation continued until 1868 in theory or 1857 in practice.

I don't know if this remark applied only to the Old bailey, but a member
of my family was transported to Swan River (Fremantle) on 17 April 1866
on the Belgravia.

Although I haven't found a specific reference for the last person
transported, the 1857 reference for "not used after" is beginning to
look suspiciously like someone might have confused the last use of
prison hulks (isn't there one in use now in Dorset?) with the boats
used for transportation.

Jeff

2008-05-19 22:48:22 UTC

Post by Don Aitken
Among the rants, I don't think anyone has pointed out that the Old
Bailey was a *local* court. It heard two kinds of cases: city cases,
where the offence was committeed in the City of London, and Middlesex
cases, where it was elsewhere in the county. The transcript should
make it clear which yours were; each jury heard only one or other type
of case.

Quite correct. This was heard by a London Jury.

Vivien Rice

2008-05-19 23:25:32 UTC

Post by rex
I have traced tow of my wife's ancestors (GGGfather abd GGGmother) back as
far as their trials at the Old Bailey, and I have read the transcrips. I
appear to hsve resched a dead end. I can find no clues as to where the
came from to reach London nor of who their ancestors migh have been. >Can anyone suggest what my next step might be or must I draw a line there?

Rex, you don't mention whether you have you actually seen the convict
records from whichever colony received them (probably Tasmania or New
South Wales).

These normally show "Native place" - often a village/town as well as
county. In some time periods they also record close relatives - names
of parents, siblings etc.

Also, have you seen their death certificates?
Information on place of birth and name of parents may appear on the
death certificate - but it does vary according to where/when they died
in Australia (and, of course, how knowledgeable the Informant was).

Vivien
Hobart, Tasmania

Richard van Schaik

2008-05-19 23:47:11 UTC