The enumerator first wrote M for married, then struck it and wrote WD for widow.  Look at the name 2 above where exactly the same thing happened.  The W is easier to see on that one but provides an example.  The W on Epstein is partly hidden by the earlier M

On 07/14/2020 8:28 AM David Lewin <david@...> wrote:

Not so simple!  I ignore the newfangled response options and use "reply to all". That bring up main@...  twice for some unknown reason, so I delete one of them.  I then look for the email of the sender and ensure that this, too, is in the "Address To:-"  location

I also copy and paste as "quoted" the message to which I am reacting, so that the reader can see what I am writing about 

Hash tags are something I have never learned, so until someone teaches me, I use none, in the same way I have done for decades.

At 10:23 14/07/2020, Eva Lawrence wrote:

I apologise for the omission. I clicked the link 'reply to this
message' and also used the same subject line as the query in my
response. Unfortunately that wasn't picked up. Perhaps I should have
used a hashtag? . If we gave the number of the digest and the number
of the message we are replying to, this would not cater for the people
who receive each message as it is posted. Could each message posted
have a unique reference number? That might be a simple solution and easy to implement. . I'd like to avoid receiving the same conversations many times in my inbox, each iteration longer than the last. Inboxes get
cluttered up enough already.. Unique reference numbers would also
become long and unwieldy, but we start the numbering afresh every year

On Jul 14, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Jim Bloom <Jimmyjb@...> wrote:

From census records I beieve  that my paternal grandfather, Jacob Bloom (who likely amg;changed his name prior to emigratinig) immigrated from Kovno via South Hampton England) inn 1905. But I don't know the name of the ship and the exact date. 

I suppose the next step is getting records from Ellis Island. I assume this was the only port of entry for immigrants at that time. Of course the 1910 census depended on the accuracy of the interview. O have no living relatives who can help me with this.Thanks for any information or suggestions.

I apologise for the omission. I clicked the link 'reply to this
message' and also used the same subject line as the query in my
response. Unfortunately that wasn't picked up. Perhaps I should have
used a hashtag? . If we gave the number of the digest and the number
of the message we are replying to, this would not cater for the people
who receive each message as it is posted. Could each message posted
have a unique reference number? That might be a simple solution and easy
to implement. . I'd like to avoid receiving the same conversations many
times in my inbox, each iteration longer than the last. Inboxes get
cluttered up enough already.. Unique reference numbers would also
become long and unwieldy, but we start the numbering afresh every year.

------ Original Message ------
From: "David Lewin" <david@...>.aTo:
main@...; "Eva Lawrence" <eva.lawrence@...>
Sent: 14/07/2020 08:44:05
Subject: Re: [JewishGen.org] #general #germany Questions about Document
in Germany

At 16:19 13/07/2020, Eva Lawrence wrote:

It is possible that the document was prepared for some unpleasant purpose. However, in that case I'm surprised that it still exists, and wasn't destroyed by its owner to avoid the post-war Nazi hunt. It's more likely that the list was made for an interested genealogist.

Genealogy was a popular pastime for middle-class men in the 1930s., and I have a similar document sent to my great-uncle, who was very interested in the history of the family. My father inherited this list, together with his uncle's hobby and used the information he'd collected to good effect to find relatives abroad to help with our emigration. In fact my very elderly grandmother's visa to England was from along-lost nephew on her family tree.

Eva Lawrence

St Albans, UK.