Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Malcolm Hicking may have lost the US dollar abbreviation that I
sent when I got the wrong line lengths of my messages, sorry.
>the price of Pedigree is still £60 GBP (Great British Pounds!) or $99
On another thread about uses for old CD-ROMs; I recommend that
you save pounds by cycling, and recycling your old discs.
Place them between the spokes at the point at which they cross,
weaving them between at least three or four spokes.
Alternate the sides of two or more so that they act as reflectors
to make you more visible at night from the side. They are not as
reflective in all directions as commercial reflectors, so use them too.
Happy New Year
>If the $ is, I don't understand why £ cannot be an international standard
>symbol. It has been about a lot longer than the dollar....!
Whilst I agree in principle, we just have to accept this as a fact of life !!
For 'International' read American. America sets the standard and we all
However, just imagine what we would get with Brussells setting the standard
!! Do you really think that the £ -Pound- would get a look in then?
The ASCII - here we go again - American Standard Code for Information
Interchange system has been around for well over 30 years and is based on
7 bits [as Barney has already explained]. It is really well out of date.
In order to put the £ - Pound - symbol in there, another punctuation
character would have to go and that would cause problems to those that use
the character, though there is one possible candidate, the apostrophe ,
which is rarely used.
Even with the eight-bit version - i.e. extended to 256 characters, there
are many versions to cover local requirements, though most of these do
allow the pound sign as code 156. Though why the ISO version used on the
Internet is different [pound =163] is a very good question.
To complicate matters further the hash sign # is also known in America as
the Pound sign and some of the early UK keyboards, printers and screens
substituted the pound-sterling £ for this.
No !! we just have to accept that the £ Pound along with the various
accented letters used in other parts of Europe and South America have to be
in the upper half of the character set, and hope that more Internet nodes
will pass through 8-bit codes unchanged.
Geoffrey T. Stone,
SoG Mailing List Administrator. lists(a)sog.org.uk
Malcolm Hickling < malcolm(a)hickling.swinternet.co.uk > wrote :
> I am sorry, Keith, but the similarity between =A3 and =A3
> completely evades me...:-)
I assume that one of the above is a pound symbol :-)
A3 (hex) / 163 (decimal) is the character code for the Pound Symbol in the
ISO-8859-1 character set (which is the character set that you used to send
your message). In Code Page 850, a character set commonly used by MS-Dos
(and indirectly by MS Windows), the Pound Symbol is 9C (hex) / 156
(decimal). To enter a pound symbol on a MS-Dos / MS Windows machine you can
use <ALT 156>. The operating system will translate this into a pound symbol
in whatever character set it is using. If your e-mail software system is
using the ISO Latin 1 (ISO-8859-1) character set it will send the pound
symbol as character A3 (hex) / 163 (decimal). If the receiving e-mail
system doesn't understand ISO Latin 1 it can either display whatever
character has that value (lowercase u with acute accent in Code Page 850) or
just the numeric value as in =A3.
> If the $ is, I don't understand why =A3 cannot be an
> international standard symbol. It has been about a lot
> longer than the dollar....!
American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) was defined by
the Americans for the Americans. They don't normally need to use the pound
symbol so they didn't put one in. Anyway we, in the UK, will be all using
the Euro soon, so we won't need a pound symbol :-)
Thank yoiu Barney for your erudite explanation as to why the email version
of £ should be GBP.
But I still don't appreciate why $ = 36, and £ = zilch...!
I had always thought that the £ sign was more of an international symbol
than the $.
It has certainly been around a lot longer.....!
I suppose I shouldn't complain. A penny is still d.(from the latin
denarius). The penny is so named after the Mercian king Penda who
And - you've guessed it - Penda (AD 582 - 654) was an Icling with whom my
family claim kinship.
I am sorry, Keith, but the similarity between £ and =A3 completely evades
If the $ is, I don't understand why £ cannot be an international standard
symbol. It has been about a lot longer than the dollar....!
As a confirmed Brit, living overseas, it is a fact of life that the pound
sign is missing from most keyboards. I'm lucky if I can get one with dollars
on it, usually they are filled with squiggles and unpronounceable accents.
If I'm super lucky, then the computer I'm using will recognise some kind of
spelling known to us too, though too often it is the American way.
The pound sign was not included in the characters assigned to the
standardized ASCII list (there just weren't enough characters in a 7-bit
code to cover all the possibilities). The pound sign generated by
<Alt><numbers> (e.g. 44444) is an 8-bit code thus is not guaranteed to pass
unaltered through all the nodes of the www today. It does sometimes get
through the web unchanged, but that is not guaranteed.
Until the www is 100% composed of 8-bit nodes, it is safer to use GBP or
UKL, which are generally understood by all to be British Pounds.
Of course that still leaves the conversion factor out, when thinking of
dollars (GBP ~= $1.6). At least with the Euro at almost par with the $, it
makes for easy conversion there <VBG>.
Happy Hunting, and a Wonderful 2000
Malcolm Hickling wrote:This business of not recognising UK Pounds (£) is
<Barney is reflecting a fact of life on the Internet, for which we must
if we are to be understood by all users. I (and many users) use GBP,
the ISO (International Standards Organisation) abbreviation for monetary
when sending messages containing sterling currency values.
e.g. the price of Pedigree is still £60 GBP (Great British Pounds!) or $99
By using both the symbol and the international abbreviation, all users
should be able to understand this, in the context in which it is used.
Even the USA's Compuserve system shows the £ symbol correctly,
on most routes through the Internet that I have been using.
My Shorter OED says: Inholder - a tenant (late 16th - late 17th centuries).
From: Robert Harney <robertharney(a)freeuk.com>
> Would appreciate some assistance in deciphering an occupation reference,
mid to late eighteenth century. The handwriting could be
> either Tnholder
> or Inholder.
> Robert Harney
Malcolm Hickling < malcolm(a)hickling.swinternet.co.uk >
> This business of not recognising UK Pounds (=A3) is getting
> rather pedantic,
> isn't it.
> Surely it cannot be confused with dollars ($).
> What happens about pounds-weight (lb)?
> It is about time the US grew up and acknowledged the fact
> that the UK Pound
> (=A3) is still a fact of life.
> To ignore it is just plain rude, in my opinion.
No one ignores the Pound symbol, but they might not understand what =A3
(equals, capital A, three) means. =A3 might mean the pound symbol, but it
might mean a lowercase u with an acute accent (represented in ASCII as u').
It is best not to use the Pound Symbol in EMail, use GBP which is the
international standard abbreviation for British Pounds. As there is no
standard character for the pound sign, the character shown can be different
depending on the type of machine, the e-mail software and the way it is
configured. The same is true of all other non ASCII characters.
BTW the international standard abbreviation for the Euro is EEU.
Keith Elmo ELDRIDGE
--'Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children'
In message <000c01bf50bb$7715ff60$64025cc3@malcolmh>, Malcolm Hickling
>This business of not recognising UK Pounds (£) is getting rather pedantic,
>Surely it cannot be confused with dollars ($).
>What happens about pounds-weight (lb)?
>It is about time the US grew up and acknowledged the fact that the UK Pound
>(£) is still a fact of life.
>To ignore it is just plain rude, in my opinion.
Pedantic possibly, precise certainly and helpful definitely, I hope.
Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to get across. It had
nothing to do with the US ignoring the pound sterling symbol and
everything to do with clarity in communications, which is something I
think is worth aiming for.
Apologies to all who find this too basic, but here's why the pound
sterling symbol (Shift + 3 on most UK keyboards) should not be used in
news groups and mailing lists.
The standard character set for use in mailing lists and news groups is
the 7 bit ASCII one with numeric codes from 0 to 127. These characters
(A = 65, B = 66, a = 97, 2 = 50, $ = 36 etc.) are guaranteed to be
transmitted unaltered through all the relay stations (transports) that
all email, news groups and mailing list messages pass through on the
Internet. No matter how your computer is set up, it will always generate
these 0 - 127 value codes in response to a key press of the appropriate
letter on the keyboard. Thus if you write a message using the standard
26 letters of the English alphabet, the numbers 0 to 9, and basic
punctuation, you can be certain that everyone will read what you write,
regardless of where they are in the world and what path your message has
taken to get to them.
The characters from 128 to 255 will vary depending on what code page the
sender's computer is set up to transmit. For those of us using a
standard English setup the pound sterling symbol will be code 156 when
typed in most email software. When one of the Internet transports meets
a code greater than 127, the action it takes will vary according to the
software it uses - something you have no control over. It may leave it
unaltered, but it more likely will change it to a value of 0 or 255.
There is no standard behaviour. The point being that the character you
send will not necessarily be received. This is nothing to do with US
juvenility, it's just a fact of life.
So, if you insist on using the pound sterling symbol, be aware that many
people in the world will not receive it or cannot display it correctly.
If you are concerned that the context in which you write the word
'pounds' could be confused with the weight meaning, then use the
standard financial abbreviation that is GBP.
Drake Software web site: http://www.tdrake.demon.co.uk
In one of the recent messages about the 1901 census there was brief
discussion of the role of an inmate of Broadmoor who was one of the
volunteer readers who helped Dr James Murray in writing the Oxford
I am writing this immediately after hearing a reading on Radio 4 from the
book "The Surgeon of Crowthorne" by Simon Winchester, which descibed the e
relationship between Dr James Murray and Dr W C Minor, inmate of Broadmoor
including visits Murray made to Minor's cell.
Of course the timescale for writing the Oxford Dictionary was rather longer
than is proposed for the indexing of the 1901 census.
If you want to know more about your Hertfordshire ancestors visit
"Genealogy in Hertfordshire" at http://www.hertsweb.org.uk/genealogy where
many of the enquiries are quickly answered.
>I'm expecting to turn up at the PRO, Kew on 2nd January 2002 and have the
>returns (on microfilm or paper copy) be available for my inspection.
Since the PRO says it will be made available at Kew, I am sure it will be
8-)). However, I wouldn't bet on your chances of being able to get to look
at it, simply because Kew can't cope with its microform needs now, let alone
in a year's time.
I visited with my local FHS a couple of months ago and it was near
impossible to get onto a fiche or film reader, what with War Medal Rolls
etc. And with even more WW1 service records being released (unfortunately I
will have to wait ages for my Hayward record, if it still exists), things
will get ridiculous. They were continually appealing throughout the day for
people to release machines. Admittedly, this was a late night Thursday which
is often busy but the situation was the same from 10am until quarter of an
hour before closing when we left.
What I resent most about this is the way the PRO left their "consultation"
process so late, they had more or less agreed the contract before they told
us any concrete details on which we could base any protests.
Sounds like the government has a model they base their consultation system
on, my local council has twice done much the same thing but on one occasion
has been forced to backtrack due to public opinion. Unfortunately, I suspect
too much money may be involved here, just like the police an London
Ambulance computer systems before them.
Here's a paranoid conspiracy theory for the millenium, perhaps they are
hoping the millenium bug does cause chaos, so we are busy worrying about
Happy New Year
Peter Cox wrote:
> I'm expecting to turn up at the PRO, Kew on 2nd January 2002 and have the
> returns (on microfilm or paper copy) be available for my inspection.
I'm expecting to attempt to log on to the designated website,
www.1901census.co.uk or whatever, only to find that it has crashed
because so many people are trying to access it at once :(
Susan Deacon Wokingham, Berks, UK
BOUNDS - HEF DANIEL/HARRIES - CMN
LLOYD - RAD SHUARD - WOR
This business of not recognising UK Pounds (£) is getting rather pedantic,
Surely it cannot be confused with dollars ($).
What happens about pounds-weight (lb)?
It is about time the US grew up and acknowledged the fact that the UK Pound
(£) is still a fact of life.
To ignore it is just plain rude, in my opinion.
Sue Turner wrote:
>The Archives at Castle Howard might have something about Howard
>Staunton. The Earls of Carlisle owned Castle Howard at that time and
>they have a large index. Also the Earls of Carlisle had property in the
>North (Cumberland or Northumberland, I cannot remember which), which I
>think is still the seat of the Earls. I think Castle Howard is no longer
>owned by the Earl, but still in the Howard family - a former Director of
Thank you, a good idea.
>Also when you get around to looking at Frederick's will I would be
>interested if there is any mention of the surname 'Havenhand'. In the
>notes of a researcher who has since died (before I could ask him) there
>is the following written on the page for Sarah Havenhand:
>'c April 10th 1785
>daughter of Thos and Elizabeth (no surname)
>witness at Eckington Edward Binney and Mary Turner
>by Banns 25 October 1813
>NB Frederick Howard 8th Earl of Carlisle B1748 D1825'
>(It should read 5th Earl not 8th Earl)
When I look at the will of Frederick Howard, I will check whether there is
reference to the surname "Havenhand".
>I wonder if there were many claims to be illegitimate sons of Frederick
I don't know, but judging from his D.N.B. entry, it sounds quite possible!
Over Christmas, I read about Howard Staunton the following: "He carried
himself in a pompous manner, displayed armorial bearings wherever he could
(including on his sealing wax) ...". It would be revealing to know which
armorial bearings they were.
John Townsend (Wokingham)
Surely, as people tend to have more information about their more
recent ancestors than the more distant ones, and also the quality
of the census returns which were microfilmed tends to be worse
the further back you go, then it is absolutely ridiculous to take away
microfilm readers which are needed for searching the older census
returns and replace them with terminals for searching the 1901
West Sussex, England.
researching: Young (Hoxton), Groves (Ireland, Shoreditch), Marchant (St
Pancras, Hackney, Bethnal Green)
Betson (Surrey, Middlesex, Suffolk), Ramsden (Kent), Reeves (Middlesex,
Kent), Gage (Kent, Devon), Houseman (Yorkshire, Blackfriars, Bethnal Green).
In message <0.8d447436.2595650f(a)aol.com>, Piggleston(a)aol.com writes
>We all keep talking about the proposed charges of 50p or 80p , completely
>overlooking the proposed MINIMUM charge of £4 or is it £5?
I understand your concern but think there may be a misunderstanding
here. As a starter, I assume you mean 4 or 5 pounds? If you use the
pound sterling symbol (usually shift+3 on a UK keyboard), it may appear
correctly on your screen, but many Internet transports (the servers your
message passes through to get to the Rootsweb server and then out from
there) will not accept a non-ASCII character such as this, and display a
blank square instead. That's what I see. It's better to write pounds in
But I digress... There are no reliable systems on the Internet today for
payment of small sums of money. Where charges are made they are done
through credit cards where it makes sense to have a minimum charge of
the size you describe as a lot of 50p transactions would be expensive to
do, and we all know who pays for it in the long run. The idea of these
minimum charges is similar to Button B on a telephone box. If at the end
of say a 1.30 pound transaction you want to wait and think, then you've
still got 3.70 in the bank that can be used on a later enquiry. With the
FRC terminals that will have to be in the same session at the FRC, but
with the use of an Internet connection it can be at any time in the
future through the use of 'cookies'. A cookie is a short text message
that the server stores in a cookie directory on your PC's hard disk. It
basically identifies you and the amount of credit you have left the next
time you log on. A cookie is necessary since transactions between a
browser and a server are stateless in the http protocol - in other
words, as soon as the server sends you information, it doesn't know who
you are if you reconnect to it later.
The PRO have indicated that they will use a system with cookies like
this, similar to the one that OMS use for the Scots Origins system for
index searches in the Scottish OPRs, where you get up to 30 index
searches for a 6 pound fee.
>I think it incredibly sad that there will be 50 fewer terminals on which to
>conduct all the research that people need to do on the existing records. Is
>the 1901 census to be the Trojan Horse that forces us all eventually to pay
>ridiculous prices for information? I am beginning to think that this could
>be the thin edge of the wedge we are about to witness.
I share your concern but would also argue that it needn't be. The
example shown by the registration authorities in British Columbia could
also become a precedent (free access) if Tony Blair and his colleagues
wake up and realise that rip-off Britain starts at home. Personally I
have no problem paying a fee that reflects the cost of setting up such a
service provided that the index on which that fee is based is of the
highest possible quality and the mechanism for searching does not
involve one in open-ended expenditure with no result guaranteed. These
are two issues I have now twice put to the PRO, only to receive rather
bland answers that ape reassurance. I have asked them to reveal the
*details* of their proposed system. They have so far declined to do so.
I hope that's not because no one knows... Happy New Year!
Drake Software web site: http://www.tdrake.demon.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Ainsley <hugh(a)hugh.alcom.co.uk>
Sent: 23 December 1999 20:22
Subject: Re: [SOG] 1901 census
> Roy commented:
> > I DON'T believe anyone has yet mentioned this, but may I put in a
> > word on behalf of one-namers (of which there are a fair number on
> > this list)? Whilst most people will need only to look for a
> > relatively few households, one-namers will want to download ALL
> > references to a surname. How much is this going to cost us???
> And thats for comparatively *simple* one name studies like yours Roy!
> I've got over 240 different spelling vaiations on AINSLEY to worry
> about. The whole 1901 thing is a typical civil servant cockup - I
> curse them all with the curse of multiple illegitimacies, sunken
> nameless emigrant ships, burned registers and lazy illiterate census
One must also think about the needs of the historian, who may be
investigating subjects like population movements, the development (or
collapse) of specific industries, etc. Will there be appropriate search
tools? Will there be exemptions for Ph.D. students carrying out research or
will they have to pay the full costs?
WIll schools be able to use the census for history projects - such as
allowing children to look at the records for the area round their school and
compare what is there now with what was there 100 years ago? If so how will
this be funded? Or is making money from genealogists more important than
educating our children into an understanding of history?
It is not only the genealogists who need to be worried.
[ if you change your ISP please let me know or else send from the address
to which your List messages are sent - Geoff]