From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Athel Cornish-Bowden   
    writes:   
   >On 2018-09-28 15:55:41 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) said:   
   >   
   >> In message , Doug Laidlaw   
   >> writes:   
   >>> On 28/09/18 23:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >>>> That isn't the howler, though. She asked for help (not by 'phone);   
   >>>>the   reply said something like "you seem to have a lot of people in   
   >>>>your  tree  with the name 'living'."   
   >>>>   
   >>>  What is wrong with that?  I have been in genealogy long enough to   
   >>>remember when details of living people should be hidden!!  DNA seems   
   >>>to  have changed all that.  Like Google's philosophy, anything that   
   >>>they  don't own is not private.   
   >>  I'm perfectly aware that living people's details are hidden, and on   
   >>balance I am fine with that. The howler is that the person answering   
   >>the query seemed to think there were people actually *called* "Living"   
   >>in my cousin's tree - i. e. that that is their actual name.   
   >   
   >Some people _are_ called that -- Livings, anyway. I like to know of all   
   >my children's and grandchildren's ancestors (as far as possible, which   
   >often isn't very far). One day when I was investigating my former   
   >wife's ancestors I saw that she is descended from Richard Livings   
   >(1750-1778).   
   >   
   >   
   OK (-:. But you know that the Ancestry droid wasn't talking about such   
   people (-:.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   But remember, in a permissive society, it is also permissible to stay at home   
   and have a nice cup of tea instead. Andrew Collins, RT 2015/2/14-20   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)