Accessing the files section

Marie asked: I understand pdf but not how to access
"the files section". Could you provide very simple
guide, please?


****

1. Go to http://www.richardiii.net/begin.htm.

2. Click on the blue "Forum" button at the top of the
home page.

3. Click on "Yahoo Forum" on the page that comes up

4. Click on "Sign in to Yahoo" and sign in

4. In the upper left hand corner of the Forum home
page, you'll see a box outlined in blue with Home,
Messages, and a list of options under Members only ...

5. Click on "Files" under Members only

6. Click on Map Data MKJ scenario.pdf in the Files
list

7. This should bring up the 3 maps in a pdf file.


It works fine for me. If anyone has trouble, I'm
afraid I can't suggest solutions. But I hope this
works for everyone.

Marion





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Marie asked: I understand pdf but not how to access
> "the files section". Could you provide very simple
> guide, please?
>
>
> ****
>
> 1. Go to http://www.richardiii.net/begin.htm.
>
> 2. Click on the blue "Forum" button at the top of the
> home page.
>
> 3. Click on "Yahoo Forum" on the page that comes up
>
> 4. Click on "Sign in to Yahoo" and sign in
>
> 4. In the upper left hand corner of the Forum home
> page, you'll see a box outlined in blue with Home,
> Messages, and a list of options under Members only ...
>
> 5. Click on "Files" under Members only
>
> 6. Click on Map Data MKJ scenario.pdf in the Files
> list
>
> 7. This should bring up the 3 maps in a pdf file.
>
>
> It works fine for me. If anyone has trouble, I'm
> afraid I can't suggest solutions. But I hope this
> works for everyone.
>
> Marion

Thanks, got it now. The ridge & furrow seem to lie just next to the
two villages of Ratcliffe Culey (not marked) and Atterton. Thanks to
Bill for that. I don't suppose he has could post the aerial
photographs on which this is presumably based?

Re the foraging theory. If we leave aside the meaning of 'at' for the
minute, would it be usual for foraging to be specifically for "corns
and grains"? because it is for the loss of these alone, "by our
comopany at our late victorious field", that the 'five towns' were
being compensated. No crops more readily eatable, no milk, eggs,
bread, flour, flitches of bacon, poultry, sheep or porkers. I'm a
novice on things military, but this is not what I would have expected
for 'food shopping'. Are we maybe back to trampling?
By the way, this question is for anybody.

Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> http://my.yahoo.com

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:


> Re the foraging theory. If we leave aside the meaning of 'at' for
the
> minute, would it be usual for foraging to be specifically
for "corns
> and grains"? because it is for the loss of these alone, "by our
> comopany at our late victorious field", that the 'five towns' were
> being compensated. No crops more readily eatable, no milk, eggs,
> bread, flour, flitches of bacon, poultry, sheep or porkers. I'm a
> novice on things military, but this is not what I would have
expected
> for 'food shopping'. Are we maybe back to trampling?
> By the way, this question is for anybody.
>
> Marie


In my opinion that wording defintely suggests trampling and ruining a
grain crop. (As I'm sure everyone knows, "corn" in this era is not
our familiar corn, zia mays, which came from the New World
considerably later. In this case corn is a general term for a cereal
grass...there is probably some non-obvious distinction
between "corn" and "grain" since both are specified...if I had to
guess I say the difference would lie in the type of seed-head.)

Figuring late August to be close to the end of summer in that
latitude, it sounds like the battle damaged a vital crop close to
harvest, a calamity indeed for the local farmers.

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
>
> My understanding of "corn" is what is also known as wheat, but that's not
based on any scientific knowledge, just country usage.

Also, I believe that harvests were quite a bit later in the year than they are now,
because nowadays cereal crops are sown in the autumn and so mature earlier
the following year. I remember harvest time always used to be around the end
of August and beginning of September.


> > Re the foraging theory. If we leave aside the meaning of 'at' for
> the
> > minute, would it be usual for foraging to be specifically
> for "corns
> > and grains"? because it is for the loss of these alone, "by our
> > comopany at our late victorious field", that the 'five towns' were
> > being compensated. No crops more readily eatable, no milk, eggs,
> > bread, flour, flitches of bacon, poultry, sheep or porkers. I'm a
> > novice on things military, but this is not what I would have
> expected
> > for 'food shopping'. Are we maybe back to trampling?
> > By the way, this question is for anybody.
> >
> > Marie
>
>
> In my opinion that wording defintely suggests trampling and ruining a
> grain crop. (As I'm sure everyone knows, "corn" in this era is not
> our familiar corn, zia mays, which came from the New World
> considerably later. In this case corn is a general term for a cereal
> grass...there is probably some non-obvious distinction
> between "corn" and "grain" since both are specified...if I had to
> guess I say the difference would lie in the type of seed-head.)
>
> Figuring late August to be close to the end of summer in that
> latitude, it sounds like the battle damaged a vital crop close to
> harvest, a calamity indeed for the local farmers.
>
> Katy