Nice People Thread No. 14, all Nice and Proper

CKhalvashi

silvercar wrote: »

People have possibly been following you since day 1.

If they are commenting on your Facebook posts then they are your Facebook friends and their name should be visible to you. So you need to control your Facebook friends list a bit tighter and set your Facebook settings so that the only people that see your posts are the people you want to see them.
The only other way someone can comment on a Facebook post is if you are posting in a Facebook group - that would be very risky if you are identifiable and posting secret stuff. But again people can't post without their name showing up.

Sighs!

The matter has now been dealt with in a way that I feel is appropriate.

Once again, apologies if it seemed like I was arguing with anyone specific on this thread, however it was info (although not secret) that was posted here.

Doozergirl

I'm due to gove blood for the first time, this afternoon.

I'm not sure I can do it. I'm so bad with needles and I've just read that they do a finger !!!!! test which is scaring me more than the big thing. I can't stand the shock.

I feel sick already and I'm a bit worried as I haven't felt great over the last few days. Bit lightheaded without losing a pint of blood

silvercar

Doozergirl wrote: »

I'm due to gove blood for the first time, this afternoon.

I'm not sure I can do it. I'm so bad with needles and I've just read that they do a finger !!!!! test which is scaring me more than the big thing. I can't stand the shock.

I feel sick already and I'm a bit worried as I haven't felt great over the last few days. Bit lightheaded without losing a pint of blood

The finger test isn't a needle, don't worry.

If you not 100% then you shouldn't really give, unless it is nerves in which case you just need to cross the barrier.

Good on you!

vivatifosi

PasturesNew wrote: »

So, Burke's costs about £500 - and so to see it I'd need to go into a proper library. There's a copy about 8 miles away. Not that bothered/interested in that right now then.

My next task is to think along the lines of "OK, so Joseph's father (also Joseph), who I think is Samuel's brother is in Burke's. I know my Samuel was called "Gent". I know where Joseph's father was born as ThePeerage told me. I need to get close to the original parish registers of that hamlet and go through it to see if I can find Joseph in it .... and then, who else can I see - is Samuel there?"

Not something that can be done today/online/for free ... I'm getting into "this is harder" territory, where you have to invest time/money.

Not that bothered, to that degree, at this point in my life. It's just in the category of "would be nice to know". I can wait until information/opportunity drops into my lap.

If you are able to find him in an older copy of Burkes, there are several out of copyright versions online, these are what I use. You can find via google books or archive.org and probably project Gutenberg.

Alternative, if it is in a slightly earlier volume, I may be able to check that for you myself next time I'm in the big library if you want to send the details over.

vivatifosi

silvercar wrote: »

So PN's relatives are in Burke's.

Posh alert!

I sense we are very close to the point where we find out PN is related to royalty.

kabayiri

CKhalvashi wrote: »

The matter has now been dealt with in a way that I feel is appropriate.

Once again, apologies if it seemed like I was arguing with anyone specific on this thread, however it was info (although not secret) that was posted here.

I confess that I'm like PN. I haven't followed this particular discussion. I was going to request a summary, but I won't now.

I did read the Private Eye piece when it came out. I lacked the knowledge to understand it.

I think I should add one thing. There are reputation management outfits who do monitor forums as we type. Requiring a log in is no real barrier to web bots; crawlers and spiders. It could be the source of the information, but obviously we have no proof.

I'm convinced some people have a commercial interest in harvesting discussion material, but I am not sure it's appropriate to discuss here.

GDB2222

Doozergirl wrote: »

Then the nice people thread is for nice people and nice comments, CK, so don't bring dirty washing or passive aggressive posts in. Check the first post. It's just not cricket.

Can we calm down about this? I agree that it was unwise of CK to post under his real name, but he's done so for years, and he's entitled to remark that something seems to have gone awry. I didn't feel that his original post was pointing the finger at anybody who posts here, so let's not take umbrage, please.

GDB2222

vivatifosi wrote: »

I sense we are very close to the point where we find out PN is related to royalty.

We all are related to royalty, and I can more or less prove it.

As an example, consider Julius Caesar who died around 2000 years ago. At 20 years per generation, that's 100 generations ago. If there were two children per generation, that allows for more than a thousand billion billion billion descendants alive today, ie vastly more than the world's population.

Of course, that assumes that all the descendants are unique, whereas there was overlap. Nevertheless, it seems likely that we all have a little bit of Caesar's blood in our veins.

GDB2222

kabayiri wrote: »

I think I should add one thing. There are reputation management outfits who do monitor forums as we type. Requiring a log in is no real barrier to web bots; crawlers and spiders. It could be the source of the information, but obviously we have no proof.

I'm convinced some people have a commercial interest in harvesting discussion material, but I am not sure it's appropriate to discuss here.

My son works on this sort of thing in the uni vacations. He wrote all of Eurostar's Twitter pieces for a while, for example. A lot of firms have a commercially managed social media presence.

If there's controversy about Eurovision, I can well imagine that somebody is employed to stalk the main protagonists online. I say 'stalk', but it's hardly as sinister as that. They are just reading what their opponents are saying in public forums, such as here, Twitter, and Facebook, and then collating all that information.

GDB2222

PasturesNew wrote: »

Between 1841 and 1911, in one village, by plotting everybody in my family - and their siblings ..... I realised I am related to everybody that lived in that village in those years. There weren't many people you could marry in days gone by. Most people were stuck with their neighbours, or wait for the travelling fair to come round.

Hence, there were an awful lot of village idiots around.

Sorry, that sounds rude. I'm not referring to you and your family, just to the small gene pool available to people in remote locations in those days.