Nice People Thread No. 14, all Nice and Proper

LydiaJ

GDB2222 wrote: »

I have used the trays you have, and they work very well, so possibly a bit of lateral thinking will help. Perhaps the question you ACTUALLY ought to be asking yourself is what are the riser rods made out of? If they are metal, the best tool to shorten them is probably a mini hacksaw. If they are plastic, a bread knife might do the trick. The point is obviously that with shorter rods you can have more trays in the same height.

Have you checked whether your trays will stack without the rods at all?

Thank you everyone for your suggestions so far. I had thought of cutting the rods shorter. However, I decided against that. The trays aren't all of the same brand, and the holes where the rods fit in aren't absolutely perfectly aligned, leading to cracking of the plastic where the rods fit in. This would, I think, get worse if the rods were shorter, and probably snap the trays to the point where the rods didn't stay in at all. And no, they don't attach to each other without rods to connect them.

I think Nikkster's suggestion is the one I'm most likely to go with, but I'm not finalising my decision until I go back to work after the weekend. I need to check
a) the height of the maximum stack of papers I'm likely to want to put in any one tray,
b) the height of the shelf under which I want the whole stack to be able to fit, and
c) whether I can get work to order them for me or I'll have to buy them myself.
I'll let you know.

PasturesNew wrote: »

While things are sitting in files nobody's got a chance of making random discoveries and connections ... just the privileged keepers.

I think viva's right about the issue being the volume of info. Also, where the "keepers" are archives or historical societies or similar, you may have a point, but where the "keepers" are churches, their priorities are different. If somebody at the church decades ago happened to make a list of a lot of burials, they'll have no objection to people having access to the list, but they won't have the time or inclination to go compiling more lists, and they certainly won't want to clutter up their website with such things. Church websites usually carry information about services this Sunday, mother and toddler groups this week, calls for volunteers for the local soup kitchen, and dozens of similar present concerns. History just isn't the focus of what they're there for.

silvercar wrote: »

I'm totally Welsh, though now living in Hertfordshire (often referred to as inner Hertfordshire by nice people, with the rest of the [STRIKE]UK[/STRIKE] world being outer Hertfordshire as so many NP have a connection to Herts we seem to be taking over the world.

Corrected that for you.

Nikkster

michaels wrote: »

Blue Wales?

Doozergirl wrote: »

Welcome to the world, Barbara Windsor!

Pleeeeaaase let it be either of these. Pretty please.

Nikkster

On my way to a wedding in the Big Smoke. To add to the excitement, I'm getting the train home tonight rather than forking out for a hotel. Must try not to miss the last train back.

Generali

Clare Cambridge?

vivatifosi

LydiaJ wrote: »

I think viva's right about the issue being the volume of info. Also, where the "keepers" are archives or historical societies or similar, you may have a point, but where the "keepers" are churches, their priorities are different. If somebody at the church decades ago happened to make a list of a lot of burials, they'll have no objection to people having access to the list, but they won't have the time or inclination to go compiling more lists, and they certainly won't want to clutter up their website with such things. Church websites usually carry information about services this Sunday, mother and toddler groups this week, calls for volunteers for the local soup kitchen, and dozens of similar present concerns. History just isn't the focus of what they're there for.

AIUI with church records, some churches also have an issue with Ancestry. The problem that they have is with it being owned by the Mormons and their retrospective baptism practices, so churches opt out. I'm not aware of issues with Find My Past.

ETA... found it, it's the Catholic Church:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802443.htm

Generali

Nikkster wrote: »

On my way to a wedding in the Big Smoke. To add to the excitement, I'm getting the train home tonight rather than forking out for a hotel. Must try not to miss the last train back.

Ah yes, the vomit comet.

lostinrates

Nikkster wrote: »

Pleeeeaaase let it be either of these. Pretty please.

Best though rather nasty comment so far IMO 'goodness, the baby weighs the same as the mother'

I haven't really noticed but is she still as painfully thin as she had gotten?

Nikkster

I'm a bit early (go me!), so having a cheeky half down the road. Sky news on the screen. ...discussing whether it'll cause difficulties between the siblings seeing as there is a boy and a girl (and other such nonsense). As if this has never happened to anyone before! I feel sorry for news presenters at times like this. Must be so difficult to fill the airtime. I'd get to 'so it's a girl weighing X... err... and that's about it really'.

hjd

Nikkster wrote: »

Pleeeeaaase let it be either of these. Pretty please.

Let's have a Ruth in it for Ruth Rendell, who died today. One soul in, one out.

GDB2222

hjd wrote: »

Let's have a Ruth in it for Ruth Rendell, who died today. One soul in, one out.

She's obviously been murdered, but will we find out who did it?