Bigamist Marriages - Records of

[s***@gmail.com]

Hi mervyn,
My grandfather was Dennis joberns- I have a copy of one of his marriage certificates .

[s***@ford-farm.com]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi mervyn,
My grandfather was Dennis joberns- I have a copy of one of his marriage certificates .

Hello Sarah,
I came across this site by chance. I have recently been asked to find out what I can about Dennis Joberns by a friend of someone who is his son, Michael. He knows nothing about his father, apart from the bigamy and the criminal record. I have discovered quite a lot of information already, some of which could come as a shock to Michael, especially the fact that he has living relatives, so I will have to go slowly and carefully. Would you be interested in making contact with him when I have eventually told him what I have found? I have sent for certificates for both marriages so it will be interesting to see whether I receive them both.
Shirley Thornton

[john]

Post by s***@ford-farm.com

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi mervyn,
My grandfather was Dennis joberns- I have a copy of one of his marriage certificates .

Hello Sarah,
I came across this site by chance. I have recently been asked to find out what I can about Dennis Joberns by a friend of someone who is his son, Michael. He knows nothing about his father, apart from the bigamy and the criminal record. I have discovered quite a lot of information already, some of which could come as a shock to Michael, especially the fact that he has living relatives, so I will have to go slowly and carefully. Would you be interested in making contact with him when I have eventually told him what I have found? I have sent for certificates for both marriages so it will be interesting to see whether I receive them both.
Shirley Thornton

Sarah was replying to a newsgroup message query which was originally
posted in December 1998

There are many gmail users who reply to messages on the soc.genealogy.
britain seemingly assuming they are replying to an individual by e-mail
rather than posting a message on public newsgroup.

It is unlikely Sarah will ever see your message.

I would suggest you use the option to Reply privately to author (the
drop-down arrow on the RHS) on Google Groups
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.britain/Wl-ZNBQfFYA
and try to contact Sarah directly.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 5 May 2018 14:56:56 +0200, john

Post by john

Post by s***@ford-farm.com

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi mervyn,
My grandfather was Dennis joberns- I have a copy of one of his marriage certificates .

Hello Sarah,
I came across this site by chance. I have recently been asked to find out what I can about Dennis Joberns by a friend of someone who is his son, Michael. He knows nothing about his father, apart from the bigamy and the criminal record. I have discovered quite a lot of information already, some of which could come as a shock to Michael, especially the fact that he has living relatives, so I will have to go slowly and carefully. Would you be interested in making contact with him when I have eventually told him what I have found? I have sent for certificates for both marriages so it will be interesting to see whether I receive them both.
Shirley Thornton

Sarah was replying to a newsgroup message query which was originally
posted in December 1998
There are many gmail users who reply to messages on the soc.genealogy.
britain seemingly assuming they are replying to an individual by e-mail
rather than posting a message on public newsgroup.
It is unlikely Sarah will ever see your message.

Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

[Evertjan.]

Post by Steve Hayes
Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

You do not need gmail to go to

<https://groups.google.com/>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Evertjan.

Post by Steve Hayes
Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

If you spoof the browser ID string, it may still _work_, regardless of
them saying that; worth a try, I'd say. (I often get a similar message
from YouTube [which Google own], but I ignore it and a lot of YouTube
still works. [I don't spoof.])

Post by Evertjan.
You do not need gmail to go to
<https://groups.google.com/>

True, and relevant in this case, though what Steve said was he doesn't
have access to gmail.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 5 May 2018 14:56:56 +0200, john

Post by john

Post by s***@ford-farm.com

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi mervyn,
My grandfather was Dennis joberns- I have a copy of one of his marriage certificates .

Hello Sarah,
I came across this site by chance. I have recently been asked to
find out what I can about Dennis Joberns by a friend of someone who
is his son, Michael. He knows nothing about his father, apart from
the bigamy and the criminal record. I have discovered quite a lot of
information already, some of which could come as a shock to Michael,
especially the fact that he has living relatives, so I will have to
go slowly and carefully. Would you be interested in making contact
with him when I have eventually told him what I have found? I have
sent for certificates for both marriages so it will be interesting to
see whether I receive them both.
Shirley Thornton

Sarah was replying to a newsgroup message query which was originally
posted in December 1998
There are many gmail users who reply to messages on the soc.genealogy.
britain seemingly assuming they are replying to an individual by e-mail
rather than posting a message on public newsgroup.
It is unlikely Sarah will ever see your message.

Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

It's not the time-since-posting, it's the fact that it is a gmail
poster, who thinks she was sending a private reply, and thus may not be
_looking_ here for any followup (or even know what "here" is).

And yes. I know this does not apply to all gmail users.

[john]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 5 May 2018 14:56:56 +0200, john

Post by john

Post by s***@ford-farm.com

Post by s***@gmail.com
Hi mervyn,
My grandfather was Dennis joberns- I have a copy of one of his marriage certificates .

Hello Sarah,
I came across this site by chance. I have recently been asked to find out what I can about Dennis Joberns by a friend of someone who is his son, Michael. He knows nothing about his father, apart from the bigamy and the criminal record. I have discovered quite a lot of information already, some of which could come as a shock to Michael, especially the fact that he has living relatives, so I will have to go slowly and carefully. Would you be interested in making contact with him when I have eventually told him what I have found? I have sent for certificates for both marriages so it will be interesting to see whether I receive them both.
Shirley Thornton

Sarah was replying to a newsgroup message query which was originally
posted in December 1998
There are many gmail users who reply to messages on the soc.genealogy.
britain seemingly assuming they are replying to an individual by e-mail
rather than posting a message on public newsgroup.
It is unlikely Sarah will ever see your message.

Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

The message about your browser not being supported is only a warning. I
don't know what browser and version it is, but Gmail should still work.
However you will find more and more web sites issuing similar warnings.
Time to update.

But it looks as though you don't mind using old software. You still seem
to be using Forte Free Agent 2.0. The last free version, v3.3, was
released in 2006.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 6 May 2018 10:18:06 +0200, john

Post by john

Post by Steve Hayes
Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

The message about your browser not being supported is only a warning. I
don't know what browser and version it is, but Gmail should still work.
However you will find more and more web sites issuing similar warnings.
Time to update.

Yes, it appears to have been only a temporary glitch, which happened
to coincide with their warning message, and when I tried again next
day I was able to open my mail and delete my spam again. It's not my
main address, so there's not much there that's important.

Post by john
But it looks as though you don't mind using old software. You still seem
to be using Forte Free Agent 2.0. The last free version, v3.3, was
released in 2006.

I reverted to an earlier version of Firefox when it became so bloated
that I was having to wait several minutes after clicking on something
while it swapped to disk.

They keep promising me a "better experience" if I upgrade, but waiting
ages for something to open is not my idea of a "better experience". Of
course if I were rich, as website developers assume everyone to be, I
could just buy a new computer every 6 months, to have the bigger
membory and more powerful processor needed to cope with software
bloat. and, of course, that's what keeps them in business.

There's nothing that newer versions of Agent do that my present
version doesn't do just as well, at least nothing that I need. And
when they changed the F key for Follow-Up to R for reply, thus
introducing an extra step into the process, I reverted to an older
version.

Sometimes new software does things better, and sometimes it doesn't.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Steve Hayes
[ … ]
They keep promising me a "better experience" if I upgrade, but waiting
ages for something to open is not my idea of a "better experience". Of
course if I were rich, as website developers assume everyone to be, I
could just buy a new computer every 6 months, to have the bigger
membory and more powerful processor needed to cope with software
bloat. and, of course, that's what keeps them in business.

I agree completely. 30 years ago on my MacPlus I did my word processing
with a program called WriteNow. It was much faster than any of the
better known rivals -- Word, WordPerfect etc. -- and could open and
save files virtually instantaneously, and was small enough to fit on a
floppy leaving space some documents, so I could use it on other
people's computers. Despite the fact that my present computers are
vastly more powerful I know of no current high-end word processors in
the same class. I _hate_ upgrading, and only do it when I'm forced.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 7 May 2018 19:36:26 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Steve Hayes
[ … ]
They keep promising me a "better experience" if I upgrade, but waiting
ages for something to open is not my idea of a "better experience". Of
course if I were rich, as website developers assume everyone to be, I
could just buy a new computer every 6 months, to have the bigger
membory and more powerful processor needed to cope with software
bloat. and, of course, that's what keeps them in business.

I agree completely. 30 years ago on my MacPlus I did my word processing
with a program called WriteNow. It was much faster than any of the
better known rivals -- Word, WordPerfect etc. -- and could open and
save files virtually instantaneously, and was small enough to fit on a
floppy leaving space some documents, so I could use it on other
people's computers. Despite the fact that my present computers are
vastly more powerful I know of no current high-end word processors in
the same class. I _hate_ upgrading, and only do it when I'm forced.

Yes, I still use the XyWrite word processor, which I've been using for
over 30 years. It lacks the bells and whistles of the latest
bloatware, but still has more pistons and cylinders and actually
processes words better and faster. It was slowed down somewhat by the
introduction of keyboards with function keys along the top instead of
on the left where God intended them to be, but still ran faster on an
old 8088 8Mhz CPU than the bloatware does on the latest multi-gigaherz
ones.

And it too fitted easily on a 360K floppy disk.

This is drifting more towards the topic of soc.genealogy.computing, so
I'll copy it there.

Speaking of which, I also still use a genealogy program of about the
same vintage -- about 1987, though I did update to the 1993 version --
Family History System. I still use it, because it does some things
that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
System by Philip Brown.

Most of the "updates" promise a better "user experience", but it often
goes along with reduced functionality, which, for me at any rate,
makes for a bad experience.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 08 May 2018 04:18:32 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
Most of the "updates" promise a better "user experience", but it often
goes along with reduced functionality, which, for me at any rate,
makes for a bad experience.

For many of us there is a "point of no return". I think we reach that
point much quicker when my age (90).

Our kids, grands and great grands have a cell phone in their hands
24/7/365 (seems like); I make and receive a few calls each week on
mine.

Our sons have at least one computer, and iPad and a cell phone - all
open. I use one at a time and some not for a day or two. They charge
the phone every night - mine is usually dead for a day or two before I
charge. It's not dementia - I just don't care.

I wonder if Siri, or Cortana would kiss where the sun don't shine.

But that door bell that lets you look at the cell phone to see who is
there might be worthwhile.

I don't know any Joneses to keep up with.

Hugh

[Sally Thompson]

J. Hugh Sullivan <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>

Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
But that door bell that lets you look at the cell phone to see who is
there might be worthwhile.

We have one, and it is! You can say you can’t get to the door right now and
be hundreds of miles away.

[MB]

Post by Sally Thompson
We have one, and it is! You can say you can’t get to the door right now and
be hundreds of miles away.

I wonder if burglars will realise that a slight delay and mobile phone
'quality' means the house is empty?

[Sally Thompson]

Post by MB

Post by Sally Thompson
We have one, and it is! You can say you can’t get to the door right now and
be hundreds of miles away.

I wonder if burglars will realise that a slight delay and mobile phone
'quality' means the house is empty?

Why should they? You might be upstairs, and in any case they will already
be on camera.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by MB

Post by Sally Thompson
We have one, and it is! You can say you can’t get to the door right now and
be hundreds of miles away.

I wonder if burglars will realise that a slight delay and mobile phone
'quality' means the house is empty?

Why should they? You might be upstairs, and in any case they will already
be on camera.

Unless you're recording remotely, they'll nick the camera too (-:

[Sally Thompson]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by MB

Post by Sally Thompson
We have one, and it is! You can say you can’t get to the door right now and
be hundreds of miles away.

I wonder if burglars will realise that a slight delay and mobile phone
'quality' means the house is empty?

Why should they? You might be upstairs, and in any case they will already
be on camera.

I am, in the cloud, and the camera/bell is supposedly thief proof:-)

[john]

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by Sally Thompson

Post by MB

Post by Sally Thompson
We have one, and it is! You can say you can’t get to the door right now and
be hundreds of miles away.

I wonder if burglars will realise that a slight delay and mobile phone
'quality' means the house is empty?

Why should they? You might be upstairs, and in any case they will already
be on camera.

I am, in the cloud, and the camera/bell is supposedly thief proof:-)

I don't know whether anyone has noticed, but this thread was originally
entitled "Bigamist Marriages - Records of" dating from December 1998.

Earlier this year a Gmail user posted a reply. And then Steve Hayes
commented " I no longer have access to gmail, as Google tells me my
browser is no longer supported". As an aside, I replied suggesting he
ought to update his software. Steve Hayes then changed the thread title
to Old Software and added soc.genealogy.computing .....

This thread has nothing to do with soc.genealogy.britain (and the
replies are no longer also being sent to soc.genealogy.computing).

[Chris Dickinson]

On Friday, 25 May 2018 09:47:51 UTC+1, john wrote:
<snip>

Post by john
I don't know whether anyone has noticed, but this thread was originally
entitled "Bigamist Marriages - Records of" dating from December 1998.
Earlier this year a Gmail user posted a reply. And then Steve Hayes
commented " I no longer have access to gmail, as Google tells me my
browser is no longer supported". As an aside, I replied suggesting he
ought to update his software. Steve Hayes then changed the thread title
to Old Software and added soc.genealogy.computing .....
This thread has nothing to do with soc.genealogy.britain (and the
replies are no longer also being sent to soc.genealogy.computing).

That's the joy of usenet.

Chris

[r***@yahoo.co.uk]

Earlier this year a Gmail user posted a reply. And then Steve Hayes commented
I no longer have access to gmail, as Google tells me my browser is no longer
supported".

Good reason to DUMP gmail, (the poeople who bring this list 500 spams+ a day.
and wont so anything about it)

[Richard van Schaik]

Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk

Earlier this year a Gmail user posted a reply. And then Steve Hayes commented
I no longer have access to gmail, as Google tells me my browser is no longer
supported".

Good reason to DUMP gmail, (the poeople who bring this list 500 spams+ a day.
and wont so anything about it)

TY

[Tickettyboo]

Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk

Earlier this year a Gmail user posted a reply. And then Steve Hayes commented
I no longer have access to gmail, as Google tells me my browser is no longer
supported".

Good reason to DUMP gmail, (the poeople who bring this list 500 spams+ a day.
and wont so anything about it)

dump gmail and they'll use something else. Using google groups is not
dependent on using gmail.
Any unmoderated public forum, on nntp or otherwise is open to misuse.
For some of us, who use a responsible news server (such as NIN) the
spam is kept to a minimum.
Its not down to gmail, but people who abuse the system and have no
respect for others. If I could think of a way to combat that I'd
support it.

[MB]

Post by Sally Thompson
Why should they? You might be upstairs, and in any case they will already
be on camera.

There is a big difference between someone upstairs answering the door
remotely and someone abroad answering it.

[Keith Nuttle]

Post by Steve Hayes
ystem. I still use it, because it does some things
that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
System by Philip Brown.

My problem is the fact that with an upgrade things are lost. Example
being the Family Tree maker upgrade. When the latest release to 2017
Family Tree Maker a the internet functionality of the old version was
destroyed, and they added nothing useful.

While I waited for the release, I do not use it as I don't know what
will be removed when they upgrade the 2017 version. I don't want to
become dependent on something that will be removed in a future release

[MB]

Post by Steve Hayes
ystem. I still use it, because it does some things
that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
System by Philip Brown.

My problem is the fact that with an upgrade things are lost.   Example
being the Family Tree maker upgrade. When the latest release to 2017
Family Tree Maker a the internet functionality of the old version was
destroyed, and they added nothing useful.
While I waited for the release, I do not use it as I don't know what
will be removed when they upgrade the 2017 version.  I don't want to
become dependent on something that will be removed in a future release

The major software companies seem to want to make everyone to switch to
subscription based services rather than buying the software. You have
to hunt around the Microsoft website to find how to actually buy the
software.

I don't upgrade Acrobat often but I saw a message that seems to suggest
that is now just a subscription based product.

[Keith Nuttle]

Post by MB
I don't upgrade Acrobat often but I saw a message that seems to suggest
that is now just a subscription based product.

It depends on what you mean when you say Acrobat. If you are talking
about the full blown program, I don't know as I don't use it.

However, the Acrobat Reader is still being upgraded and is a free
update. I am currently running 2018.011.20038 on my computers

[MB]

Post by MB
I don't upgrade Acrobat often but I saw a message that seems to
suggest that is now just a subscription based product.

It depends on what you mean when you say Acrobat.  If you are talking
about the full blown program, I don't know as I don't use it.
However, the Acrobat Reader is still being upgraded and is a free
update.  I am currently running 2018.011.20038 on my computers

I mean Acrobat, if I meant Acrobat Reader than I would have written that.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 8 May 2018 07:00:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle

Post by Keith Nuttle

Post by Steve Hayes
ystem. I still use it, because it does some things
that thw latest programs don't. The program is the Family History
System by Philip Brown.

My problem is the fact that with an upgrade things are lost. Example
being the Family Tree maker upgrade. When the latest release to 2017
Family Tree Maker a the internet functionality of the old version was
destroyed, and they added nothing useful.
While I waited for the release, I do not use it as I don't know what
will be removed when they upgrade the 2017 version. I don't want to
become dependent on something that will be removed in a future release

Your problem is easy to diagnose. The cure is to switch to Legacy or
RootsMagic.

Hugh

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 8 May 2018 07:00:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle

Post by Keith Nuttle
While I waited for the release, I do not use it as I don't know what
will be removed when they upgrade the 2017 version. I don't want to
become dependent on something that will be removed in a future release

Yes. I use an old version of Microsoft Office -- Office 97.

It came with a handly little gizmo that displays desktop icons along
the top or the screen (or side, if you prefer). I became dependent on
it. If I'm working in one program and need to open another, I can open
it with one click, instead of searching for it.

Newer versions don't have that.

[MB]

Post by Steve Hayes
Newer versions don't have that.

The one update that did really annoy me was Microsoft dropping
synchronisation from ACCESS some years ago. It was the most useful part
of ACCESS so no idea why they dropped it.

[MB]

Post by john
The message about your browser not being supported is only a warning. I
don't know what browser and version it is, but Gmail should still work.
However you will find more and more web sites issuing similar warnings.
Time to update.
But it looks as though you don't mind using old software. You still seem
to be using Forte Free Agent 2.0.  The last free version, v3.3, was
released in 2006.

Does it matter if the software still does everything he needs. I am
always suspicious that some of the big companies like Google only change
software every few weeks so they can bombard with newer adverts.

I have a few sites that complain about my browser even though I have
latest versions. Mainly Google and their subsidiaries who want everyone
using Chrome which I do not like and Microsoft who want everyone on Edge
which I also do not like though an increasing number of sites seem to
only work on Edge.

[MB]

Post by Steve Hayes
Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

I have had useful replies to messages I posted many years ago so no harm
in trying, it might not get a response but that can be true of a reply
to a message posted yesterday.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by MB

Post by Steve Hayes
Sarah was replying in 20`7, so, whicxh was less than 2 years ago, so
might weell be still around to read it. I was rewaading this NG in
1998, so if someone replied to something I wrote back then, I might
well be glad to read it, even though I no longer have access to gmail,
as Google tells me my browser is no longer supported.

I have had useful replies to messages I posted many years ago so no harm
in trying, it might not get a response but that can be true of a reply
to a message posted yesterday.

People sometimes complain that the people at Google have messed with
the archive of Deja-Vu, but the purpose of having an archive is so
that people can read and repliy to old messages. If I posted a query
here 20 years ago and someone replied with the answer, I'd be very
grateful.

The problem with Gmail is not replies to old messages, but that the
latest incarnation of Gmail makes reply-quoting difficult, and without
it, one doesn't know what someone is replying to.

[Martin Beavis]

Post by john
I would suggest you use the option to Reply privately to author (the
drop-down arrow on the RHS) on Google Groups
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.britain/Wl-ZNBQfFYA
and try to contact Sarah directly.

Interesting advice but which drop-down arrow? I don't see one that offers "Reply privately to author", at least not using Firefox or IE. What am I missing?