Re: Re: Cyril & Phyllis Annear family

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:17:17 +0100, "Don Moody"
<dpmoody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"kaz" <kmabey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185792287.709875.111120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 30, 8:15 pm, "Don Moody" <dpmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"kaz" <kma...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1185789736.014441.23900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am hoping someone can help me in finding any children of Cyril
and
Phyllis Annear. They married in Redruth in 1939, sks already
found
this for me.
I didnt know where to look to see if any children were born. I
know
census is out.
Any help would be most appreicated.
Kind regards
Karen.

GO AWAY. This is a genealogy newsgroup and not a vehicle for
finding
probably living persons for reasons unknown.

If you want to find living persons, do it in the proper way through
the proper agencies. It has been described many times, as you could
easily find out if you bothered to consult Google or the archives
of
this ng.

Don

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?? I thought I was posting a message to the
right
newsgroup. I'm not looking for a used car.
GET A LIFE!!!.
Karen.

The usual abuse from a person up to no good.

Sorry Don, but you asked for it.

I have a life, for a little while longer, but it doesn't concern me.
What does concern me, what has concerned me for years on this
newsgroup and what will concern me for as long as I live are the lives
of others WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE FOUND, and who have good reason for
not wanting to be found.

WTF are you talking about?

The reasons have been rehearsed many times, and it is ALWAYS
suspicious when a poster (a) does not state a reason for seeking,

The person is posting to a clearly defined genealogy newsgroup. I
think that gives a good indication of the reason for posting.

(b)
posts anonymously,

The majority do.

(c) could so easily have found which is the proper
charitable agency to use, with proper protection by two-way cut-out
and in some instances according to specific law, and (d) gets abusive
when (a) to (c) are pointed out.

Because, I would think, of the abusive feel to your original reply.

[snip more crap than I care to deal with in one post.]

--
Bob.
.

Quantcast