Legacy 6 problems?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Charlene Charette

Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charlene Charette » 13 des 2005 08:57:48

I've been working on our family history and I send a copy to Dad. We
try to stay on the same version of Legacy. I'm currently running 4 and
he suggested going to 6. Any major problems or gotchas? I'm not one to
upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

TIA,
--Charlene

--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 13 des 2005 12:31:20

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:57:48 GMT, Charlene Charette wrote:

I've been working on our family history and I send a copy to Dad. We
try to stay on the same version of Legacy. I'm currently running 4 and
he suggested going to 6. Any major problems or gotchas? I'm not one to
upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.


I don't upgrade for the sake of it either but I did upgrade from
Legacy 5 to 6, after I did a reformat and reinstall on my PC, with no
problems at all. Going from 4 to 5 shouldn't give you any problems
but I'm not sure about jumping from 4 to 6.

If you have a separate partition on your PC, you could back up your
files to a different partition so that you have a second back up copy,
then download 6 and import your original back up files. If it works
great, but if it doesn't, you've still got your files intact on your
other partition and you can reinstall 4.

Sherry (from Mil. Corp) will probably pop in later to let you know if
you can "double grade" as my dau calls it :))

cecilia

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av cecilia » 13 des 2005 13:05:23

Charani wrote:
[...]
If you have a separate partition on your PC, you could back up your
files to a different partition so that you have a second back up copy,
then download 6 and import your original back up files. If it works
great, but if it doesn't, you've still got your files intact on your
other partition and you can reinstall 4. [...]

I don't think a separate partition is necessary - just a copy of the
files and / or back-up versions.

Steve Hayes

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Steve Hayes » 13 des 2005 20:27:06

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:57:48 GMT, Charlene Charette <see.sig@for.address>
wrote:

I've been working on our family history and I send a copy to Dad. We
try to stay on the same version of Legacy. I'm currently running 4 and
he suggested going to 6. Any major problems or gotchas? I'm not one to
upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

I have a different question -- Not how much worse it might be, but how much
better is it? Is it worth the price of the upgrade?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Paul Blair

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Paul Blair » 13 des 2005 21:14:46

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 07:57:48 GMT, Charlene Charette <see.sig@for.address
wrote:


I've been working on our family history and I send a copy to Dad. We
try to stay on the same version of Legacy. I'm currently running 4 and
he suggested going to 6. Any major problems or gotchas? I'm not one to
upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.


I have a different question -- Not how much worse it might be, but how much
better is it? Is it worth the price of the upgrade?



No.

Paul

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 14 des 2005 09:10:43

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:27:06 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

I have a different question -- Not how much worse it might be, but how much
better is it? Is it worth the price of the upgrade?

I use the free version and there is one improvement that I've seen and
that is the ability to mark a couple as not having married, ie it
allows for co-habitees.

It still doesn't easily allow for a single parent with the father's
field left blank though.

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 14 des 2005 09:12:25

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:05:23 GMT, cecilia wrote:

I don't think a separate partition is necessary - just a copy of the
files and / or back-up versions.

No, a separate partition isn't necessary: it's just easier as a
temporary measure. The important thing is to have two back up copies
so that if one gets messed up there is still another good copy.

J. Hugh Sullivan

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av J. Hugh Sullivan » 14 des 2005 14:43:02

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:10:43 +0000, Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:27:06 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

I have a different question -- Not how much worse it might be, but how much
better is it? Is it worth the price of the upgrade?

I use the free version and there is one improvement that I've seen and
that is the ability to mark a couple as not having married, ie it
allows for co-habitees.

It still doesn't easily allow for a single parent with the father's
field left blank though.

Why is that a problem? The father is as much a part of genealogy as
the mother. Whether they like each other, or whether it was just a
cheap condom, has no bearing on genealogy and I would think they
enjoyed each other at least once.

The child's physical condition could depend to a large extent on the
genes of the father. Why deprive a child of essential knowledge
because of selfnishness?

If there is a good reason you might state it here other than perhaps
not even knowing the name of the father.

Hugh

Hugh

Donna

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Donna » 14 des 2005 21:53:46

Steve wrote:

I have a different question -- Not how much worse it might be, but how
much
better is it? Is it worth the price of the upgrade?


Regarding Version 6:

For me the feature that shows half-siblings in the list of children is
terrific. Too often I missed children by another marriage as I scanned
through.

Also (and something I have found most valuable) is that it bold-faces the
name of persons who are your direct ancestors. Very helpful, again as I
scan through. I don't remember this feature being in Version 5.

Another thing is that in the List of Names, it adds the birth and death
dates (if known) of the each individual. This is terrific if you have a
multitude of "Sarah Buck" names, as I do.

And of course getting the newest version allows you to get upgrades as they
correct/work out the bugs, etc., and even make small improvements.

So each person will need to answer that question for himself, comparing the
features. Just my two cents.

However, I must definitely say that the "deluxe" version is very, very much
more convenient to use than the free version. (Just having the clipboard
was worth that purchase for me.

Again, just my two cents.

Warmest Regards,

Donna

cecilia

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av cecilia » 14 des 2005 22:37:57

"Donna" wrote:

Regarding Version 6:

For me the feature that shows half-siblings in the list of children is
terrific. [...]
it bold-faces the name of persons who are your direct ancestors.
[...] Another thing is that in the List of Names, it adds the birth and death
dates (if known) of the each individual. [...]

Legacy 4 has
View
Siblings List
Show half brothers and sisters
to show half-siblings.

Legacy 4 has
Tools
Set Direct Line as Preferred
which causes direct ancestors to be shown in bold.

It's not that bad in Legacy 4 to see dates in Details displayed at the
side for each name as it is highlighted in the Name List.

Doug McDonald

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 14 des 2005 23:32:44

Charani wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:27:06 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:


I have a different question -- Not how much worse it might be, but how much
better is it? Is it worth the price of the upgrade?


I use the free version and there is one improvement that I've seen and
that is the ability to mark a couple as not having married, ie it
allows for co-habitees.

It still doesn't easily allow for a single parent with the father's
field left blank though.

WHAT? I just tried it (version 5) and that is easy. I must be
misunderstanding you.

Doug McDonald

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 15 des 2005 09:31:40

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:46:05 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Why is that a problem? The father is as much a part of genealogy as
the mother. Whether they like each other, or whether it was just a
cheap condom, has no bearing on genealogy and I would think they
enjoyed each other at least once.

The child's physical condition could depend to a large extent on the
genes of the father. Why deprive a child of essential knowledge
because of selfnishness?

Excuse me?? Just what the hell is *that* supposed to mean??

If there is a good reason you might state it here other than perhaps
not even knowing the name of the father.

..

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 15 des 2005 09:34:49

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:32:44 -0600, Doug McDonald wrote:

WHAT? I just tried it (version 5) and that is easy. I must be
misunderstanding you.

When I tried, Legacy insisted on putting in Unknown in the father's
field when I didn't want anything in there at all. In the marriage
info field I put DNM but again I didn't want anything there.

Donna

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Donna » 15 des 2005 13:58:25

Legacy 4 has
View
Siblings List
Show half brothers and sisters
to show half-siblings.

I'm sorry. I didn't explain the feature from Ver 6 very clearly. What I
mean is, that in the Family View tab of a couple, the list of children
beneath that couple shows their own children together, as well as the
children produced during their previous marriages..

Example: James Jones and Caroline Hall are married, but they both have
had previous marriages that produced children. James' first wife was Mary
Rice, and Caroline's first husband was Walter Kennedy.:

So the Family View tab screen would show----beneath James' and Caroline's
names----first the list of children that they both had together as a couple.
Then it would list children that James and Caroline had with their first
spouses.:

Daniel Jones
Daisy Jones
1/2 Helen Jones (Mary)
1/2 Marilyn Jones (Mary)
1/2 Frances Kennedy (Walter)
1/2 May Kennedy (Walter)

I hope that makes sense. That (as far as I understand) is a new feature in
Ver 6.

You are so right about some earlier versions having the ancestor/boldface
feature. But I had forgotten about that because I could never get mine set
right so that the feature showed up for me when I used Ver 5. My fault, not
the program's. :-)

Donna

Gjest

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Gjest » 15 des 2005 14:21:54

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:58:25 -0600, "Donna" <donna.mr@comcast.net>
wrote:

I hope that makes sense. That (as far as I understand) is a new feature in
Ver 6.

This has been there for quite some time.

--

Dennis

J. Hugh Sullivan

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av J. Hugh Sullivan » 15 des 2005 14:24:03

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:31:40 +0000, Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:46:05 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Why is that a problem? The father is as much a part of genealogy as
the mother. Whether they like each other, or whether it was just a
cheap condom, has no bearing on genealogy and I would think they
enjoyed each other at least once.

The child's physical condition could depend to a large extent on the
genes of the father. Why deprive a child of essential knowledge
because of selfnishness?

Excuse me?? Just what the hell is *that* supposed to mean??

For some unexplained reason you apparently prefer not to show the name
of the father - if anyone knows it. There could come a time when some
physical problem could be predicted or diagnosed if the father and his
medical historyr was known. I don't understand the reluctance to print
the name of the father. Again I say if anyone knows who he was.

If there is a good reason you might state it here other than perhaps
not even knowing the name of the father.

I note you avoided answering the above. Since you did not there must
not be a good reason.

Hugh

Donna

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Donna » 15 des 2005 15:07:52

Someone wrote:
For some unexplained reason you apparently prefer not to show the name
of the father -

Well, you could put the father's name in the database, actually linked to
the child and to the mother. But if you marked the father "Private" then
his name and details would not print in a report (unless you specified that
"Private" should be printed).

But you would still have all the father's information in the database (to
review for medical reasons, etc, or to inform someone when you thought it
appropriate).

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but programmatically if would work.

I can think of times when a woman would not want to name the father.
Perhaps he was married to someone else when the child was born, or perhaps
he was an ax murderer. Or perhaps she just thinks it's nobody's business.

Donna

singhals

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av singhals » 15 des 2005 15:55:43

Charani wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:32:44 -0600, Doug McDonald wrote:


WHAT? I just tried it (version 5) and that is easy. I must be
misunderstanding you.


When I tried, Legacy insisted on putting in Unknown in the father's
field when I didn't want anything in there at all. In the marriage
info field I put DNM but again I didn't want anything there.

It always puzzles me when people want to complicate their own life (g).
Why would you NOT want DNM or UNKNOWN to show and reassure you that
you haven't missed something easy-to-do? (g)

I mean, blanks can either mean "I don't know" or "I didn't look yet".
And in large databases, or complex families, one can't remember each
situation and these are easy mnenomics or aides-memoires.

Cheryl

Sherry

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Sherry » 15 des 2005 16:10:47

Charlene Charette <see.sig@for.address> wrote in
news:0avnf.2445$n1.93@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

I've been working on our family history and I send a copy to Dad.
We try to stay on the same version of Legacy. I'm currently running
4 and he suggested going to 6. Any major problems or gotchas? I'm
not one to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

TIA,
--Charlene


Just make sure that you uninstall Legacy v4 before installing Legacy
v6. Also, we highly recommend that you make sure all other programs
are closed and your anti-virus software is disabled when you install
Legacy.

Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
Support@MillenniaCorp.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!

Sherry

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Sherry » 15 des 2005 16:14:38

"Donna" <donna.mr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:X5mdnVViMMLu9TzenZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com:

Legacy 4 has
View
Siblings List
Show half brothers and sisters
to show half-siblings.

snip

I hope that makes sense. That (as far as I understand) is a new
feature in Ver 6.

You are so right about some earlier versions having the
ancestor/boldface feature. But I had forgotten about that because I
could never get mine set right so that the feature showed up for me
when I used Ver 5. My fault, not the program's. :-)

Donna



Show 1/2 kids and highlighting direct line have been in Legacy as far
back as I can remember - I see both in v4 and I'm sure it was in earlier
versions also - I just haven't seen v3 or v2 for so long, I can't
remember what's in them.


Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
Support@MillenniaCorp.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!

Everett M. Greene

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Everett M. Greene » 15 des 2005 17:40:03

"Donna" <donna.mr@comcast.net> writes:
Legacy 4 has
View
Siblings List
Show half brothers and sisters
to show half-siblings.

I'm sorry. I didn't explain the feature from Ver 6 very clearly. What I
mean is, that in the Family View tab of a couple, the list of children
beneath that couple shows their own children together, as well as the
children produced during their previous marriages..

Example: James Jones and Caroline Hall are married, but they both have
had previous marriages that produced children. James' first wife was Mary
Rice, and Caroline's first husband was Walter Kennedy.:

So the Family View tab screen would show----beneath James' and Caroline's
names----first the list of children that they both had together as a couple.
Then it would list children that James and Caroline had with their first
spouses.:

Daniel Jones
Daisy Jones
1/2 Helen Jones (Mary)
1/2 Marilyn Jones (Mary)
1/2 Frances Kennedy (Walter)
1/2 May Kennedy (Walter)

I hope that makes sense. That (as far as I understand) is a new feature in
Ver 6.

Why doesn't it put the children in birth order?

Does it literally show "1/2"?

You are so right about some earlier versions having the ancestor/boldface
feature. But I had forgotten about that because I could never get mine set
right so that the feature showed up for me when I used Ver 5. My fault, not
the program's. :-)

How does the program know the individual whose ancestors
are to be bold-faced?

[I'm obviously not a Legacy user.]

xanadu

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av xanadu » 15 des 2005 17:45:44

I seem to remember that 6 is different from 5 in the format and the 5
format has to be converted to one that 6 can handle. If my recall is
correct than it is likely that you cannot meld 4 and 6.
Leonard


Charlene Charette wrote:
I've been working on our family history and I send a copy to Dad. We
try to stay on the same version of Legacy. I'm currently running 4 and
he suggested going to 6. Any major problems or gotchas? I'm not one to
upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

TIA,
--Charlene

--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Doug McDonald

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 15 des 2005 18:58:24

Donna wrote:

Someone wrote:

For some unexplained reason you apparently prefer not to show the name
of the father -


I think the original poster just wants a blank. I think they
are infuriated by being stuck with "unknown".

There is a solution: the non-breaking space. A KLUDGE.
When entering the name, go to Character Map and copy
a Non-Breaking Space, hex number 0A0 (zero - A - zero)
then put one in both the surname and given name fields. This
makes them blank, but you see them (as blank) in the name list.

Doug McDonald

Sherry

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Sherry » 15 des 2005 21:15:35

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in
news:dnsas0$97h$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu:

Donna wrote:

Someone wrote:

For some unexplained reason you apparently prefer not to show the
name of the father -


I think the original poster just wants a blank. I think they
are infuriated by being stuck with "unknown".

There is a solution: the non-breaking space. A KLUDGE.
When entering the name, go to Character Map and copy
a Non-Breaking Space, hex number 0A0 (zero - A - zero)
then put one in both the surname and given name fields. This
makes them blank, but you see them (as blank) in the name list.

Doug McDonald




A better solution is to go to Options > Customize > Data Format and
select under Word for Blank Records to "(Just leave it blank)"


Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
Support@MillenniaCorp.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!

Sherry

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Sherry » 15 des 2005 21:17:22

"xanadu" <xanadu@chase3000.com> wrote in
news:1134665144.436640.147440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I seem to remember that 6 is different from 5 in the format and the
5 format has to be converted to one that 6 can handle. If my recall
is correct than it is likely that you cannot meld 4 and 6.
Leonard


I'm not sure what you mean by "melding" but Legacy v6 can convert any
Family File created in a previous version of Legacy to the schema
currently being used.

The final build of Legacy v5 has the same schema as Legacy v6 so
there's no conversion needed from that build of Legacy - only from
previous builds in v5.


Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
Support@MillenniaCorp.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!

J. Hugh Sullivan

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av J. Hugh Sullivan » 15 des 2005 21:19:09

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:07:52 -0600, "Donna" <donna.mr@comcast.net>
wrote:

Someone wrote:
For some unexplained reason you apparently prefer not to show the name
of the father -

Well, you could put the father's name in the database, actually linked to
the child and to the mother. But if you marked the father "Private" then
his name and details would not print in a report (unless you specified that
"Private" should be printed).

But you would still have all the father's information in the database (to
review for medical reasons, etc, or to inform someone when you thought it
appropriate).

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but programmatically if would work.

I can think of times when a woman would not want to name the father.
Perhaps he was married to someone else when the child was born, or perhaps
he was an ax murderer. Or perhaps she just thinks it's nobody's business.

Donna

A fact is a fact regardless of the shame.

Hugh

Sherry

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Sherry » 15 des 2005 21:20:39

mojaveg@mojaveg.iwvisp.com (Everett M. Greene) wrote in
news:20051215.79E2BA0.7C09@mojaveg.iwvisp.com:

"Donna" <donna.mr@comcast.net> writes:
Legacy 4 has
View
Siblings List
Show half brothers and sisters
to show half-siblings.

I'm sorry. I didn't explain the feature from Ver 6 very clearly.
What I mean is, that in the Family View tab of a couple, the list
of children beneath that couple shows their own children together,
as well as the children produced during their previous marriages..

Example: James Jones and Caroline Hall are married, but they
both have had previous marriages that produced children. James'
first wife was Mary Rice, and Caroline's first husband was Walter
Kennedy.:

So the Family View tab screen would show----beneath James' and
Caroline's names----first the list of children that they both had
together as a couple. Then it would list children that James and
Caroline had with their first spouses.:

Daniel Jones
Daisy Jones
1/2 Helen Jones (Mary)
1/2 Marilyn Jones (Mary)
1/2 Frances Kennedy (Walter)
1/2 May Kennedy (Walter)

I hope that makes sense. That (as far as I understand) is a new
feature in Ver 6.

Why doesn't it put the children in birth order?

Does it literally show "1/2"?

You are so right about some earlier versions having the
ancestor/boldface feature. But I had forgotten about that because
I could never get mine set right so that the feature showed up for
me when I used Ver 5. My fault, not the program's. :-)

How does the program know the individual whose ancestors
are to be bold-faced?

[I'm obviously not a Legacy user.]



Children are listed in the order that they're entered. In order to sort
them by birth order, you do that in Children's Settings.

The children are sorted by parentage when you show 1/2 kids.

You set a direct line as preferred, selecting an individual to start
from. All that individual's direct line will be bolded.


Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
Support@MillenniaCorp.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

We are changing the world of genealogy!

Charlene Charette

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charlene Charette » 15 des 2005 21:50:19

Sherry wrote:

"xanadu" <xanadu@chase3000.com> wrote in
news:1134665144.436640.147440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


I seem to remember that 6 is different from 5 in the format and the
5 format has to be converted to one that 6 can handle. If my recall
is correct than it is likely that you cannot meld 4 and 6.
Leonard



I'm not sure what you mean by "melding" but Legacy v6 can convert any
Family File created in a previous version of Legacy to the schema
currently being used.

The final build of Legacy v5 has the same schema as Legacy v6 so
there's no conversion needed from that build of Legacy - only from
previous builds in v5.

My guess would be he means merge using IntelliShare.

--Charlene


--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Charlene Charette

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charlene Charette » 15 des 2005 21:50:41

Sherry wrote:

Charlene Charette <see.sig@for.address> wrote in
news:0avnf.2445$n1.93@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:


I've been working on our family history and I send a copy to Dad.
We try to stay on the same version of Legacy. I'm currently running
4 and he suggested going to 6. Any major problems or gotchas? I'm
not one to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.

TIA,
--Charlene



Just make sure that you uninstall Legacy v4 before installing Legacy
v6. Also, we highly recommend that you make sure all other programs
are closed and your anti-virus software is disabled when you install
Legacy.

Thanks for the reply.

--Charlene


--
Euthanasia: Generally more proficient at math and science than
euthanamerica. -- Bayan, Rick; The Cynic's Dictionary, 2002


email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Sherry

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Sherry » 16 des 2005 01:23:14

Charlene Charette <see.sig@for.address> wrote in
news:fGkof.1526$mj1.164@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

<snip>
I'm not sure what you mean by "melding" but Legacy v6 can convert
any Family File created in a previous version of Legacy to the
schema currently being used.<snip

My guess would be he means merge using IntelliShare.

--Charlene


Well, as long as the other person is using the final build of Legacy
v5 then the file will be compatible with Legacy v6.

Sherry
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
Support@MillenniaCorp.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 16 des 2005 12:43:24

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:24:03 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

For some unexplained reason you apparently prefer not to show the name
of the father - if anyone knows it. There could come a time when some
physical problem could be predicted or diagnosed if the father and his
medical historyr was known. I don't understand the reluctance to print
the name of the father. Again I say if anyone knows who he was.

Just who do you think I'm referring to?? Myself?? My family?? Some
long dead ancestor??

I note you avoided answering the above. Since you did not there must
not be a good reason.

I see absolutely no reason to answer a question that infers that I'm
refusing to either name my father or my children's father for some
highly dubious and selfish reason when you don't know who I'm
referring to.

You have an extremely nasty turn of mind.

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 16 des 2005 12:46:37

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:07:52 -0600, Donna wrote:


I can think of times when a woman would not want to name the father.
Perhaps he was married to someone else when the child was born, or perhaps
he was an ax murderer. Or perhaps she just thinks it's nobody's business.

The main point is that J. Hugh Sullivan doesn't know to whom I am
referring and is *assuming* that I'm referring to my own children or
to my own father. He's *assuming* it's a 20th/21st century matter.
He doesn't know me and he doesn't know my family. Just as I don't
know him and with his attitude, I don't want to quite frankly.

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 16 des 2005 12:47:32

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:58:24 -0600, Doug McDonald wrote:

I think the original poster just wants a blank. I think they
are infuriated by being stuck with "unknown".

That's correct, although it's more frustrated than infuriated :))
There is a solution: the non-breaking space. A KLUDGE.
When entering the name, go to Character Map and copy
a Non-Breaking Space, hex number 0A0 (zero - A - zero)
then put one in both the surname and given name fields. This
makes them blank, but you see them (as blank) in the name list.

Thank you for that solution :))

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 16 des 2005 13:09:31

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:55:43 -0500, singhals wrote:

It always puzzles me when people want to complicate their own life (g).

It doesn't complicate things for me <G>

Why would you NOT want DNM or UNKNOWN to show and reassure you that
you haven't missed something easy-to-do? (g)

DNM is fine where someone didn't, and UNKNOWN is fine where I know
there is a spouse or partner but haven't yet added or found the
information. I wanted an option to show someone as DNM but who did
have children but to leave the spouse blank.

I mean, blanks can either mean "I don't know" or "I didn't look yet".
And in large databases, or complex families, one can't remember each
situation and these are easy mnenomics or aides-memoires.

On one of my family lines I'm virtually doing a one name study and
I've been transferring all the data from a dB of my own format onto
Legacy. It's a fairly unusual name so are rather thin on the ground.
I've only done the births from 1569 to 1866 and have currently
inputted 581 individuals of which 220 are on my own branch of the
family. I've done about half so far of my branch so far and the dB has
entries up to 2003 which is as recent as I can go. If someone asks me
about a particular person on the dB 75% of the time I can identify
them just from memory. The other 25% of the time I either need the
mother's maiden name or it's someone I haven't yet attached to a
family :))

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 16 des 2005 13:11:15

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:15:35 -0600, Sherry wrote:

A better solution is to go to Options > Customize > Data Format and
select under Word for Blank Records to "(Just leave it blank)"

Thank you :)) You're a gem :))

J. Hugh Sullivan

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av J. Hugh Sullivan » 16 des 2005 15:21:03

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:43:24 +0000, Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:24:03 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

For some unexplained reason you apparently prefer not to show the name
of the father - if anyone knows it. There could come a time when some
physical problem could be predicted or diagnosed if the father and his
medical historyr was known. I don't understand the reluctance to print
the name of the father. Again I say if anyone knows who he was.

Just who do you think I'm referring to?? Myself?? My family?? Some
long dead ancestor??

I have no idea who you are referring to - it might be merely academic
and not relate to any actual people. Thus posting a good reason as
requested would be academic.

But because of your refusal to give a good reason why the father's
name should not be listed I am left to presume the worst. In view of
valuable information which might be obtained by the father's history,
I must view the desire to avoid the request as shame or ignorance -
your's or another's. Literate people would jump at the chance to
educate us by giving a good reason for not listing the name.

I note you avoided answering the above. Since you did not there must
not be a good reason.

I see absolutely no reason to answer a question that infers that I'm
refusing to either name my father or my children's father for some
highly dubious and selfish reason when you don't know who I'm
referring to.

Who the people are, or whether they even exist is no matter. You could
be referring to anybody or nobody. What I said is my responsibility -
what you infer is not what I said.

Since Charani is apparently not bright enough to give a good reason,
perhaps someone else here might help her out. In genealogy I am not
aware of a good reason to withhold evidence which might be very
valuable to descendants for medical or other reasons.

You have an extremely nasty turn of mind.

You're the one posting the "dirty pictures".

Hugh

singhals

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av singhals » 16 des 2005 16:28:31

Charani wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:55:43 -0500, singhals wrote:


It always puzzles me when people want to complicate their own life (g).


It doesn't complicate things for me <G

Why would you NOT want DNM or UNKNOWN to show and reassure you that
you haven't missed something easy-to-do? (g)


DNM is fine where someone didn't, and UNKNOWN is fine where I know
there is a spouse or partner but haven't yet added or found the
information. I wanted an option to show someone as DNM but who did
have children but to leave the spouse blank.


I mean, blanks can either mean "I don't know" or "I didn't look yet".
And in large databases, or complex families, one can't remember each
situation and these are easy mnenomics or aides-memoires.


On one of my family lines I'm virtually doing a one name study and
I've been transferring all the data from a dB of my own format onto
Legacy. It's a fairly unusual name so are rather thin on the ground.
I've only done the births from 1569 to 1866 and have currently
inputted 581 individuals of which 220 are on my own branch of the
family. I've done about half so far of my branch so far and the dB has
entries up to 2003 which is as recent as I can go. If someone asks me
about a particular person on the dB 75% of the time I can identify
them just from memory. The other 25% of the time I either need the
mother's maiden name or it's someone I haven't yet attached to a
family :))


I'm sorta fond of "not found" as a flag, too. It tells me I don't know
but I did look. (g)

And I've got a few gals whose husband shows up as NONE. Again, in the
interests of keeping me uptospeed without having to spend hours getting
there each time I look for something for someone.

Color me lazy.

Cheryl

singhals

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av singhals » 16 des 2005 16:30:20

Charani wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:07:52 -0600, Donna wrote:



I can think of times when a woman would not want to name the father.
Perhaps he was married to someone else when the child was born, or perhaps
he was an ax murderer. Or perhaps she just thinks it's nobody's business.


The main point is that J. Hugh Sullivan doesn't know to whom I am
referring and is *assuming* that I'm referring to my own children or
to my own father. He's *assuming* it's a 20th/21st century matter.
He doesn't know me and he doesn't know my family. Just as I don't
know him and with his attitude, I don't want to quite frankly.

Actually, he's OK. Likes playing Devil's Advocate, of course, and can
turn a casual en-passant reference into a full-fledged philosophical
discussion, but then again, so can you and me. (g)

Cheryl

singhals

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av singhals » 16 des 2005 16:31:01

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:


You're the one posting the "dirty pictures".

Now, Hugh! Play _nice_, dang it.

Cheryl

J. Hugh Sullivan

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av J. Hugh Sullivan » 16 des 2005 17:26:49

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:31:01 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com>
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:


You're the one posting the "dirty pictures".

Now, Hugh! Play _nice_, dang it.

Cheryl

What are the rules? 8-)

Hugh

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 17 des 2005 11:16:03

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:24:30 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

I have no idea who you are referring to - it might be merely academic
and not relate to any actual people. Thus posting a good reason as
requested would be academic.

If you've no idea what I'm referring to, then how am I or anyone
else??
But because of your refusal to give a good reason why the father's
name should not be listed I am left to presume the worst. In view of
valuable information which might be obtained by the father's history,
I must view the desire to avoid the request as shame or ignorance -
your's or another's. Literate people would jump at the chance to
educate us by giving a good reason for not listing the name.

What a load of twaddle you spout!!

Who the people are, or whether they even exist is no matter. You could
be referring to anybody or nobody. What I said is my responsibility -
what you infer is not what I said.

Then you want to learn to say what you mean clearly so that no other
interpretation can be put on your words.
Since Charani is apparently not bright enough to give a good reason,
perhaps someone else here might help her out. In genealogy I am not
aware of a good reason to withhold evidence which might be very
valuable to descendants for medical or other reasons.

I'm a damn sight brighter than you obviously are. I would also point
out that two people have given me an answer withoutthe need to
investigate the pros and cons of why I want to do what I want to do
and without casting aspertions on me and my family. You are the only
one who has said anything about any information being withheld. I
certainly did not.

You're the one posting the "dirty pictures".

No, *you* are doing that by inferring that I'm deliberately trying to
withhold information for a reason that your nasty little mind
construes as "shame" or "ignorance" and then deliberately twisting
things further to make some kind of "dirty pictures". How pathetic
you are.

Now, go away and play on your computer but mind the step on the way.

Oops, you didn't. Oh, well it might knock some sense in but I doubt
it somehow.

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 17 des 2005 11:21:35

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:28:31 -0500, singhals wrote:

I'm sorta fond of "not found" as a flag, too. It tells me I don't know
but I did look. (g)

And I've got a few gals whose husband shows up as NONE. Again, in the
interests of keeping me uptospeed without having to spend hours getting
there each time I look for something for someone.

Color me lazy.

<chuckle>

Everyone has their own way of working. It's not laziness, just a
preference.

"Not found" sounds better than "Unknown" though.

I've got a family in the mid-1800s of 5 illegitimate children who
could all have different fathers but might have the same one although
I suspect there's more than one given the age range of the children.
There's nothing in any of the censuses to indicate a father and the
mother wasn't in a position to go to court for maintenance.

Charani

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av Charani » 17 des 2005 11:26:00

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:30:20 -0500, singhals wrote:

Actually, he's OK. Likes playing Devil's Advocate, of course, and can
turn a casual en-passant reference into a full-fledged philosophical
discussion, but then again, so can you and me. (g)

Oh aye, any one with an ounce of intelligence can do that, but he's
casting a slur and what he wants to "discuss" is irrelevant to the
question I posed. He's making an accusation and expecting me to
defend myself. I don't have anything to defend because he's making a
false assumption.

J. Hugh Sullivan

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av J. Hugh Sullivan » 17 des 2005 14:29:23

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:16:03 +0000, Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:24:30 GMT, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

I have no idea who you are referring to - it might be merely academic
and not relate to any actual people. Thus posting a good reason as
requested would be academic.

If you've no idea what I'm referring to, then how am I or anyone
else??

You obviously have a lot of trouble with the Engllish language. I
didn't say "what", I said "who". As to the rest you obviously couldn't
understand without help.

But because of your refusal to give a good reason why the father's
name should not be listed I am left to presume the worst. In view of
valuable information which might be obtained by the father's history,
I must view the desire to avoid the request as shame or ignorance -
your's or another's. Literate people would jump at the chance to
educate us by giving a good reason for not listing the name.

What a load of twaddle you spout!!

If it was twaddle you could understand it. SInce you don't you try to
put words in my mouth - you ain't half good enough to do that, babe.

Who the people are, or whether they even exist is no matter. You could
be referring to anybody or nobody. What I said is my responsibility -
what you infer is not what I said.

Then you want to learn to say what you mean clearly so that no other
interpretation can be put on your words.

I said exactly what I meant to say. If you want to infer that I said
something else your are either a liar or mentally incapacitated - or
both.

Since Charani is apparently not bright enough to give a good reason,
perhaps someone else here might help her out. In genealogy I am not
aware of a good reason to withhold evidence which might be very
valuable to descendants for medical or other reasons.

I'm a damn sight brighter than you obviously are.

So far you have cleverly kept it hidden.

I would also point
out that two people have given me an answer withoutthe need to
investigate the pros and cons of why I want to do what I want to do
and without casting aspertions on me and my family. You are the only
one who has said anything about any information being withheld. I
certainly did not.

You refused to answer my request to give a good reason for withholding
a father's, any father's, name - more than once. I cast no aspersions
on your family - you have a guilt complex that, in effect, is the
answer to my repeated request.

You're the one posting the "dirty pictures".

No, *you* are doing that by inferring that I'm deliberately trying to
withhold information for a reason that your nasty little mind
construes as "shame" or "ignorance" and then deliberately twisting
things further to make some kind of "dirty pictures". How pathetic
you are.

If you were complete you would be a complete idiot.

Now, go away and play on your computer but mind the step on the way.

Oops, you didn't. Oh, well it might knock some sense in but I doubt
it somehow.

You are also half way to being a wit.

I'd say you need to start taking your pills again. Leaving them off
ain't working.

I think you should put all this behind you, get your GED and get a
good minimum wage job.

I'll be nice now, Cheryl, and not respond to her next oral defecation.
I should know better - thank you for reminding me. Mea culpa.

Hugh

J. Hugh Sullivan

Re: Legacy 6 problems?

Legg inn av J. Hugh Sullivan » 17 des 2005 14:38:58

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:21:35 +0000, Charani <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:28:31 -0500, singhals wrote:

I'm sorta fond of "not found" as a flag, too. It tells me I don't know
but I did look. (g)

And I've got a few gals whose husband shows up as NONE. Again, in the
interests of keeping me uptospeed without having to spend hours getting
there each time I look for something for someone.

Color me lazy.

chuckle

Everyone has their own way of working. It's not laziness, just a
preference.

"Not found" sounds better than "Unknown" though.

I've got a family in the mid-1800s of 5 illegitimate children who
could all have different fathers but might have the same one although
I suspect there's more than one given the age range of the children.
There's nothing in any of the censuses to indicate a father and the
mother wasn't in a position to go to court for maintenance.

If that is the issue, what is the problem? Eliminate the emotion and
report the facts. He has a (1) name(s), he/they is/are (2) unknown, or
a search has been made and he/they was/were (3) not found. It seems
pretty elementary.

My gg grandfather had 4 baseborn children by three women. Several
ladies in my genealogy (some still living) had children before or
without marriage. I report the facts and leave the judgement to God.

Hugh

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.computing»