Author Topic: I 'ate acronyms  (Read 6662 times)

sitush

  • Guest
Re: I 'ate acronyms
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2008, 09:18:15 PM »
Bugger! Didn't spot that even using a magnifier - my copy must be worse than your copy. Thanks anyway, that's one of 'em sorted for sure.

Offline mack

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,232
Re: I 'ate acronyms
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2008, 09:19:04 PM »
this is carl
pte 4830 carl dixon
manchester regt
491847 labour corps
its a bad transcription,they appear to have misread the 8 as a 3,and missed the last number off

mack ;D

Offline mack

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,232
Re: I 'ate acronyms
« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2008, 09:27:02 PM »
Bugger! Didn't spot that even using a magnifier - my copy must be worse than your copy. Thanks anyway, that's one of 'em sorted for sure.
dont worry simon,if theres any more that give you any trouble,just bung em on here mate.

mack

Offline mack

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,232
Re: I 'ate acronyms
« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2008, 09:32:41 PM »
herringfleet
the 51st and 52nd graduated battalions,manchester regt,were based at herringfleet.
mack

Offline mack

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,232
Re: I 'ate acronyms
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2008, 09:51:08 PM »
herringfleet
the 51st and 52nd graduated battalions,manchester regt,were based at herringfleet.
mack
cpl 13560 harry,reginald alty
manchester regt
herringfleet
14 rowsley ave,levenshulme
i can see his old house from my window.
he doesnt appear to have served overseas.

mack

sitush

  • Guest
Re: I 'ate acronyms
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2008, 01:38:19 AM »
 ... because his old house does not have a patio, a Moorish-arched 1970w brick gateway or a foreign flag flying from it?  :P

Mack, I'm seriously worried about this, in part for reasons you will be aware of from other discussions. You seem to be picking up clerical errors on a regular basis. That you pick them up is A Good Thing, and that they occurred is inevitable. Also, allowances can be made to present both the error and the reality. BUT I can't work out how you are resolving many of these issues. It's not that I want you to die tomorrow but if you did then, well, we'd lose the secrets of your methods!

The N.C.L.C. is obvious with hindsight & a decent copy of the original (always a help!, but then a bit of legwork would lead anyone to the original if they saw things through - mea culpa. But you seem to have come up with numbers for Carl which neither I nor Chris managed to get. Where did they come from? What is this logical process which, illogically, I'm missing? I'm not entirely stupid, but you are way ahead of me with this sort of thing.

A big issue for a lot of people is that they do not/are not aware of inconsistencies. In my case, on this occasion, I saw one but couldn't move past first base with it. How are you making this leap? I know that some of it is innate (both in terms of suspicion and in terms of knowing the subject in the round) but I'm certainly not a slouch at research and I'd be astonished if Chris is either. I'm not stupid either ... although I can't possibly comment with regard to others as I've not met them   ;)

NB: saying I'm not stupid might be a sign of arrogance, from which much stupidity derives. Ho hum!