Viewing LDS Ordinance info in Internet IGI

[Brad Rogers]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:24:06 +0000, Jeff wrote:

Alan Holmes wrote:
As I've already said, it's a scam!
Most of us had worked that out!!! and we had blocked the sender. But you
reposted ALL of his original message.

I've noticed that people that shout "scam!" /always/ quote the entire
message they purport to be complaining about. I say purport because I
suspect that they are either a) the spammer, or b) in cahoots with the
spammer and do it to avoid people's killfiles. Consequently, I plonk
them, too.

--
Regards _
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"

No guarantee the stimuli must be perceived the same...
Gary Gilmore's Eyes - The Adverts

[Gjest]

In a message dated 8/18/2006 11:27:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

Hello David , I am assuming you have a Photo Manpulation Program , Such as
Paint shop pro or the like ., Use it to put your caption on the photos
Before you put them into the word program , Phil
----- Original Message -----


Hi, Phil: Thanks for the reply to my inquiry.

Actually I do not have a "photo manipulation program" as I have not really
needed one; I use Picasa for all the editing I've needed to do.

I would rather use just the Word caption capability as it is supposed to
work and then I can get a list of photos with the pages they are on to go along
with the regular "Table of Contents." But I may have to take your suggestion
if I cannot solve my Word problem.

Thanks again!

David (Beecham) PA-USA.

[Paul Blair]

James A. Doemer wrote:

In News [email protected],, Homer at
[email protected], typed this:

Hi All,

I am very new in Genealogy so please bare with me. Is the any software
that creates a Backward report of Pedigree? Something like this I am
looking for:



Someone-----|
|
|-----------
Son #1
| Son #1--------| |
Daughter #1 .................
| Son #2
| Son #3
GrandPa and GrandMa----| Daughter #1
| Daughter #2
| Daughter #3


So starts from a couple and goes through their children and grans
children and so on.




Thanks,

Homer

I prefer Legacy, it produces a report like that and it's free unless you
want the deluxe version, which is relatively cheap. You can get it at:
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/

The gent is using a server-side scripting application, not a local/home
application. This form of software is relatively new, but is catching on
fast. See TNG home site or phpGedView for more details.

Paul

[mewright]

unsubscribe please

[Kaye Payne]

Hi,

I use six genealogy programs for the reason that you state - you cannot get
one to do exactly what you want and as you say we do not need a whole lot of
reports that people cannot follow.

I use Family Historian for the report that you seem to mean. A descendant
outline under the miscellaneous reports is the best I have seen with this
type of report. There is a free download trial. Family Historian easily
accepts a gedcom.

I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that my
computer opens on to each morning.

FTM is my master.

RootsMagic is wonderful as it accepts all photos from FTM without any
problem and the reports are better.

Brothers Keeper has a great descendant tree that, at the moment, I can fit
on to an A4 page (depending on the number of generations you want to display
of course). You can see at a glance your cousins etc etc.

Heredis is another program I use but it is not available anymore for windows
only mac.

Regards
Kaye Payne


All incoming and outgoing emails are checked by "VET Anti-Virus Protection
2006" auto updated.

[Dora Smith]

Verminator:

I downloaded and installed the trail version

I've got it handling hte irregular dates, and printing all the spouses, but
how do you get it to print all the children? For my mother in law's
grandfather it lists both spouses but the children of only one spouse.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dora Smith wrote:
I am currently using PAF, PAF Companion, and Roots Magic. As far as I
can
learn, none of these programs does one very obvious thing that I need it
to.
Most genealogical software won't do something else as basic.

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of
book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the
spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor. Why in God's name the
makers
of these programs think we wouldn't need that - takes half a brain in my
opinion.

I am dealing with French Canadian families, and most of thsoe ancestors
married more than once, and had large, close knit families. Not, a
couple
of them, but two thirds of 3500 of them. I do NOT want to list only
spouse
and the children of the spouse who is the direct ancestor! Why in Chr___
anyone would think I would want to do that. Why do genealogy programs
even accept multiple spouses and their children if you aren't supposed to
want to list them on reports?!!!

No, I do not want to prepare a mess of umpteen disorganized descendant
reports. (Roots Magic people thought they could talk me into doing
something else totally different that makes no sense.) I want a single
ancestor report . With all spouses and all their children for each
ancestor.

The program also needs to be able to import irregular dates and dual
dates,
which PAF Companion and Roots Magic can do, but most programs, including
Family Tree Maker, cannot. In 12 or more versions the makers of FTM
just
don't get it. I ahve a large database, 14,800 people, and anway, if I
did
not ENTER the exact date, it is because I do not HAVE teh exact date!
Don't anybody do like the FTM customer service person and tell me to
enter
my data over again! (Probably explains FTM's shortcomings - they don't
listen and never heard a word you just said to them.)

I need to create descendant reports in narrative formats and a web site
with
all the individual pages linked to a central chart or index.

What genealogical software meets my criteria?

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]


You should check out TMG (The Master Genealogist) and SecondSite. When
used together I'm pretty sure you'll find they can give you exactly
what you are looking for.

--
The Verminator

[Dora Smith]

I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that my
computer opens on to each morning

LOL!

FTM can't import irregular dates; too bad, as it won't import my database!

I need a program that includes all spouses and their children in an ancestry
report, working backwards from an ancestor.

Yours,
Dora

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Kaye Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Hi,

I use six genealogy programs for the reason that you state - you cannot
get one to do exactly what you want and as you say we do not need a whole
lot of reports that people cannot follow.

I use Family Historian for the report that you seem to mean. A descendant
outline under the miscellaneous reports is the best I have seen with this
type of report. There is a free download trial. Family Historian easily
accepts a gedcom.

I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that my
computer opens on to each morning.

FTM is my master.

RootsMagic is wonderful as it accepts all photos from FTM without any
problem and the reports are better.

Brothers Keeper has a great descendant tree that, at the moment, I can fit
on to an A4 page (depending on the number of generations you want to
display of course). You can see at a glance your cousins etc etc.

Heredis is another program I use but it is not available anymore for
windows only mac.

Regards
Kaye Payne


All incoming and outgoing emails are checked by "VET Anti-Virus Protection
2006" auto updated.

[Nigel Bufton]

Have you looked at The Complete Genealogy Reporter? (http://www.tcgr.bufton.org)

Nigel

"Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that my
computer opens on to each morning

LOL!

FTM can't import irregular dates; too bad, as it won't import my database!

I need a program that includes all spouses and their children in an
ancestry report, working backwards from an ancestor.

Yours,
Dora

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Kaye Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi,

I use six genealogy programs for the reason that you state - you cannot
get one to do exactly what you want and as you say we do not need a whole
lot of reports that people cannot follow.

I use Family Historian for the report that you seem to mean. A descendant
outline under the miscellaneous reports is the best I have seen with this
type of report. There is a free download trial. Family Historian easily
accepts a gedcom.

I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that my
computer opens on to each morning.

FTM is my master.

RootsMagic is wonderful as it accepts all photos from FTM without any
problem and the reports are better.

Brothers Keeper has a great descendant tree that, at the moment, I can
fit on to an A4 page (depending on the number of generations you want to
display of course). You can see at a glance your cousins etc etc.

Heredis is another program I use but it is not available anymore for
windows only mac.

Regards
Kaye Payne


All incoming and outgoing emails are checked by "VET Anti-Virus
Protection 2006" auto updated.

[[email protected]]

Dora Smith wrote:

I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that my
computer opens on to each morning

LOL!

FTM can't import irregular dates; too bad, as it won't import my database!

I need a program that includes all spouses and their children in an ancestry
report, working backwards from an ancestor.

Yours,
Dora

Dora,

I've seen this discussed on the TMG Mailing list on Rootsweb.

You might consider joining that mailing list. Just send an e-mail to:

[email protected]

In the Subject line just put the single word subscribe and in the body
of the e-mail also put the single word subscribe.

Several of the posters on that list helped write the book "Getting The
Most Out Of TMG" and are very helpful in answering questions of this
kind..

I have no conncetion with the company-just a very satisfied user.

You might also search the archives of that mailing list on Rootsweb if
you don't want to subscribe to the mailing List.

--
The Verminator

[singhals]

Dora Smith wrote:

I am currently using PAF, PAF Companion, and Roots Magic. As far as I can
learn, none of these programs does one very obvious thing that I need it to.
Most genealogical software won't do something else as basic.

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor. Why in God's name the makers
of these programs think we wouldn't need that - takes half a brain in my
opinion.

I am dealing with French Canadian families, and most of thsoe ancestors
married more than once, and had large, close knit families. Not, a couple
of them, but two thirds of 3500 of them. I do NOT want to list only spouse
and the children of the spouse who is the direct ancestor! Why in Chr___
anyone would think I would want to do that. Why do genealogy programs
even accept multiple spouses and their children if you aren't supposed to
want to list them on reports?!!!

No, I do not want to prepare a mess of umpteen disorganized descendant
reports. (Roots Magic people thought they could talk me into doing
something else totally different that makes no sense.) I want a single
ancestor report . With all spouses and all their children for each
ancestor.

The program also needs to be able to import irregular dates and dual dates,
which PAF Companion and Roots Magic can do, but most programs, including
Family Tree Maker, cannot. In 12 or more versions the makers of FTM just
don't get it. I ahve a large database, 14,800 people, and anway, if I did
not ENTER the exact date, it is because I do not HAVE teh exact date!
Don't anybody do like the FTM customer service person and tell me to enter
my data over again! (Probably explains FTM's shortcomings - they don't
listen and never heard a word you just said to them.)

I need to create descendant reports in narrative formats and a web site with
all the individual pages linked to a central chart or index.

What genealogical software meets my criteria?

First, let's sort out what your criteria ARE.

Do you want a report on YOUR ancestors?
/or/
Do you want a report on the Descendants of X
/or/
Do you want a report of everyone in the database.

Then, Reassure us that you understand the difference between genealogy
and family history. The people you want to include are neither your
ancestors nor descendants of a common progenitor, but they *are* family.
(My grandmother's grandfather's 3rd wife's first husband's kids aren't
related to me, after all.) And because they're not genetically kin to
you most programs won't include them in ancestor/descendant reports.

Since they have no genetic relationship to you, very few programs will
include your grandfather's 4th wife's kids by her first husband. The
only one I know that will is FTM.

You don't like FTM (fair 'nuff, I'm not wild about it either).

So, if you really and truly want all that mess, you're going to have to
do it the hard way: first generate the report of all your genetic
ancestors; then generate separate reports on everyone left out of the
first report, and cut'n'paste those into your master. *THEN* publish as
HTML. I do this for webpages, but if I didn't speak HTML, I'd pick
door-#-2, below.

Or blindside the computer, and lie to it: tell it all those kids belong
to your genetic ancestor. Use a duplicate database which you delete
IMMEDIATELY so as to preserve the "true facts". (g)

Either will work.

Cheryl

[Kerry Raymond]

I think we aren't fully grasping who Dora is wanting in her report. She
originally said this:

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor.

What I believe she is asking for is this (in algorithmic terms) and I agree
with her that this is often what I would like to do in FTM but can't:

* start with person X
* find the earliest ancestors of X (the ones for whom there are no parents
listed in the database)
* now collect all the descendants (including spouses) for all of those
ancestors
* display them in some useful way

Or to put it a simpler way, using a 3-generation tree, a report that
includes both your maternal and paternal cousins.

While we are on our wishlist ...

I would like a tool that tells me how 2 people in my database are connected
(this does not of course imply that they are "related"). For example, my
mother and my mother-in-law are not related, but they are connected as
follows:

mother -> me -> my husband -> my mother-in-law

Kerry

[Nigel Bufton]

"Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I think we aren't fully grasping who Dora is wanting in her report. She
originally said this:

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of
book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the
spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor.

What I believe she is asking for is this (in algorithmic terms) and I
agree with her that this is often what I would like to do in FTM but
can't:

* start with person X
* find the earliest ancestors of X (the ones for whom there are no parents
listed in the database)
* now collect all the descendants (including spouses) for all of those
ancestors
* display them in some useful way

Or to put it a simpler way, using a 3-generation tree, a report that
includes both your maternal and paternal cousins.

While we are on our wishlist ...

I would like a tool that tells me how 2 people in my database are
connected (this does not of course imply that they are "related"). For
example, my mother and my mother-in-law are not related, but they are
connected as follows:

mother -> me -> my husband -> my mother-in-law

Kerry

Check out The Complete Genealogy Reporter - it does most, if not all, the
above.

Nigel

[Dora Smith]

Here is an example of what I want. It was created using an old version of
TMG to make a reverse register report, which is the same thing as an
ancestry report. Notice that each spouse married twice and all marriages
and all children of each are listed.

But now people on the TMG list are telling me it isn't possible.

14. Dennis Hess (Benjamin, #28) was born on 4 February 1845 at Bethel Twp.,
Bedford Co., (now Fulton County) Pennsylvania. Dennis migrated with his
parents to Missouri. He first married, Jemima/Gemima Elizabeth Vaughan, on
2 January 1870, in Moniteau Co., Missouri. In the census of 1880 the
family resided in Walker Twp., Pilot Grove, Moniteau Co., Missouri.

One cold winter day while the family was busy butchering she went into town
to get some supplies and was caught in a snow storm. She died the winter of
1885 with pneumonia. Six children were born of this union.

Then in 1886 he married, Mary Elizabeth (Bull) Whittaker, the widow of John
Whittaker and the mother of two young sons. In 1900 this family resided in
Saline, Cooper Co., Missouri. Then by the 1910 census the family was
residing in Greeley Twp., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The six known children of Dennis Hess and Jemima Elizabeth Vaughan were as
follows:

i. Eugene Monroe "Pete" Hess was born, 12 October 1870 in
California, Moniteau County, Missouri. He appeared in the household of his
parents in the 1880 census being age 10. He married Mary Jane McFadden, the
daughter of Joseph and Sarah J. (Arnold) McFadden. She was born 27 August
1861, in Wayne County, Ohio. She died 27 April 1916, in Tipton, Missouri.
Eugene Monroe died 22 December 1905, in Tipton, Missouri. Both Mary and
Eugene Monroe are buried at the St. Andrew's Cemetery.

ii. Albert Louis Hess was born, 17 August 1872 in California,
Moniteau Co., Missouri. In the 1880 census he appeared in the household of
his parents being age 9. He married Ollie Mae Karstetter. He died 7 April
1958. Ollie was born circa 1873, in Clarksburg, Missouri. She died 12
February 1913, in Clarksburg, Missouri.

iii. Mary "Alice" Hess was born, 7 September 1874 in
California, Moniteau County, Missouri. In the 1880 census she appeared in
the household of her parents being age 6. She married John Godfred
Schmolzi, April 1900. He was born 1 September 1871, in Switzerland. He
died August 1959, in Cooper County, Missouri. She died 30 December 1967 in
Rolla, Phelps County, Missouri.

iv. Victoria Hess was born, 23 May 1877 in California,
Moniteau County, Missouri. She appeared in the household of her parents in
the 1880 census, being age 4. She married Frank Himes.

v. George Taylor Hess was born 21 September 1878 in
California, Moniteau County, Missouri. He appeared in the 1880 census in
the household of his parents, being age 2. He served in the Spanish
American War. The family lost track of him after the war and thought he had
died. After being contacted by his great granddaughter Joline we now know
that he survived the war, married and reared a family. He married Estella
Mae Traub, 11 April 1907 in Cedar Rapids, Linn Co, Iowa.

vi. Martha Hess was born in California, Moniteau County,
Missouri. She married George Ernest.

The five known children of Dennis Hess and Mary Elizabeth (Bull) Whittaker
were as follows:

i. Rose Hess was born on 12 August 1887 at Missouri.

ii Margaret Hess was born circa 1889 at Missouri.

iii. Flora Hess was born on 9 September 1890 at Missouri.
She died at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Co., Oklahoma.

iv. Hattie Mabel Hess was born on 17 July 1892 at Gooch's
Mill, Cooper Co., Missouri. She was baptized on 3 November 1895 at SS. Peter
& Paul Catholic Church, Boonville, Cooper, Missouri. She died on 18 October
1984 at Newark, Licking Co., Ohio, at age 90. She was buried on 21 October
1984 at Calvary Cemetery, Little Flower Section; Tulsa, Tulsa Co., Oklahoma.
v. Amanda Elizabeth Hess

15. Mary Elizabeth Bull (George, #30) was born on 2 August 1854 at Tipton,
Moniteau Co., Missouri. She married John Whittaker circa 1875 at Tipton,
Moniteau Co., Missouri.

John Whittaker, was a farmer and they lived three miles north of Tipton,
Missouri. Mr. Whittaker went to town after the doctor for his mother-in-law
Mrs. George (Albertine Veulemans) Bull. When he was about to return, and at
a point just opposite the Tipton House, his horse became frightened at some
object throwing him heavily on the frozen road, striking his head and
causing one or more severe contusions. He was carried into the hotel,
placed in comfortable quarters and cared for by Dr. Redmon before he
proceeded to the bedside of Mrs. Bull. His wife was notified and came
immediately to take care of him. Mrs. Bull died 29 February 1884 and Mr.
Whittaker died 3 March 1884. Mary was left with two young sons.

The two known children of John Whittaker and Mary Elizabeth (Bull) Whittaker
were as follows:

i. George W. Whittaker was born, 23 December 1876 in Cooper
County, Missouri. He married Lucinda Ellen Vaughan, the daughter of Green
Berry Vaughan and Hannah Hopps Hess, 16 August 1905 in Cooper County,
Missouri. He died 3 August 1908 in Missouri. George and Lucinda had one
son George James Whittaker.

ii. Herman Whittaker was born, 8 February 1877 in Roundhill,
Cooper County, Missouri. He married Eva Lavona Vaughan, daughter of Green
Berry Vaughan and Hannah Hopps Hess, 14 October 1900 in Cooper County,
Missouri. He died 12 April 1920 in California, Missouri. Hannah Hopps
(Hess) Vaughan is the sister of Dennis Hess.

Mary Elizabeth (Bull) Whittaker married, second, Dennis Hess, son of
Benjamin Hess and Mary Polly Garland, circa 1886 in Missouri. After the
death of her second husband Mary Elizabeth made her home with her daughter
Amanda and her husband Charles Robert Hall. Mary Elizabeth was a Master
Quilter and several articles over the years appeared in the local (Maud)
newspaper and also in the Daily Oklahoman News of her quilts. One article
which drew attention was a quilt that she displayed in her son-in-laws
cleaning shop. At the time the quilt was displayed Mary Elizabeth was
seventy-nine years old. The quilt contained 35 squares with 204 pieces to
the square making 7,140 pieces to the whole and a big job. She estimated
that it took 128,500 stitches before this masterpiece of quilting was
complete. Mary Elizabeth's hobby was quilt making and she made many lovely
quilts for her family and friends, she did both applique and piece quilting.
She past the art of quilting on to her daughter, Hattie and several members
of the family today have some of these quilts. At the time Auntie (Hattie)
was quilting she told this writer that quilting was pictorial needle art
that reflected a great deal about the quilters life, politics, religion,
social activities or even various moods. Some of the quilt patterns that
are in this writers possession are: "Indian Trail, Lincoln's Platform,
Double Wedding Ring, Arkansas Traveler, Flower Garden, Spider Webb, Prairie
Queen and Morning Star". Mary Elizabeth died at the home of her daughter,
Amanda and son-in-law Charles Robert Hall the afternoon of 22 September 1933
in Maud, Pottawatomie Co., Oklahoma, at age 79. She was buried on 26
September 1933 in Sacred Heart Catholic Cemetery, Maud, Pottawatomie Co.,
Oklahoma.



--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Having lurked on this thread for the last few days, I'm not 100% sure what
form of report you want but I do get the impression that you wish to
'report' on 'everyone'.

To that end, I'll suggest Legacy as follows-the report info is in the form
of tables:

Reports->Family[Family Group Records]
Record Selection: select "All families in the entire family file"
Report Options: select what you want.

Alternatively

[john]

elextek wrote:

What are genenalogists, family historians, and others doing to backup their
genealogy data files? Do they store them offsite ? Keep a backup CD in their
home office?

Thanks in advance for your input.


Elextek

Apart from using CDs/DVDs, many ISPs now give you 2Gb of e-mail space.
It is easy to zip up your genealogy database files every day (excluding
images) and send yourself a copy to one of those accounts.

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:35:57 +0200, john <[email protected]>
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

Apart from using CDs/DVDs, many ISPs now give you 2Gb of e-mail space.
It is easy to zip up your genealogy database files every day (excluding
images) and send yourself a copy to one of those accounts.

Which wouldn't be that much of a backup on my ISP (even if they
offered more than a 10MB mailbox)... My mail client checks for mail
every 30 minutes, as long as I'm connected, and downloaded messages are
deleted from the ISP... So I'd be creating a ZIP file, it would be
uploaded (sent) to the ISP on a mail check, and 30 minutes later it
would be retrieved and deleted from the ISP.
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[john]

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:35:57 +0200, john <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

Apart from using CDs/DVDs, many ISPs now give you 2Gb of e-mail space.
It is easy to zip up your genealogy database files every day (excluding
images) and send yourself a copy to one of those accounts.

Which wouldn't be that much of a backup on my ISP (even if they
offered more than a 10MB mailbox)... My mail client checks for mail
every 30 minutes, as long as I'm connected, and downloaded messages are
deleted from the ISP... So I'd be creating a ZIP file, it would be
uploaded (sent) to the ISP on a mail check, and 30 minutes later it
would be retrieved and deleted from the ISP.

You can get a free account with a large mailbox limit from other
suppliers (e.g. check out
http://email.about.com/cs/freeemailrevi ... _email.htm)

There is no need to give the e-mail address to anyone else so you don't
need to download anything from it with a mail client. So no data will be
deleted. You can access it, if necessary using a web mail client to
retrieve a backup or to do housekeeping. Then only use for backups.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:53:00 +0100, "Nigel Bufton" <[email protected]>
wrote:

"Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I think we aren't fully grasping who Dora is wanting in her report. She
originally said this:

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of
book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the
spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor.

What I believe she is asking for is this (in algorithmic terms) and I
agree with her that this is often what I would like to do in FTM but
can't:

* start with person X
* find the earliest ancestors of X (the ones for whom there are no parents
listed in the database)
* now collect all the descendants (including spouses) for all of those
ancestors
* display them in some useful way

Or to put it a simpler way, using a 3-generation tree, a report that
includes both your maternal and paternal cousins.

While we are on our wishlist ...

I would like a tool that tells me how 2 people in my database are
connected (this does not of course imply that they are "related"). For
example, my mother and my mother-in-law are not related, but they are
connected as follows:

mother -> me -> my husband -> my mother-in-law

Kerry

Check out The Complete Genealogy Reporter - it does most, if not all, the
above.

Nigel

Aha! It's your program, Nigel. Okay.

I see none of the 482 downloaders have rated the program. Is this a
beta version?

Hugh

[Bob Velke]

Dora said:

Here is an example of what I want. It was created using an old version of
TMG to make a reverse register report, which is the same thing as an
ancestry report. Notice that each spouse married twice and all marriages
and all children of each are listed.

But now people on the TMG list are telling me it isn't possible.

Please see my message (and solution) on the TMG-L discussion list. I
think that your stated premise (that it is an "ancestry report") got
you and the respondents going down different paths and
misunderstanding each other.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date: 10/3/2006

[Bill Harrison]

Hi All

What I do when I want such a print is to save a copy of my tree and then
"add" a dummy entry or two which is linked as father etc to ALL the husbands
at the "top" of each branch the tree ( Top meaning furthest ancestor away
from You). Then produce a Chart or decendant report using the dummy entry
as the subject. The Dummy entry can be erased as such by not printing his
details ... can do this in most Genealogy packages.

regards

Bill



----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: need software to include to all spouses and all children in
ancestor report and import irregular dates

Pat in Atlanta wrote:
I've asked FTM several times to include both spouses because the children
of
the second spouse will be half brothers or siblings of the children of
the
second spouse. So the poster isn't the only one who would like that
feature.

Half siblings are easily dealt with in descendancy reports.. and are,
unless incest is involved, completely absurd in ancestor reports.
Remember- there are NO "indirect" ancestors.

--
The Verminator

[Helen Castle]

I have an email address with Yahoo - I store a lot of stuff in my Yahoo
folders.

Helen Castle
Narangba Qld
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:35:57 +0200, john <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:


Apart from using CDs/DVDs, many ISPs now give you 2Gb of e-mail space.
It is easy to zip up your genealogy database files every day (excluding
images) and send yourself a copy to one of those accounts.

Which wouldn't be that much of a backup on my ISP (even if they
offered more than a 10MB mailbox)... My mail client checks for mail
every 30 minutes, as long as I'm connected, and downloaded messages are
deleted from the ISP... So I'd be creating a ZIP file, it would be
uploaded (sent) to the ISP on a mail check, and 30 minutes later it
would be retrieved and deleted from the ISP.
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Liz_in_Calgary]

No, I am related to all the people in my database, and all
the people I would like to show on my report. More
interested in the dead than the live ones.

thanks for the advice.
take care
Liz



On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:44:29 GMT, in alt.genealogy "larry
dodds" <[email protected]> wrote :

that is not a family tree. Liz in Calgary. I wouldn't recommend any
program for you. genealogy is family tree. not a gathering of random names
and try and put them into a report. and call them a FAMILY So what is
your point of having all those names and no connections you to your original
tree. no wonder we get stomped on for freedom of information, none access
to cemeteries, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Larry

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:10:06 +0200, Steve Hayes
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:34:06 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:14:11 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:27:29 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

There is no problem wanting such a report. The problem is that it is
not genealogy which is essentially about bloodlines - and in the
header of each news group above.

So would you exclude your brothes, sisters, uncles, aunts and cousins from
your genealogy because they aren't in your "bloodline"?

If I had brothers and/or sisters why wouldn't they be in my bloodline?

That's what I was asking you -- you were saying that a report that included
brothers and sisters etc was not genealogy because such people aren't in your
bloodline.

Point me to where I said that. I doubt that I ever said people in my
bloodline were not in my bloodline.

And, my descendant report includes all my brothers, sisters, uncles,
aunts and cousins. It doesn't include the ancestry of any people who
are not my bloodline.

That's irrelevant to the original poster's question, which was whether any
genealogy program produces a report that includes all ancestors of a given
person, with the spouses and children of each of those ancestors. A good one
would include parents of spouses as well.

Precisely. And I said what she asked for was not genealogy. And I gave
illustrations.

To object to having such a report on the grounds that not every person on it
is an actual ancestor seems silly to me. Many "descendant reports" include
non-descendants like spouses and parents of spouses, so why shouldn't ancestor
reports include non-ancestors like spouses and parents of spouses and their
children?

As I understood she wanted to include people where the only
relationship, if any, was legal.

Yes. So what?

What is wrong with that? Why are so many people objecting to the very idea of
having such a report?

I said there was nothing wrong in asking. You are not reading very
carefully. I said it was not genealogy.

Why are you out of step with so many people?

On another thread I believe it was explained to her that she misled
respondents with her explanation.

My great great grandfather had 3 children by 2 ladies who were not his
wives The ancestors of those two ladies are no relation to me - nor
are the 2 ladies. It would be as genealogically reasonable to include
them as it would for me to include Marie Antoinette or Jean D'Arc ot
Tokyo Rose.

I have no problem if people include whoever they wish in their family
history - I just have a problem if they call it genealogy when it is
not by any official definition.

Hugh

[Dora Smith]

Yup. Maybe I don't know how ot use it, but I got one confusingly written
report.

But see my post on TCGR and Brother's Keeper.


--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Nigel Bufton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Have you looked at The Complete Genealogy Reporter? (http://www.tcgr.bufton.org)

Nigel

"Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that
my computer opens on to each morning

LOL!

FTM can't import irregular dates; too bad, as it won't import my
database!

I need a program that includes all spouses and their children in an
ancestry report, working backwards from an ancestor.

Yours,
Dora

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Kaye Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi,

I use six genealogy programs for the reason that you state - you cannot
get one to do exactly what you want and as you say we do not need a
whole lot of reports that people cannot follow.

I use Family Historian for the report that you seem to mean. A
descendant outline under the miscellaneous reports is the best I have
seen with this type of report. There is a free download trial. Family
Historian easily accepts a gedcom.

I use Legacy for the wonderful birthday and anniversary reminder that
my computer opens on to each morning.

FTM is my master.

RootsMagic is wonderful as it accepts all photos from FTM without any
problem and the reports are better.

Brothers Keeper has a great descendant tree that, at the moment, I can
fit on to an A4 page (depending on the number of generations you want to
display of course). You can see at a glance your cousins etc etc.

Heredis is another program I use but it is not available anymore for
windows only mac.

Regards
Kaye Payne


All incoming and outgoing emails are checked by "VET Anti-Virus
Protection 2006" auto updated.

[Dora Smith]

Larry, this attitude mystifies me.

To you, a family tree is hardly about the family. Not sure what it's
about.
--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"larry dodds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hNPUg.89295$5R2.4254@pd7urf3no...

that is not a family tree. Liz in Calgary. I wouldn't recommend any
program for you. genealogy is family tree. not a gathering of random
names and try and put them into a report. and call them a FAMILY So
what is your point of having all those names and no connections you to
your original tree. no wonder we get stomped on for freedom of
information, none access to cemeteries, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Larry

"Liz_in_Calgary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Perhaps what you want is a descendant report, but that won't
give you the parents of parents of the lines that married
into the line.

What I would like is a program that would create a report of
all the families - just basic stuff, name, dates of birth
death and marraige, with all the siblings - more of a
graphical tree than a report - I tried to make my own, in
a spreadsheet, it truly is a programming nightmare, grandpa
is on one sheet and grandma is way over on the other side -
It may be something that is finished before I leave this
world.

take care
Liz



On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:32:22 GMT, in alt.genealogy "Dora
Smith" <[email protected]> wrote :

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of
book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the
spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor. Why in God's name the
makers
of these programs think we wouldn't need that - takes half a brain in my
opinion.

[Dora Smith]

Family Origins is the ancestor of Legacy, and its web site says Family
Origins not still available and takes you to Legacy. Legacy says they
don't include multiple spouses and children thereof in ancestral databases.
It is possible that Family Origins once did, despite having allegedly been
designed by the same people with the same attitude problems as the people
who designed Legacy.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Steve Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:09 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
wrote:

No, I awnt something like this - in an ancestor report. That is, for
each
ancestral family. Person said she created a reverse register report,
which
she says IS an ancestor report, adn it certainly sounds like one, using a
feature of TMG that is now something else, and people on the TMG list are
telling me it can't be done.

I understand what you want, and the only program that I *think* could do
it
was Family Origins, which had a kind of reverse register report.

Unfortunately I can't get Family Origins 2.0 to run under Windows XP to
try it
out.

Every time U try to run it the opening screen appears, and it says "Press
any
key to continue".

Pressing any key causes it to jump back to the Windows "desktop".


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk

[Dora Smith]

Thanks, Bob, it took some more work but I did eventually get my questions
answered and my TMG problems straightened out. My problem was a computer
memory problem despite a ten month old computer with extra memory capacity
of every kind.

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all children in
ancestor reports. In fact, I haven't actually figured out what TMG DOES
do that other programs do not - which would be the advantage of using what
everyone (else) reports is a very large clunker of a program, with an
ineffienct setup not seen since the days of mainframe computers and DOS, and
error messages also not seen since that time, that is hard to figure out
how to use. The program uses far more system resources than any of my
other genealogy programs, adn is the second program I've ever tried on this
computer that wouldn't run properly for lack of sufficient CPU and RAM. My
sole intrest in this program was that several people had told me the program
woudl do what I need it to do. I would have put up with the problems if the
program did do what I need it to do, but it does not. I've got a big,
clunky, problem-ridden, hard to figure out program that doesn't even do
actual genealogical reports.

I know I seem rude, but I'm getting very disillusioned with the genealogy
program development set. I have an actual time crunch, because I expected
to be able to generate the reports I need in a few days, as in a few days
ago, and I need them by this weekend. I did not have time for the endless
arguing, pointless misdirection and asking what I already said multiple
times, and repeated reinventing of the wheel that I ahve been put through on
these lists for the past week, and not only by TMG. I know alot of it was
simply the nature of Internet mailing lists, where there's often an ethic
against answering a question with the answer, but at TMG y'all are
professionals.

You know, it turns out that the two programs that DO do someting as basic as
print entire families in the ancestor report are two little utilities - The
Complete GEnealogical Reporter, and Brothers' Keeper.

I didn't even bother to post that information back to your list, though I
certainly let users of LEgacy, FTM, and Rootsmagic know about it. You and
Jim did work to resolve my problem, and I think this is actually the least
of TMG's problems.

I did wish you'd actually read my error log sooner, because it was when Jim
told me why the error log was irrelevant, which it actually was not, that I
was able to diagnose the actual problem. He said WhatsitFox error
messages don't tell him anything because they don't involve the program
itself adn they're usually memory problems, and dismissed the possibility
that I'm getting Whatsit Fox errors because I've got a Whatsit Fox problem
out of hand like Sherlock Holmes not, causing it to take an extra day to
diagnose the problem. If he'd asked me if my computer was having trouble
running TMD and acting short of resources, I'd ahve said yes, but maybe
y'all are the only ones who don't realize your program is inefficient and
uses large amounts of computer resources.

I do get the clear impression that you have a select customer base who
really aren't doing their family history in order to learn nor to record and
share much information, even more severely than the people to whom the other
spouses and their children don't belong in the family. Just people who'd
like to research and share a couple of direct lines of ancestry. That is
what your program is designed to be able to print, that is what your sample
output demonstrates, and it is also the largest sort of database one can
load into your program without the computer crashing and all sorts of
strange error messages popping up even with a new, high capacity computer.
People like that don't need an efficient program nor logical common sense
reporting options.

I think that it's too bad that your very nice reports can't be used to
report actual genealogy, but maybe that's not your purpose. Probably it
isn't that illogical either. People who don't want much depth are often
more into nice surface appearances than someone else would be. Yup.
Uh-huh. Like, what kind of person doesn't want the other spouses and their
children in his family reports? We're talking nice superficial
appearances and a half.

End of rant for tonight, I'm going to bed.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Bob Velke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dora said:

Here is an example of what I want. It was created using an old version
of
TMG to make a reverse register report, which is the same thing as an
ancestry report. Notice that each spouse married twice and all marriages
and all children of each are listed.

But now people on the TMG list are telling me it isn't possible.

Please see my message (and solution) on the TMG-L discussion list. I
think that your stated premise (that it is an "ancestry report") got you
and the respondents going down different paths and misunderstanding each
other.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/462 - Release Date: 10/3/2006

[Dora Smith]

No, actually, to display cousins, I've no aversion to printing a descendancy
report beginning with the common grandparent or great grandparent, because
with cousins, the focus of interest is on a family group that is defined by
the common ancestors. To display the cousins with different common
descent I'd print a different descendancy report.

I just want to display the spouses and children of each ancestral family.
Grin! Brother's Keeper does it quite nicely!

I think you might be thinking along the lines of the Complete Genealogical
Reporter. That program prints cousins like they are coming out of the
windows - though I found it hard to tie them together from the report!

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I think we aren't fully grasping who Dora is wanting in her report. She
originally said this:

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of
book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the
spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor.

What I believe she is asking for is this (in algorithmic terms) and I
agree with her that this is often what I would like to do in FTM but
can't:

* start with person X
* find the earliest ancestors of X (the ones for whom there are no parents
listed in the database)
* now collect all the descendants (including spouses) for all of those
ancestors
* display them in some useful way

Or to put it a simpler way, using a 3-generation tree, a report that
includes both your maternal and paternal cousins.

While we are on our wishlist ...

I would like a tool that tells me how 2 people in my database are
connected (this does not of course imply that they are "related"). For
example, my mother and my mother-in-law are not related, but they are
connected as follows:

mother -> me -> my husband -> my mother-in-law

Kerry

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:56:17 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

Once again the original poster apparently was unable to accurately
explain what she wanted. Thus wanting the report for purposes of this
particular thread is moot.

The original poster explained quite clearly what she wanted. Arguing about
whether or not it is "genealiogy" is an irrelecant distraction.

If you want to presume the family pet boa constrictor is your
bloodline and part of your genealogy be my guest. Just don't expect
many of us to shed our skins each spring.

I should have realised realier that you're just being silly, now you've
confirmed it.

Hugh

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Dora Smith]

Actually The Complete GEnealogy Program is a little utility that isn't very
well known. It imports your GEDCOM and creates reports, and that's all it
does.

I actually got into the newsgroups tonight to make people more aware of it
and Brother's Keeper. Create some actual competition for these big time
genealogical software developers and they'll soon figure out how to import
irregular dates intact and include the entire family in the genealogy
report! The speed with which they will grow brains, as well as ears to
hear their customers with, will amaze us.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:53:00 +0100, "Nigel Bufton" <[email protected]
wrote:

"Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I think we aren't fully grasping who Dora is wanting in her report. She
originally said this:

Neither PAF, PAF Companion, nor Rootsmagic, will prepare any sort of
book,
web site, or narrative report, of ancestors, that includes all the
spouses
and all of their children for each ancestor.

What I believe she is asking for is this (in algorithmic terms) and I
agree with her that this is often what I would like to do in FTM but
can't:

* start with person X
* find the earliest ancestors of X (the ones for whom there are no
parents
listed in the database)
* now collect all the descendants (including spouses) for all of those
ancestors
* display them in some useful way

Or to put it a simpler way, using a 3-generation tree, a report that
includes both your maternal and paternal cousins.

While we are on our wishlist ...

I would like a tool that tells me how 2 people in my database are
connected (this does not of course imply that they are "related"). For
example, my mother and my mother-in-law are not related, but they are
connected as follows:

mother -> me -> my husband -> my mother-in-law

Kerry

Check out The Complete Genealogy Reporter - it does most, if not all, the
above.

Nigel

Aha! It's your program, Nigel. Okay.

I see none of the 482 downloaders have rated the program. Is this a
beta version?

Hugh

[Ralph Page]

"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:35:57 +0200, john <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:


Apart from using CDs/DVDs, many ISPs now give you 2Gb of e-mail
space.
It is easy to zip up your genealogy database files every day
(excluding
images) and send yourself a copy to one of those accounts.

Which wouldn't be that much of a backup on my ISP (even if they
offered more than a 10MB mailbox)... My mail client checks for mail
every 30 minutes, as long as I'm connected, and downloaded messages
are
deleted from the ISP...

I use Outlook for an email client and it provides an option to leave
the email messages on the server rather than deleting them after they
are downloaded. You might find that useful.

I think the best option is to obtain an email account that you use
exclusively for this backup activity though.

BTW, I use an on-line back up service for my images and geanological
data, it costs more than the email technique but it is a little
handier to use. You can Google 'online backup' and find several
companies I'd imagine.

--
-Ralph Page
remove pants to reply by email

[Dora Smith]

Since we have soem TCGR experts here,

I want to see if I am doing this wrong. Here is my output from an ancestor
report, checking all relations, distance limit = 1, include peer generation
at beginning.

1. DIRECT RELATIONS

Generation of Peers

1. MILDRED GLADYS LAMPRON (The subject of this report) was born 1 May 1912
in Derby, Connecticut to Edmond Joseph

Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Mildred died 13 Jan 1989, aged 76 in
Northampton, Hampshire, Massachusetts.

Mildred Gladys Lampron was not married. They had one daughter:

Beverly Ann Lampron [11] born 1939

2. FRANK CIMINI (Mildred's husband). He died 24 Jul 1944 in Killed in action
in Europe.

Frank Cimini married Mildred Gladys Lampron, aged 30, 23 Feb 1943 in Sacred
Heart Church, Northampton,

Massachusetts

3. LAWRENCE J. BRACKNEY (Mildred's husband) was born 1912. Lawrence died 21
Oct 1968, aged about 55 in

Northampton, Hampshire, Massachusetts.

Lawrence J. Brackney, aged about 34, married Mildred Gladys Lampron [1],
aged 34, 19 Apr 1947 in sacred Heart

Church, Northampton, Massachusetts. They had one daughter:

Shirley Ann Brackney [13] born 1949

4. EDMUND JOSEPH LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 23 Jan 1907 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Edmond Joseph

Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Edmund died 1940, aged about 33 in
Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

5. ALICE RADKE (Mildred's sister-in-law). She died 6 Apr 2004 in Pittsfield,
Berkshire, Massachusetts. She was buried in

Pittsfield cemetery.

Edmund Joseph Lampron married Alice Radke.

6. GEORGE LEO LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 1907 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Edmond Joseph Lampron

[15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. George died 10 Feb 1908 as an infant in
Northampton, Massachusetts.

7. HAROLD FREDERICK LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 4 Jul 1909 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Edmond

Joseph Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Harold died 17 Dec 1985, aged
76 in Tempe, Arizona. He was buried in

Green Acres Cemetery, Scottsdale, AZ.

8. MS. UNKNOWN (Mildred's sister-in-law).

Harold Frederick Lampron married Ms. Unknown.

9. ELIZABETH UNKNOWN (Mildred's sister-in-law).

Harold Frederick Lampron [7], when younger than 55, married Elizabeth
Unknown BEF 1964

10. ARTHUR RAYMOND LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 5 Aug 1910 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Edmond

Joseph Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Arthur died bEF 1920, when
younger than 10.

Generation of Children

11. BEVERLY ANN LAMPRON (Mildred's daughter) was born 1939 in Westfield, MA
to Mildred Gladys Lampron [1].

12. RUSSELL HARRISON MCKINSTRY (Mildred's son-in-law) was born 1939 in
Southbridge, MA.

Russell Harrison McKinstry, aged about 22, married Beverly Ann Lampron, aged
about 22, 1961 in Concord, MA

13. SHIRLEY ANN BRACKNEY (Mildred's daughter) was born 1949 to Lawrence J.
Brackney [3] and Mildred Gladys Lampron

[1].

14. RICHARD E. JOHNSON (Mildred's son-in-law).

Richard E. Johnson married Shirley Ann Brackney, aged about 26, 1975 in
Williamsburg, Massachusetts

Generation of Parents

15. EDMOND JOSEPH LAMPRON (Mildred's father) was born 3 Mar 1881 in
Moorhead, Indiana to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41]. Edmond died 25 Feb 1939, aged 57 in Pittsfield,
Berkshire, Massachusetts.

16. MARY ELLA TACY (Mildred's mother) was born dated 'Jun or Jul 1885 or
1886' in Prob Chesterfield, New York to

Abraham Tacy (Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur
(Hart) [44]. Mary died 25 Sep 1939 in Pittsfield,

Berkshire, Massachusetts.

Edmond Joseph Lampron, aged 25, married Mary Ella Tacy 25 Apr 1906 in
Northampton, Massachusetts. They had

five children:

Page 1

Edmund Joseph Lampron [4] born 23 Jan 1907

George Leo Lampron [6] born 1907

Harold Frederick Lampron [7] born 4 Jul 1909

Arthur Raymond Lampron [10] born 5 Aug 1910

Mildred Gladys Lampron [1] born 1 May 1912

17. EUGENE O LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born ABT 1873 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41]. Eugene died 29 Jul 1950, aged about 76 in Northampton,
Hampshire, Massachusetts.

18. CLARA B. UNKNOWN (Mildred's aunt by marriage) was born ABT 1882. Clara
died 16 Feb 1953, aged about 70.

Eugene O Lampron married Clara B. Unknown.

19. ALBERT ELY LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 17 Mar 1875 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40]

and Aurelie Duteau [41]. He was christened 25 Mar 1875 in St. Mary,
Northampton, MA. Albert died 14 Jan 1941, aged 65

in Becket, Berkshire, MA.

20. ANNIE UNKNOWN (Mildred's aunt by marriage).

Albert Ely Lampron, aged about 20, married Annie Unknown 1895

21. ALFRED A. LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 11 Jan 1877 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41].

22. DELPHINE BOUCHARD (Mildred's aunt by marriage).

Alfred A. Lampron, aged 21, married Delphine Bouchard 6 Sep 1898 in
Northampton, Massachusetts

23. MARY DALY LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born 9 Dec 1878 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41].

24. JULIE LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born ABT 1880 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and Julienne

Ouilette [42]. Julie died 1885, aged about 5 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

25. MARY LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Nov 1884 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and Julienne

Ouilette [42].

26. WILLIAM NAPOLEON LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 21 Jun 1886 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Oliver

Lampron [40] and Julienne Ouilette [42].

27. ELLA LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Jul 1888 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and Julienne

Ouilette [42]. Ella died 23 May 1970, aged 81 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Ella Lampron was married (no recorded family details).

28. EMILDE E. LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Nov 1890 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42]. Emilde died 8 Apr 1853, aged -38 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

29. EUGENE E LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 17 Nov 1890 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42].

30. JOSEPH LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born ABT 1891 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42]. Joseph died 1896, aged about 5 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

31. ROSANNA EVA LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Aug 1892 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40]

and Julienne Ouilette [42].

32. GEORGE M. PELKEY (Mildred's uncle by marriage) was born in Vermont.

George M. Pelkey married Rosanna Eva Lampron.

33. OBELINE LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Aug 1892 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42]. Obeline died 26 Feb 1951, aged 58 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

34. LIBA TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's aunt) was born 1872/1873 to Abraham Tacy
(Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie

Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

35. ARTHUR TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 1877 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy (Tessier)

[43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44]. Arthur died
1899, aged about 22 in Northampton,

Massachusetts.

Page 2

36. FREDERICK TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 30 Mar 1879 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy

(Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

37. ALONZO TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born May 1881 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy

(Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

38. WILFRED TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 1888 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy (Tessier)

[43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

39. LEO TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 1894/1898 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy (Tessier)

[43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

Generation of Grandparents

40. OLIVER LAMPRON (Mildred's grandfather) was born 1850/1855 in Canada to
Francois-Xavier (Frank) Lampron [78] and

Julie Gelinas [79]. Oliver died 12 Nov 1897, aged about 46 in Northampton,
Massachusetts. He was buried in St. Mary's

Cemetery.

41. AURELIE DUTEAU (Mildred's grandmother) was born 19 Jun 1850 in
Saint-Bernard-De-Lacolle, St-Jean, Quebec to Elois

Duteau [81] and Marie Adelaide Charet [82].

Oliver Lampron, aged about 20, married Aurelie Duteau, aged 20, 7 Jan 1871
in Northampton, Massachusetts. They

had five children:

Eugene O Lampron [17] born ABT 1873

Albert Ely Lampron [19] born 17 Mar 1875

Alfred A. Lampron [21] born 11 Jan 1877

Mary Daly Lampron [23] born 9 Dec 1878

Edmond Joseph Lampron [15] born 3 Mar 1881

42. JULIENNE OUILETTE (Mildred's grandmother by marriage) was born Mar 1860
in Canada. Julienne died 19 Mar 1950,

aged 90 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Oliver Lampron [40], aged about 32, married Julienne Ouilette, aged 23, 8
May 1883 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

They had nine children:

Julie Lampron [24] born ABT 1880

Mary Lampron [25] born Nov 1884

William Napoleon Lampron [26] born 21 Jun 1886

Ella Lampron [27] born Jul 1888

Emilde E. Lampron [28] born Nov 1890

Eugene E Lampron [29] born 17 Nov 1890

Joseph Lampron [30] born ABT 1891

Rosanna Eva Lampron [31] born Aug 1892

Obeline Lampron [33] born Aug 1892

43. ABRAHAM TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's grandfather) was born Jun 1845 in
Clintonville or Plattsburg, Clinton, NY to

Abraham (Abram, Amable) Tacy (Tessier) [83] and Rosilla Luck [84].

44. JULIA (SOPHIA, MARIE GEORGINA) JOLICOEUR (HART) (Mildred's grandmother)
was born 15 Jan 1850 in

Ste-Genevieve-de-Berthier, Berthier,Quebec to Joseph Jolicoeur (Hart) [85]
and Genevieve (Jane) Robert [86]. Julia died

1903, aged about 53 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Abraham Tacy (Tessier), aged about 27, married Julia (Sophia, Marie
Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart), aged about 22, ABT

1872. They had seven children:

Mary Ella Tacy [16] born dated 'Jun or Jul 1885 or 1886'

Liba Tacy (Tessier) [34] born 1872/1873

Arthur Tacy (Tessier) [35] born 1877

Frederick Tacy (Tessier) [36] born 30 Mar 1879

Alonzo Tacy (Tessier) [37] born May 1881

Wilfred Tacy (Tessier) [38] born 1888

Leo Tacy (Tessier) [39] born 1894/1898

45. ELIZABETH GARNER (Mildred's grandmother by marriage).

Abraham Tacy (Tessier) [43], aged 65, married Elizabeth Garner 26 Dec 1910
in Northampton, Massachusetts

46. SEVERE FRANK LAMPRON (Mildred's great uncle) was born ABT 1847/1849 to
Francois-Xavier (Frank) Lampron [78]

and Julie Gelinas [79].

Page



That's enough to get the idea. This is confusing, particularly to anyone
who doesn't know the family, which includes my mother in law, who is
Mildred's daughter whose father is unknown, and did not grow up with
Mildred. Is there a way to just get the children of each generation and
all their information to appear under the direct ancestor whose children
they are, with indentation to make it easy to see where htey fall in the
family group?


--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]

[Paul Blair]

TMG is a very complete program, much beloved by many. But Dora has
characterised it very well - a clunker, walking around in lead boots.
Even with 2GB memory, it is very much a plod to use. That doesn't reduce
its enjoyment to use, but it is a very serious drawback.

Paul
Australia


Bob Velke wrote:

Dora said:

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all
children in ancestor reports.

There are so many ridiculous assertions in this message, including
Dora's characterization of TMG users, the design principles of the
program, and the description of her own computer (500 Megs RAM running
WinXP) as having "extra memory capacity of every kind" that I won't even
bother to refute them. I think that those of you who have seen her
abuse of volunteers on half a dozen mailing lists in recent days (or her
assertions here about the relationship between Family Origins and
Legacy, for instance) have a sense for her level of credibility. She is
entitled to her opinion, of course, but her admission that she doesn't
know what features distinguish TMG -- which would explain why it is so
popular, especially among professional genealogists -- speaks to her
authority on the subject.

For the record, however, I posted a long, detailed response to her on
TMG-L on Wednesday, listing the specific report options that she should
choose in order to get the results reflected in the subject of this
thread. Without bothering to even acknowledge that message, she
continues to insist that TMG won't do it.

Oh, well.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com

[[email protected]]

Bob Velke wrote:

I think that those of you who have
seen her abuse of volunteers on half a dozen mailing lists in recent
days (or her assertions here about the relationship between Family
Origins and Legacy, for instance) have a sense for her level of
credibility.

I have to admit I'm sorry I ever mentioned TMG to her.

btw- her record of abuse didn't start just recently. I got curious and
checked her posting history and it goes back years- and has not been
confined to just computing subjects.

[Bob Velke]

Dora said:

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all
children in ancestor reports.

There are so many ridiculous assertions in this message, including
Dora's characterization of TMG users, the design principles of the
program, and the description of her own computer (500 Megs RAM
running WinXP) as having "extra memory capacity of every kind" that I
won't even bother to refute them. I think that those of you who have
seen her abuse of volunteers on half a dozen mailing lists in recent
days (or her assertions here about the relationship between Family
Origins and Legacy, for instance) have a sense for her level of
credibility. She is entitled to her opinion, of course, but her
admission that she doesn't know what features distinguish TMG --
which would explain why it is so popular, especially among
professional genealogists -- speaks to her authority on the subject.

For the record, however, I posted a long, detailed response to her on
TMG-L on Wednesday, listing the specific report options that she
should choose in order to get the results reflected in the subject of
this thread. Without bothering to even acknowledge that message, she
continues to insist that TMG won't do it.

Oh, well.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/464 - Release Date: 10/5/2006

[Paul Blair]

So what are you going to do about the lack-of-speed problem? I have 2
copies here, both donated by ex-users, on the basis that TMG was clunky.

Paul


Bob Velke wrote:

Paul said:

TMG is a very complete program, much beloved by many. But Dora has
characterised it very well - a clunker, walking around in lead boots.
Even with 2GB memory, it is very much a plod to use.

I said that Dora is entitled to her opinion and so are you. I console
myself with the knowledge that if everyone agreed, then it wouldn't be
as popular as it is <g>.

But I'm sure you'll agree that one's right to a negative opinion isn't a
license to misrepresent facts -- like whether a program has a certain
feature. Nor is it a foundation from which to characterize the
program's users as genealogical simpletons or to presume to be an
authority about what the program was designed to do. Such
transparently-spiteful tactics just erode what little credibility is
left of the speaker.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com

[Nigel Bufton]

For direct ancestors and children only, select "Direct Ancestors and
descendants only" instead of selecting "All Relations" with a distance limit
of 1.

The distance limit restricts the number of "sidesteps" from the main line -
e.g., cousins.

"All Relations" is effectively a distance limit of zero (no cousins).

Nigel

"Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Since we have soem TCGR experts here,

I want to see if I am doing this wrong. Here is my output from an
ancestor report, checking all relations, distance limit = 1, include peer
generation at beginning.

1. DIRECT RELATIONS

Generation of Peers

1. MILDRED GLADYS LAMPRON (The subject of this report) was born 1 May 1912
in Derby, Connecticut to Edmond Joseph

Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Mildred died 13 Jan 1989, aged 76 in
Northampton, Hampshire, Massachusetts.

Mildred Gladys Lampron was not married. They had one daughter:

Beverly Ann Lampron [11] born 1939

2. FRANK CIMINI (Mildred's husband). He died 24 Jul 1944 in Killed in
action in Europe.

Frank Cimini married Mildred Gladys Lampron, aged 30, 23 Feb 1943 in
Sacred Heart Church, Northampton,

Massachusetts

3. LAWRENCE J. BRACKNEY (Mildred's husband) was born 1912. Lawrence died
21 Oct 1968, aged about 55 in

Northampton, Hampshire, Massachusetts.

Lawrence J. Brackney, aged about 34, married Mildred Gladys Lampron [1],
aged 34, 19 Apr 1947 in sacred Heart

Church, Northampton, Massachusetts. They had one daughter:

Shirley Ann Brackney [13] born 1949

4. EDMUND JOSEPH LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 23 Jan 1907 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Edmond Joseph

Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Edmund died 1940, aged about 33 in
Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

5. ALICE RADKE (Mildred's sister-in-law). She died 6 Apr 2004 in
Pittsfield, Berkshire, Massachusetts. She was buried in

Pittsfield cemetery.

Edmund Joseph Lampron married Alice Radke.

6. GEORGE LEO LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 1907 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Edmond Joseph Lampron

[15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. George died 10 Feb 1908 as an infant in
Northampton, Massachusetts.

7. HAROLD FREDERICK LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 4 Jul 1909 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Edmond

Joseph Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Harold died 17 Dec 1985, aged
76 in Tempe, Arizona. He was buried in

Green Acres Cemetery, Scottsdale, AZ.

8. MS. UNKNOWN (Mildred's sister-in-law).

Harold Frederick Lampron married Ms. Unknown.

9. ELIZABETH UNKNOWN (Mildred's sister-in-law).

Harold Frederick Lampron [7], when younger than 55, married Elizabeth
Unknown BEF 1964

10. ARTHUR RAYMOND LAMPRON (Mildred's brother) was born 5 Aug 1910 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Edmond

Joseph Lampron [15] and Mary Ella Tacy [16]. Arthur died bEF 1920, when
younger than 10.

Generation of Children

11. BEVERLY ANN LAMPRON (Mildred's daughter) was born 1939 in Westfield,
MA to Mildred Gladys Lampron [1].

12. RUSSELL HARRISON MCKINSTRY (Mildred's son-in-law) was born 1939 in
Southbridge, MA.

Russell Harrison McKinstry, aged about 22, married Beverly Ann Lampron,
aged about 22, 1961 in Concord, MA

13. SHIRLEY ANN BRACKNEY (Mildred's daughter) was born 1949 to Lawrence J.
Brackney [3] and Mildred Gladys Lampron

[1].

14. RICHARD E. JOHNSON (Mildred's son-in-law).

Richard E. Johnson married Shirley Ann Brackney, aged about 26, 1975 in
Williamsburg, Massachusetts

Generation of Parents

15. EDMOND JOSEPH LAMPRON (Mildred's father) was born 3 Mar 1881 in
Moorhead, Indiana to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41]. Edmond died 25 Feb 1939, aged 57 in Pittsfield,
Berkshire, Massachusetts.

16. MARY ELLA TACY (Mildred's mother) was born dated 'Jun or Jul 1885 or
1886' in Prob Chesterfield, New York to

Abraham Tacy (Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur
(Hart) [44]. Mary died 25 Sep 1939 in Pittsfield,

Berkshire, Massachusetts.

Edmond Joseph Lampron, aged 25, married Mary Ella Tacy 25 Apr 1906 in
Northampton, Massachusetts. They had

five children:

Page 1

Edmund Joseph Lampron [4] born 23 Jan 1907

George Leo Lampron [6] born 1907

Harold Frederick Lampron [7] born 4 Jul 1909

Arthur Raymond Lampron [10] born 5 Aug 1910

Mildred Gladys Lampron [1] born 1 May 1912

17. EUGENE O LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born ABT 1873 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41]. Eugene died 29 Jul 1950, aged about 76 in
Northampton, Hampshire, Massachusetts.

18. CLARA B. UNKNOWN (Mildred's aunt by marriage) was born ABT 1882. Clara
died 16 Feb 1953, aged about 70.

Eugene O Lampron married Clara B. Unknown.

19. ALBERT ELY LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 17 Mar 1875 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40]

and Aurelie Duteau [41]. He was christened 25 Mar 1875 in St. Mary,
Northampton, MA. Albert died 14 Jan 1941, aged 65

in Becket, Berkshire, MA.

20. ANNIE UNKNOWN (Mildred's aunt by marriage).

Albert Ely Lampron, aged about 20, married Annie Unknown 1895

21. ALFRED A. LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 11 Jan 1877 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41].

22. DELPHINE BOUCHARD (Mildred's aunt by marriage).

Alfred A. Lampron, aged 21, married Delphine Bouchard 6 Sep 1898 in
Northampton, Massachusetts

23. MARY DALY LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born 9 Dec 1878 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Aurelie Duteau [41].

24. JULIE LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born ABT 1880 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and Julienne

Ouilette [42]. Julie died 1885, aged about 5 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

25. MARY LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Nov 1884 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and Julienne

Ouilette [42].

26. WILLIAM NAPOLEON LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 21 Jun 1886 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Oliver

Lampron [40] and Julienne Ouilette [42].

27. ELLA LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Jul 1888 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and Julienne

Ouilette [42]. Ella died 23 May 1970, aged 81 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

Ella Lampron was married (no recorded family details).

28. EMILDE E. LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Nov 1890 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42]. Emilde died 8 Apr 1853, aged -38 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

29. EUGENE E LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born 17 Nov 1890 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42].

30. JOSEPH LAMPRON (Mildred's uncle) was born ABT 1891 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42]. Joseph died 1896, aged about 5 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

31. ROSANNA EVA LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Aug 1892 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40]

and Julienne Ouilette [42].

32. GEORGE M. PELKEY (Mildred's uncle by marriage) was born in Vermont.

George M. Pelkey married Rosanna Eva Lampron.

33. OBELINE LAMPRON (Mildred's aunt) was born Aug 1892 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Oliver Lampron [40] and

Julienne Ouilette [42]. Obeline died 26 Feb 1951, aged 58 in Northampton,
Massachusetts.

34. LIBA TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's aunt) was born 1872/1873 to Abraham
Tacy (Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie

Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

35. ARTHUR TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 1877 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy (Tessier)

[43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44]. Arthur died
1899, aged about 22 in Northampton,

Massachusetts.

Page 2

36. FREDERICK TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 30 Mar 1879 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy

(Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

37. ALONZO TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born May 1881 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy

(Tessier) [43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

38. WILFRED TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 1888 in Northampton,
Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy (Tessier)

[43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

39. LEO TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's uncle) was born 1894/1898 in
Northampton, Massachusetts to Abraham Tacy (Tessier)

[43] and Julia (Sophia, Marie Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart) [44].

Generation of Grandparents

40. OLIVER LAMPRON (Mildred's grandfather) was born 1850/1855 in Canada to
Francois-Xavier (Frank) Lampron [78] and

Julie Gelinas [79]. Oliver died 12 Nov 1897, aged about 46 in Northampton,
Massachusetts. He was buried in St. Mary's

Cemetery.

41. AURELIE DUTEAU (Mildred's grandmother) was born 19 Jun 1850 in
Saint-Bernard-De-Lacolle, St-Jean, Quebec to Elois

Duteau [81] and Marie Adelaide Charet [82].

Oliver Lampron, aged about 20, married Aurelie Duteau, aged 20, 7 Jan 1871
in Northampton, Massachusetts. They

had five children:

Eugene O Lampron [17] born ABT 1873

Albert Ely Lampron [19] born 17 Mar 1875

Alfred A. Lampron [21] born 11 Jan 1877

Mary Daly Lampron [23] born 9 Dec 1878

Edmond Joseph Lampron [15] born 3 Mar 1881

42. JULIENNE OUILETTE (Mildred's grandmother by marriage) was born Mar
1860 in Canada. Julienne died 19 Mar 1950,

aged 90 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Oliver Lampron [40], aged about 32, married Julienne Ouilette, aged 23, 8
May 1883 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

They had nine children:

Julie Lampron [24] born ABT 1880

Mary Lampron [25] born Nov 1884

William Napoleon Lampron [26] born 21 Jun 1886

Ella Lampron [27] born Jul 1888

Emilde E. Lampron [28] born Nov 1890

Eugene E Lampron [29] born 17 Nov 1890

Joseph Lampron [30] born ABT 1891

Rosanna Eva Lampron [31] born Aug 1892

Obeline Lampron [33] born Aug 1892

43. ABRAHAM TACY (TESSIER) (Mildred's grandfather) was born Jun 1845 in
Clintonville or Plattsburg, Clinton, NY to

Abraham (Abram, Amable) Tacy (Tessier) [83] and Rosilla Luck [84].

44. JULIA (SOPHIA, MARIE GEORGINA) JOLICOEUR (HART) (Mildred's
grandmother) was born 15 Jan 1850 in

Ste-Genevieve-de-Berthier, Berthier,Quebec to Joseph Jolicoeur (Hart) [85]
and Genevieve (Jane) Robert [86]. Julia died

1903, aged about 53 in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Abraham Tacy (Tessier), aged about 27, married Julia (Sophia, Marie
Georgina) Jolicoeur (Hart), aged about 22, ABT

1872. They had seven children:

Mary Ella Tacy [16] born dated 'Jun or Jul 1885 or 1886'

Liba Tacy (Tessier) [34] born 1872/1873

Arthur Tacy (Tessier) [35] born 1877

Frederick Tacy (Tessier) [36] born 30 Mar 1879

Alonzo Tacy (Tessier) [37] born May 1881

Wilfred Tacy (Tessier) [38] born 1888

Leo Tacy (Tessier) [39] born 1894/1898

45. ELIZABETH GARNER (Mildred's grandmother by marriage).

Abraham Tacy (Tessier) [43], aged 65, married Elizabeth Garner 26 Dec 1910
in Northampton, Massachusetts

46. SEVERE FRANK LAMPRON (Mildred's great uncle) was born ABT 1847/1849 to
Francois-Xavier (Frank) Lampron [78]

and Julie Gelinas [79].

Page



That's enough to get the idea. This is confusing, particularly to
anyone who doesn't know the family, which includes my mother in law, who
is Mildred's daughter whose father is unknown, and did not grow up with
Mildred. Is there a way to just get the children of each generation
and all their information to appear under the direct ancestor whose
children they are, with indentation to make it easy to see where htey fall
in the family group?


--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]

[Paul Blair]

Your web site says that TMG requires a 166 Pentium with 64 megs of RAM.
You certainly do have a problem when it is slow on a 3GHz machine with 2
GB RAM that works just fine...

Maybe its time to tell potential customers what they really need by way
of computer spec.

Paul


Bob Velke wrote:

Paul said:

So what are you going to do about the lack-of-speed problem? I have 2
copies here, both donated by ex-users, on the basis that TMG was clunky.

I don't have a speed problem with TMG -- but since you do, I encourage
you to write to [email protected] and they will be very happy to
work with you to determine what resources TMG is finding available to it
and what might be done to make it faster for you.

Thanks.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com

[Bob Velke]

Paul said:

TMG is a very complete program, much beloved by many. But Dora has
characterised it very well - a clunker, walking around in lead
boots. Even with 2GB memory, it is very much a plod to use.

I said that Dora is entitled to her opinion and so are you. I
console myself with the knowledge that if everyone agreed, then it
wouldn't be as popular as it is <g>.

But I'm sure you'll agree that one's right to a negative opinion
isn't a license to misrepresent facts -- like whether a program has a
certain feature. Nor is it a foundation from which to characterize
the program's users as genealogical simpletons or to presume to be an
authority about what the program was designed to do. Such
transparently-spiteful tactics just erode what little credibility is
left of the speaker.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/464 - Release Date: 10/5/2006

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:40:53 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]>
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

do that other programs do not - which would be the advantage of using what
everyone (else) reports is a very large clunker of a program, with an

And just who is this "everyone"? You never did answer the TMG
mailing list regarding that; no one that I know of has ever called TMG
by the terms you state "everyone" considers it.

ineffienct setup not seen since the days of mainframe computers and DOS, and
error messages also not seen since that time, that is hard to figure out
how to use. The program uses far more system resources than any of my

TMG is a complex, powerful, program whose primary design is focused
on the detailed recording of data. It, and Ultimate Family Tree, are
event-based programs -- I'm out of date, but as of a few years ago, they
where the ONLY genealogy programs centered around events and not
"families". It makes for a significant difference in the viewpoint
needed to take advantage of the program.

clunky, problem-ridden, hard to figure out program that doesn't even do
actual genealogical reports.

TMG has some of the most customizable reports available. But what

you asked for: an ANCESTOR report that included children of NON-ANCESTOR
lines is something /I've/ never seen in any program. Pretty much all
professionals would consider such a report an anomaly.

share much information, even more severely than the people to whom the other
spouses and their children don't belong in the family. Just people who'd

My data set has many collateral branches -- it goes some six or
seven "columns" across once you follow the "up to grandfather, down to
cousin, up to cousin's spouse's grandparents, down..." None of those are
part of an Ancestor report. The best report to get "everyone" is the
Journal, in Descendant direction, selecting EACH end-of-line ancestor to
be the start of a chapter.
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:27:44 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]>
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

Two utilities that work with your GEDCOM; Brother's Keeper and The Complete
Genealogical Reporter, include all the children of all the marriages of each
ancestor in ancestor reports.

Of course, to create that GEDCOM implies that you are using some

other program for data entry... GEDCOM itself is only a text format
created for transferring a specific set (a set meant for submittal to
the LDS, anything beyond that is not guaranteed) between programs.
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Bob Velke]

Paul said:

So what are you going to do about the lack-of-speed problem? I have
2 copies here, both donated by ex-users, on the basis that TMG was clunky.

I don't have a speed problem with TMG -- but since you do, I
encourage you to write to [email protected] and they will be
very happy to work with you to determine what resources TMG is
finding available to it and what might be done to make it faster for you.

Thanks.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/464 - Release Date: 10/5/2006

[Pam]

"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Your web site says that TMG requires a 166 Pentium with 64 megs of RAM.
You certainly do have a problem when it is slow on a 3GHz machine with 2
GB RAM that works just fine...

Maybe its time to tell potential customers what they really need by way of
computer spec.

I am using TMG on a 2.8 Ghz machine with 1 GB RAM and it is very quick. I
can't see where it could get any faster. It may be something to do with a
specific computer configuration. I usually run TMG with several other
programs open and the only time I see any sort of slow down is if I've used
Photoshop beforehand and that extends to other programs as well. It's a
Photoshop quirk in that case.

Pam
http://www.pamsgenealogy.net

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:00:23 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bob
Velke) wrote:

I'm not responding to Bob, I'm just using his post to offer an
opinion.

Legacy, RootsMagic and TMG (rearrange the order if you wish) are three
of the most respected genealogy programs and each is highly rated by
all ratings reports I have seen.

If any one program served all our needs and wishes there would be no
need for the other two - or the multitude of other programs available.

Each of those programs has a user group for discussing problems and
posting a wish list for future upgrades.

I'm not sure these newsgroups are the proper forum for enumerating the
faults of programs when better fora are available. The possible
exception might be FTM which, as I understand, has no user group.

Once people are pushed into defending the program they like the
quality of the posts goes down hill rapidly.

And, yes, I understand that when I point the finger at someone else
three fingers point at me.

Hugh

[singhals]

Bob Velke wrote:

Dora said:

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all
children in ancestor reports.


There are so many ridiculous assertions in this message, including
Dora's characterization of TMG users, the design principles of the
program, and the description of her own computer (500 Megs RAM running
WinXP) as having "extra memory capacity of every kind" that I won't even
bother to refute them. I think that those of you who have seen her
abuse of volunteers on half a dozen mailing lists in recent days (or her
assertions here about the relationship between Family Origins and
Legacy, for instance) have a sense for her level of credibility. She is
entitled to her opinion, of course, but her admission that she doesn't
know what features distinguish TMG -- which would explain why it is so
popular, especially among professional genealogists -- speaks to her
authority on the subject.

For the record, however, I posted a long, detailed response to her on
TMG-L on Wednesday, listing the specific report options that she should
choose in order to get the results reflected in the subject of this
thread. Without bothering to even acknowledge that message, she
continues to insist that TMG won't do it.

Oh, well.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com

Somewhere, on some list, in some message I saw the morning of Friday
(Oct 6, I think) was the clue to the problem -- don't think there's a
solution, though. If there is, talk to Yvon Cyr or Denis Beauregarde.

If you developers want to ask me privately, I'll share.

Cheryl

[Dale DePriest]

Denis Beauregard wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:10:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:


On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:02:19 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
wrote:


Family Origins is the ancestor of Legacy, and its web site says Family
Origins not still available and takes you to Legacy. Legacy says they
don't include multiple spouses and children thereof in ancestral databases.
It is possible that Family Origins once did, despite having allegedly been
designed by the same people with the same attitude problems as the people
who designed Legacy.

Not true.

Family Origins may not be available, but I don't think it had much to do with
Legacy.


FO was purchased by FTM and disappeared. But it is possible the
developpers of FO started Legacy. It is a matter of contract when
selling a software.

The Developer of FO developed RootsMagic after the purchase and demise
of FO.

--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:14:21 -0400, Denis Beauregard
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:10:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:02:19 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
wrote:

Family Origins is the ancestor of Legacy, and its web site says Family
Origins not still available and takes you to Legacy. Legacy says they
don't include multiple spouses and children thereof in ancestral databases.
It is possible that Family Origins once did, despite having allegedly been
designed by the same people with the same attitude problems as the people
who designed Legacy.

Not true.

Family Origins may not be available, but I don't think it had much to do with
Legacy.

FO was purchased by FTM and disappeared. But it is possible the
developpers of FO started Legacy. It is a matter of contract when
selling a software.


Denis

Well, as best I can recall, FO was developed by Bruce Buzbee, and
Parsons Technology marketed it. Eventually, the owners of FTM bought
out Parsons, and so they owned the marketing rights to FO... and for
whatever reason, chose to kill it off after about a year of marketing
it. (Possibility to try to migrate the users over to FTM.)

However, Bruce chose to develop a "new" genealogy program, originally
called RootsMate, but eventually named RootsMagic. This new program
has very much the same "look and feel" as FO, and it was touted as the
logical upgrade for FO users. By the way, it also does a great job of
importing FTM files directly, including imbedded photographs.

I don't believe the developers of Legacy ever had anything to do with
the development or the marketing of either FO or RM, or FTM, other
than possibly looking carefully at those programs to try to determine
what to include in Legacy. I was not one of the early adopters of
Legacy, so my memory isn't too clear.... but I don't believe it was
the "successor" to anything.... just a new program designed to do what
the developers thought the users wanted.

Also, a quick look at the file structures of the four programs should
tell anyone that it's FO and RM that are related. Legacy uses a
completely different approach, and FTM is completely different from
either FO/RM or Legacy.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Nigel Bufton]

"Charlie Hoffpauir" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:14:21 -0400, Denis Beauregard
[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:10:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:02:19 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
wrote:

Family Origins is the ancestor of Legacy, and its web site says Family
Origins not still available and takes you to Legacy. Legacy says they
don't include multiple spouses and children thereof in ancestral
databases.
It is possible that Family Origins once did, despite having allegedly
been
designed by the same people with the same attitude problems as the
people
who designed Legacy.

Not true.

Family Origins may not be available, but I don't think it had much to do
with
Legacy.

FO was purchased by FTM and disappeared. But it is possible the
developpers of FO started Legacy. It is a matter of contract when
selling a software.


Denis


Well, as best I can recall, FO was developed by Bruce Buzbee, and
Parsons Technology marketed it. Eventually, the owners of FTM bought
out Parsons, and so they owned the marketing rights to FO... and for
whatever reason, chose to kill it off after about a year of marketing
it. (Possibility to try to migrate the users over to FTM.)

However, Bruce chose to develop a "new" genealogy program, originally
called RootsMate, but eventually named RootsMagic. This new program
has very much the same "look and feel" as FO, and it was touted as the
logical upgrade for FO users. By the way, it also does a great job of
importing FTM files directly, including imbedded photographs.

I don't believe the developers of Legacy ever had anything to do with
the development or the marketing of either FO or RM, or FTM, other
than possibly looking carefully at those programs to try to determine
what to include in Legacy. I was not one of the early adopters of
Legacy, so my memory isn't too clear.... but I don't believe it was
the "successor" to anything.... just a new program designed to do what
the developers thought the users wanted.

Also, a quick look at the file structures of the four programs should
tell anyone that it's FO and RM that are related. Legacy uses a
completely different approach, and FTM is completely different from
either FO/RM or Legacy.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

FTM is different from almost all modern programs in that it won't export
media tags to a GEDCOM file. Fine if you want to be locked in...

Nigel

[Paul Blair]

Pam wrote:

"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Your web site says that TMG requires a 166 Pentium with 64 megs of RAM.
You certainly do have a problem when it is slow on a 3GHz machine with 2
GB RAM that works just fine...

Maybe its time to tell potential customers what they really need by way of
computer spec.

I am using TMG on a 2.8 Ghz machine with 1 GB RAM and it is very quick. I
can't see where it could get any faster. It may be something to do with a
specific computer configuration. I usually run TMG with several other
programs open and the only time I see any sort of slow down is if I've used
Photoshop beforehand and that extends to other programs as well. It's a
Photoshop quirk in that case.

Pam
http://www.pamsgenealogy.net

It rather depends on what you do with it....

Paul

[Dora Smith]

Well, you know how that goes.

I got chewed out by the people who run TMG for sayign that the customer
support people I wrote to from the e-mail link on the TMG web site are
"their" customer support people!

Alas, things only went downhill from there.

I'm not that anxious to pin down the details - let the developers themselves
worry about it! They may worry about it enough for all of us.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Charlie Hoffpauir" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:14:21 -0400, Denis Beauregard
[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:10:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:02:19 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
wrote:

Family Origins is the ancestor of Legacy, and its web site says Family
Origins not still available and takes you to Legacy. Legacy says they
don't include multiple spouses and children thereof in ancestral
databases.
It is possible that Family Origins once did, despite having allegedly
been
designed by the same people with the same attitude problems as the
people
who designed Legacy.

Not true.

Family Origins may not be available, but I don't think it had much to do
with
Legacy.

FO was purchased by FTM and disappeared. But it is possible the
developpers of FO started Legacy. It is a matter of contract when
selling a software.


Denis


Well, as best I can recall, FO was developed by Bruce Buzbee, and
Parsons Technology marketed it. Eventually, the owners of FTM bought
out Parsons, and so they owned the marketing rights to FO... and for
whatever reason, chose to kill it off after about a year of marketing
it. (Possibility to try to migrate the users over to FTM.)

However, Bruce chose to develop a "new" genealogy program, originally
called RootsMate, but eventually named RootsMagic. This new program
has very much the same "look and feel" as FO, and it was touted as the
logical upgrade for FO users. By the way, it also does a great job of
importing FTM files directly, including imbedded photographs.

I don't believe the developers of Legacy ever had anything to do with
the development or the marketing of either FO or RM, or FTM, other
than possibly looking carefully at those programs to try to determine
what to include in Legacy. I was not one of the early adopters of
Legacy, so my memory isn't too clear.... but I don't believe it was
the "successor" to anything.... just a new program designed to do what
the developers thought the users wanted.

Also, a quick look at the file structures of the four programs should
tell anyone that it's FO and RM that are related. Legacy uses a
completely different approach, and FTM is completely different from
either FO/RM or Legacy.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Dora Smith]

Nigel, I don't like FTM, so no reason to pick with you, but I am wondering
what is the advantage to exporting a tag that is peculiar to FTM to a GEDCOM
file. Or have you figured out how to import irregular tags into other
programs? Because someone asked how to do that between Legacy and Roots
Magic, and noone answered him.

Of course, I am supposing that you aren't merely trying to split your
database. In PAF the only way to split your database is to export gedcoms
and import them into new databases. If FTM won't export certain tags,
they'd better provide a way to manipulate the database that keeps your data
intact! Not, of course, that FTM necessarily contains obvious common sense
features. FTM hasn't figured out how to import your irregular date and
leave it alone yet.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Nigel Bufton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Charlie Hoffpauir" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:14:21 -0400, Denis Beauregard
[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:10:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:02:19 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
wrote:

Family Origins is the ancestor of Legacy, and its web site says Family
Origins not still available and takes you to Legacy. Legacy says
they
don't include multiple spouses and children thereof in ancestral
databases.
It is possible that Family Origins once did, despite having allegedly
been
designed by the same people with the same attitude problems as the
people
who designed Legacy.

Not true.

Family Origins may not be available, but I don't think it had much to do
with
Legacy.

FO was purchased by FTM and disappeared. But it is possible the
developpers of FO started Legacy. It is a matter of contract when
selling a software.


Denis


Well, as best I can recall, FO was developed by Bruce Buzbee, and
Parsons Technology marketed it. Eventually, the owners of FTM bought
out Parsons, and so they owned the marketing rights to FO... and for
whatever reason, chose to kill it off after about a year of marketing
it. (Possibility to try to migrate the users over to FTM.)

However, Bruce chose to develop a "new" genealogy program, originally
called RootsMate, but eventually named RootsMagic. This new program
has very much the same "look and feel" as FO, and it was touted as the
logical upgrade for FO users. By the way, it also does a great job of
importing FTM files directly, including imbedded photographs.

I don't believe the developers of Legacy ever had anything to do with
the development or the marketing of either FO or RM, or FTM, other
than possibly looking carefully at those programs to try to determine
what to include in Legacy. I was not one of the early adopters of
Legacy, so my memory isn't too clear.... but I don't believe it was
the "successor" to anything.... just a new program designed to do what
the developers thought the users wanted.

Also, a quick look at the file structures of the four programs should
tell anyone that it's FO and RM that are related. Legacy uses a
completely different approach, and FTM is completely different from
either FO/RM or Legacy.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

FTM is different from almost all modern programs in that it won't export
media tags to a GEDCOM file. Fine if you want to be locked in...

Nigel

[Dora Smith]

Bob, you asked for it when you brought our discussion on the TMG list to
these newgroups. If you'd left bad enough alone, you'd never have heard
from me again, and TMG hardly has enough advantages for me to have a reason
to discuss it on my own.

Why don't you make your program work, and quit trying to argue people who
find shortcomings with it into submission? It won't work. The latter
strategy will not get you where you are trying to get. Take your quixotic
little group of users, and enjoy them.

And that's all I have to say to you.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Bob Velke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dora said:

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all children in
ancestor reports.

There are so many ridiculous assertions in this message, including Dora's
characterization of TMG users, the design principles of the program, and
the description of her own computer (500 Megs RAM running WinXP) as having
"extra memory capacity of every kind" that I won't even bother to refute
them. I think that those of you who have seen her abuse of volunteers on
half a dozen mailing lists in recent days (or her assertions here about
the relationship between Family Origins and Legacy, for instance) have a
sense for her level of credibility. She is entitled to her opinion, of
course, but her admission that she doesn't know what features distinguish
TMG --
which would explain why it is so popular, especially among professional
genealogists -- speaks to her authority on the subject.

For the record, however, I posted a long, detailed response to her on
TMG-L on Wednesday, listing the specific report options that she should
choose in order to get the results reflected in the subject of this
thread. Without bothering to even acknowledge that message, she continues
to insist that TMG won't do it.

Oh, well.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/464 - Release Date: 10/5/2006

[Dora Smith]

I have a 2 + gig Celeron D with 500 Megs of RAM. I actually sent my
detailed statistics to Jim, the other TMG person on the TMG list, so they
know what my computer has got.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Your web site says that TMG requires a 166 Pentium with 64 megs of RAM.
You certainly do have a problem when it is slow on a 3GHz machine with 2
GB RAM that works just fine...

Maybe its time to tell potential customers what they really need by way of
computer spec.

Paul


Bob Velke wrote:
Paul said:

So what are you going to do about the lack-of-speed problem? I have 2
copies here, both donated by ex-users, on the basis that TMG was clunky.

I don't have a speed problem with TMG -- but since you do, I encourage
you to write to [email protected] and they will be very happy to
work with you to determine what resources TMG is finding available to it
and what might be done to make it faster for you.

Thanks.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com

[Dora Smith]

Pam:

How large is your database? TMG does work well on microscopic databases
that contain only a few lines of only direct ancestors.

Some of us are actually doing family history - but no, I already got into
that.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Pam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Your web site says that TMG requires a 166 Pentium with 64 megs of RAM.
You certainly do have a problem when it is slow on a 3GHz machine with 2
GB RAM that works just fine...

Maybe its time to tell potential customers what they really need by way
of computer spec.

I am using TMG on a 2.8 Ghz machine with 1 GB RAM and it is very quick. I
can't see where it could get any faster. It may be something to do with a
specific computer configuration. I usually run TMG with several other
programs open and the only time I see any sort of slow down is if I've
used Photoshop beforehand and that extends to other programs as well.
It's a Photoshop quirk in that case.

Pam
http://www.pamsgenealogy.net

[Dora Smith]

Well, my opinion is that they may be respected, but if they cannot print
entire family groups in an ancestor report, they are useless, and their
developers either are idiots or suffering from an incomprehensible level of
failure to care.

I'd be stark raving insane by now if I cared more what is "respected" than
what does the job.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"J. Hugh Sullivan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 05:00:23 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Bob
Velke) wrote:

I'm not responding to Bob, I'm just using his post to offer an
opinion.

Legacy, RootsMagic and TMG (rearrange the order if you wish) are three
of the most respected genealogy programs and each is highly rated by
all ratings reports I have seen.

If any one program served all our needs and wishes there would be no
need for the other two - or the multitude of other programs available.

Each of those programs has a user group for discussing problems and
posting a wish list for future upgrades.

I'm not sure these newsgroups are the proper forum for enumerating the
faults of programs when better fora are available. The possible
exception might be FTM which, as I understand, has no user group.

Once people are pushed into defending the program they like the
quality of the posts goes down hill rapidly.

And, yes, I understand that when I point the finger at someone else
three fingers point at me.

Hugh

[Dora Smith]

Yes, there's a solution. Brother's Keeper and The Complete GEnealogy
Reporter have both figured out how to include all the children by all the
spouses in an ancestor report. Not impossible, and not somehow more
difficult than merely printing out ONE marriage and set of children per
direct ancestor.

I also asked on Denis Beauregard's list, since the multiplicity of multiple
marriages that I am running into is specifically an artifiact of French
Canadian history and culture. It is a problem that all people with French
Canadian ancestry run into and they may have developed practical answers.
I haven't yet been over there to find out what replies I got. It did take
answering Bob of TMG to think of that approach to my problem.

One reason why more genealogists aren't as angry as I am, and are so often
willing to just piddle along in one of the stupidly deficient mainstream
genealogy programs, that is not able to do the obvious, is that people of
German and English stock did not until this generation marry multiple times
with anything like the frequency taht French Canadians always have and still
do. Most of us print descendancy reports or old fashioned piles of family
group sheets for the most recent generations of our family history. A few
ancestral multiple marriages can be dealt with by copying and pasting
without substantial loss of time and ending up with a stupid, disorganized,
unindexed mess.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"singhals" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Bob Velke wrote:

Dora said:

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all children
in ancestor reports.


There are so many ridiculous assertions in this message, including Dora's
characterization of TMG users, the design principles of the program, and
the description of her own computer (500 Megs RAM running WinXP) as
having "extra memory capacity of every kind" that I won't even bother to
refute them. I think that those of you who have seen her abuse of
volunteers on half a dozen mailing lists in recent days (or her
assertions here about the relationship between Family Origins and Legacy,
for instance) have a sense for her level of credibility. She is entitled
to her opinion, of course, but her admission that she doesn't know what
features distinguish TMG -- which would explain why it is so popular,
especially among professional genealogists -- speaks to her authority on
the subject.

For the record, however, I posted a long, detailed response to her on
TMG-L on Wednesday, listing the specific report options that she should
choose in order to get the results reflected in the subject of this
thread. Without bothering to even acknowledge that message, she
continues to insist that TMG won't do it.

Oh, well.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


Somewhere, on some list, in some message I saw the morning of Friday (Oct
6, I think) was the clue to the problem -- don't think there's a solution,
though. If there is, talk to Yvon Cyr or Denis Beauregarde.

If you developers want to ask me privately, I'll share.

Cheryl

[Dora Smith]

Actually, I unsubscribed from the TMG list after finally getting the answers
to my questions and problems, such as they are. I don't actually argue
with people merely for its own sake.

As I have now told Bob twice in this discussion, if he hadn't pushed it,
he'd have never heard from nor of me again. He blew it up himself by
trying to convince people he's right who didn't even know he's wrong.

I intend to attack FTM, Roots Magic, adn Legacy regularly until they include
the ability to import irregular dates and leave them alone (FTM does not),
and include all the spouses and children in ancestry narrative reports.
TMG just has far more than those two things wrong with it, and they jsut
aren't its most serious problems.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:40:53 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

do that other programs do not - which would be the advantage of using
what
everyone (else) reports is a very large clunker of a program, with an

And just who is this "everyone"? You never did answer the TMG
mailing list regarding that; no one that I know of has ever called TMG
by the terms you state "everyone" considers it.

ineffienct setup not seen since the days of mainframe computers and DOS,
and
error messages also not seen since that time, that is hard to figure out
how to use. The program uses far more system resources than any of my

TMG is a complex, powerful, program whose primary design is focused
on the detailed recording of data. It, and Ultimate Family Tree, are
event-based programs -- I'm out of date, but as of a few years ago, they
where the ONLY genealogy programs centered around events and not
"families". It makes for a significant difference in the viewpoint
needed to take advantage of the program.

clunky, problem-ridden, hard to figure out program that doesn't even do
actual genealogical reports.

TMG has some of the most customizable reports available. But what
you asked for: an ANCESTOR report that included children of NON-ANCESTOR
lines is something /I've/ never seen in any program. Pretty much all
professionals would consider such a report an anomaly.


share much information, even more severely than the people to whom the
other
spouses and their children don't belong in the family. Just people
who'd

My data set has many collateral branches -- it goes some six or
seven "columns" across once you follow the "up to grandfather, down to
cousin, up to cousin's spouse's grandparents, down..." None of those are
part of an Ancestor report. The best report to get "everyone" is the
Journal, in Descendant direction, selecting EACH end-of-line ancestor to
be the start of a chapter.
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Dora Smith]

Yvon Cyr's web site recommends Brother's Keeper.

Brother's Keeper does do an extremely nice job of printing out all the
marriages of each ancestor, adn all the children of each, in an attractive
and clear ahnentafel format, with the option to include notes.

Its only real shortcoming is its truncated irregular dates. That is
actually less of a problem in French Canadian genealogy because the wide
availability of specific and accurate genealogical information doesn't leave
alot of date information that looks like "1580, 1592, or 1606" (an actual
English emigrant ancestor of mine) or "1580 or 5 Jun 1582/83 or 3 May 1586".
There are alot of plain old fashioned dual dates, which Brother's Keeper
handles well, but usually you either know a specific date or you don't.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"singhals" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Bob Velke wrote:

Dora said:

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all children
in ancestor reports.


There are so many ridiculous assertions in this message, including Dora's
characterization of TMG users, the design principles of the program, and
the description of her own computer (500 Megs RAM running WinXP) as
having "extra memory capacity of every kind" that I won't even bother to
refute them. I think that those of you who have seen her abuse of
volunteers on half a dozen mailing lists in recent days (or her
assertions here about the relationship between Family Origins and Legacy,
for instance) have a sense for her level of credibility. She is entitled
to her opinion, of course, but her admission that she doesn't know what
features distinguish TMG -- which would explain why it is so popular,
especially among professional genealogists -- speaks to her authority on
the subject.

For the record, however, I posted a long, detailed response to her on
TMG-L on Wednesday, listing the specific report options that she should
choose in order to get the results reflected in the subject of this
thread. Without bothering to even acknowledge that message, she
continues to insist that TMG won't do it.

Oh, well.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


Somewhere, on some list, in some message I saw the morning of Friday (Oct
6, I think) was the clue to the problem -- don't think there's a solution,
though. If there is, talk to Yvon Cyr or Denis Beauregarde.

If you developers want to ask me privately, I'll share.

Cheryl

[Nigel Bufton]

The GEDCOM standard is quite clear on date formats, and all programs which
profess to support GEDCOM import/export really should comply with it. If a
program imports a GEDCOM file and that file's DATE tags comply with the
standard, then the program should handle them according to the standard.
Otherwise, the program is not strictly accurate if it professes to import
GEDCOM files. Similarly, if a program doesn't export dates according to the
standard, then other software complying with the standard cannot be expected
to reliably import them.

The DATE formats components are:
DATE_EXACT
DATE_MODIFIER
DATE_REGULAR
DATE_RANGE
DATE_WITH_BC
DATE_DUAL
DATE_PHRASE

DATE_EXACT is defined as DAY MONTH YEAR, MONTH YEAR, or YEAR
MONTH is defined as Jan, Feb, Mar,...Dec
YEAR may be the specific year, or a DUAL year
DATE_MODIFIER is defined as ABT, AFT, BEF, EST
DATE_REGULAR is defined as DATE_MODIFIER + DATE_EXACT
DATE_RANGE is defined as BET DATE_REGULAR AND DATE_REGULAR
DATE_WITH_BC is defined as being a data followed by B.C.
DATE_DUAL is defined as a DATE_REGULAR with an alternative calendar change
year, e.g., 15 Dec 1752/3
DATE_PHRASE is defined as any text statement giving information about when
the event occurred.

There are also specifications covering CALENDAR_ESCAPE_SEQUENCES, these
being for Hebrew, Roman, French, Gregorian, Julian and Unknown calendars to
indicate that the date is of that calendar. (These are very rarely used.)

Technically, any date that does not conform to one of the defined formats
should be treated as a DATE PHRASE - i.e., free text data describing the
date, and should be exported and imported as such. Similarly, any program
that imports a date in DATE_PHRASE format should preserve it as such.

The following are examples of what are technically DATE_PHRASEs as they do
not fit the other standard types: "Dec 15 1999", "From 1988 to 1990", "After
1784", "5/8/1887", "From 1887 to 1903"

If a program imports a DATE_PHRASE, it should export it as read, even if
that program makes its own interpretation of what it may mean.
Additionally, all programs should permit specification of any text as a data
field if they profess to be GEDCOM compatible.

Nigel
"The Complete Genealogy Reporter"


"Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Yvon Cyr's web site recommends Brother's Keeper.

Brother's Keeper does do an extremely nice job of printing out all the
marriages of each ancestor, adn all the children of each, in an attractive
and clear ahnentafel format, with the option to include notes.

Its only real shortcoming is its truncated irregular dates. That is
actually less of a problem in French Canadian genealogy because the wide
availability of specific and accurate genealogical information doesn't
leave alot of date information that looks like "1580, 1592, or 1606" (an
actual English emigrant ancestor of mine) or "1580 or 5 Jun 1582/83 or 3
May 1586". There are alot of plain old fashioned dual dates, which
Brother's Keeper handles well, but usually you either know a specific date
or you don't.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"singhals" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Bob Velke wrote:

Dora said:

It turns out TMG decidedly will not include all spoues and all children
in ancestor reports.


There are so many ridiculous assertions in this message, including
Dora's characterization of TMG users, the design principles of the
program, and the description of her own computer (500 Megs RAM running
WinXP) as having "extra memory capacity of every kind" that I won't even
bother to refute them. I think that those of you who have seen her
abuse of volunteers on half a dozen mailing lists in recent days (or her
assertions here about the relationship between Family Origins and
Legacy, for instance) have a sense for her level of credibility. She is
entitled to her opinion, of course, but her admission that she doesn't
know what features distinguish TMG -- which would explain why it is so
popular, especially among professional genealogists -- speaks to her
authority on the subject.

For the record, however, I posted a long, detailed response to her on
TMG-L on Wednesday, listing the specific report options that she should
choose in order to get the results reflected in the subject of this
thread. Without bothering to even acknowledge that message, she
continues to insist that TMG won't do it.

Oh, well.

Bob Velke
President
Wholly Genes Software
http://www.WhollyGenes.com


Somewhere, on some list, in some message I saw the morning of Friday (Oct
6, I think) was the clue to the problem -- don't think there's a
solution, though. If there is, talk to Yvon Cyr or Denis Beauregarde.

If you developers want to ask me privately, I'll share.

Cheryl

[Pam]

"Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Pam:

How large is your database? TMG does work well on microscopic databases
that contain only a few lines of only direct ancestors.

Dora,

I have several thousand in my database. I definitely am doing family
history extensively and have much more than a few lines of direct ancestors.
I also have numerous tags for each person as well as quite a few exhibits
attached as well as research tasks attached to many people. Computers can
be quirky and even two computers with the same basic setup can run
differently depending on the programs installed and the way it's configured.
When I get a new computer I go in and clean out a lot of the junk put there
by the computer manufacturer and that includes going into my config.sys and
removing a lot of unnecessary programs from loading when I boot up t he
computer.

Pam

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:41:59 GMT, "Dora Smith"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Actually, I unsubscribed from the TMG list after finally getting the answers
to my questions and problems, such as they are. I don't actually argue
with people merely for its own sake.

As I have now told Bob twice in this discussion, if he hadn't pushed it,
he'd have never heard from nor of me again. He blew it up himself by
trying to convince people he's right who didn't even know he's wrong.

I intend to attack FTM, Roots Magic, adn Legacy regularly until they include
the ability to import irregular dates and leave them alone (FTM does not),
and include all the spouses and children in ancestry narrative reports.
TMG just has far more than those two things wrong with it, and they jsut
aren't its most serious problems.

You might want to pause and see if your attacks have gotten you
anywhere. Otherwise they are nothing more than a flea crawling up an
elephant's leg with carnal knowledge on its mind. The flea might
satisfy itself but the elephant will never notice.

1. Bruce of RM, is very accomplished and, if your idea has any merit,
I expect he will attend to it. I know he added some recommendations of
mine after lengthy discussions. I wish he would add one more but
apparently I am the only one who wants it so I'll let it go.

2. Bob Velke and I have not always agreed. But he is very sharp and
produces an excellent program. I have found TMG a bit slow for certain
processes, and discussed it with him, but no one can intelligently
argue with the superior sophistication of the program.

3. Legacy has some of the most accomodating people around and is one
of my main programs. I have always received immediate answers and
solutions to my questions.

I am amazed at the cooperation I have received. I think one's approach
determines the result. An intelligent person who can accurately and
precisely explain the problem and comprehend the answers will enjoy
exchanges with any of the aforementioned three. But, if we demand
unique programming perhaps we should hire a personal professional to
do the job.

It's worth thinking about.

Hugh

[[email protected]]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

. An intelligent person who can accurately and
precisely explain the problem and comprehend the answers will enjoy
exchanges with any of the aforementioned three.

Dora has, by her own posts, proven herself to be neither intelligent,
accurate and precise nor able to comprehend answers; thus, it is little
wonder that she has not enjoyed any of the exchanges with any of the
aforementioned three.

But then that is normal with most christofascist.

[Paul Blair]

Config.sys? Que?

This has not been in practical use since Windows 95!!!!

Editing it would make a real difference...doh

Paul


Pam wrote:

"Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Pam:

How large is your database? TMG does work well on microscopic databases
that contain only a few lines of only direct ancestors.


Dora,

I have several thousand in my database. I definitely am doing family
history extensively and have much more than a few lines of direct ancestors.
I also have numerous tags for each person as well as quite a few exhibits
attached as well as research tasks attached to many people. Computers can
be quirky and even two computers with the same basic setup can run
differently depending on the programs installed and the way it's configured.
When I get a new computer I go in and clean out a lot of the junk put there
by the computer manufacturer and that includes going into my config.sys and
removing a lot of unnecessary programs from loading when I boot up t he
computer.

Pam

[[email protected]]

Dora Smith wrote:

Pam:

How large is your database? TMG does work well on microscopic databases
that contain only a few lines of only direct ancestors.

Some of us are actually doing family history - but no, I already got into
that.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith

My database can hardly be considered microscopic (37,607 people, 4,838
end of line ancestors, 188,035 events, 62,275 places, 1,780 sources,
470,087 citations) and runs quite well on my standard Dell Demension
L1000R.

[Paul Blair]

Pam wrote:

"Dora Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Pam:

How large is your database? TMG does work well on microscopic databases
that contain only a few lines of only direct ancestors.


Dora,

I have several thousand in my database. I definitely am doing family
history extensively and have much more than a few lines of direct ancestors.
I also have numerous tags for each person as well as quite a few exhibits
attached as well as research tasks attached to many people. Computers can
be quirky and even two computers with the same basic setup can run
differently depending on the programs installed and the way it's configured.
When I get a new computer I go in and clean out a lot of the junk put there
by the computer manufacturer and that includes going into my config.sys and
removing a lot of unnecessary programs from loading when I boot up t he
computer.

Pam

config.sys hasn't been in practical use since Windows 95. Why would you
bother editing it? And what difference would it make?

Paul

[[email protected]]

Dora Smith wrote:

Well, my opinion is that they may be respected, but if they cannot print
entire family groups in an ancestor report, they are useless, and their
developers either are idiots or suffering from an incomprehensible level of
failure to care.

I'd be stark raving insane by now if I cared more what is "respected" than
what does the job.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith

It is quite obvious to any rational person that entire families can NOT
be ancestors to any single descendant and do NOT belong in an ancestor
report- PERIOD.

Now there may be some report that covers ancestors and their extended
families BUT IT IS *NOT* AN ANCESTOR REPORT.

If you are to continue to do family history or genealogy PLEASE be so
kind as to use the correct terminology.

--
The Verminator

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:13:05 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]>
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

I will find out who are the most important stockholders of FTM, Legacy, and
Roots Magic, and write to them with examples. And I will post that
informaition when I find it.

Enjoy the search... Most Genealogy programs are produced by small

privately-owned companies in which the majority owner is the original
programmer -- some of whom have actually responded on these groups. The
reports they produce are based upon the requirements for submission to
the major genealogy associations: NEHGS Register format, NGS Modified
Register, and TAG [I think Legacy includes that format]. All three
family journal reports are /descendent/ reports. /Ancestor/ reports
follow the Ahnentafel scheme, which follows from one person to their
parents (and may include /common/ children of that pair), their parents,
etc.

The only obvious exception in ownership is FTM, which spent much of
its life as a Broderbund product -- until it got sold to the same
organization that bought up Ultimate Family Tree and Family Origins (as
I understand recent reports). That organization chose to discontinue the
more capable, yet more complex to use, and more costly to program, in
favor of FTM -- a product that comes out with a $30 cosmetic upgrade
practically yearly. Unlike TMG, which has had 9 patch updates to the
version 6.x line since 6.x came out, all free. And TMG upgrades tend to
be very major (4.x to 5.x was a complete rewrite of the code converting
from 16-bit W3.11 to 32-bit W9x/WinNT).
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Paul Blair]

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:13:05 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

I will find out who are the most important stockholders of FTM, Legacy, and
Roots Magic, and write to them with examples. And I will post that
informaition when I find it.

Enjoy the search... Most Genealogy programs are produced by small
privately-owned companies in which the majority owner is the original
programmer -- some of whom have actually responded on these groups. The
reports they produce are based upon the requirements for submission to
the major genealogy associations: NEHGS Register format, NGS Modified
Register, and TAG [I think Legacy includes that format]. All three
family journal reports are /descendent/ reports. /Ancestor/ reports
follow the Ahnentafel scheme, which follows from one person to their
parents (and may include /common/ children of that pair), their parents,
etc.

The only obvious exception in ownership is FTM, which spent much of
its life as a Broderbund product -- until it got sold to the same
organization that bought up Ultimate Family Tree and Family Origins (as
I understand recent reports). That organization chose to discontinue the
more capable, yet more complex to use, and more costly to program, in
favor of FTM -- a product that comes out with a $30 cosmetic upgrade
practically yearly. Unlike TMG, which has had 9 patch updates to the
version 6.x line since 6.x came out, all free. And TMG upgrades tend to
be very major (4.x to 5.x was a complete rewrite of the code converting
from 16-bit W3.11 to 32-bit W9x/WinNT).

Some interesting (and accurate) observations there.

We are probably at a point in time where the (fairly) static software
"models" are getting a bit aged (including supporting software, such as
VFP). At the same time, platforms will be quite remarkably changed with
the arrival of Vista, and the interesting (but not foregone) advent of
web hosting solutions. The retail product may never be the same again!

The marketplace isn't changing in character, but it is in expectations.
Most software buyers are a bit older, often (but not always) with a bit
of spare cash for companies like FTM to appeal to. But there seems to be
less inclination to accept bog-standard, and people want to use programs
in a way that suits their ends, not the simplistic ends presented to us.
Look at the recent brouhaha about Dora's very simple request, and the
complexity entailed in a sort-of solution.

Paul

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 06:53:57 +1000, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

config.sys hasn't been in practical use since Windows 95. Why would you
bother editing it? And what difference would it make?

autoexec.bat is still in use, and AIM keeps asking me to install some program
that messes up mine.



--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Pam]

"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Pam wrote:
\> config.sys hasn't been in practical use since Windows 95. Why would you

I was in a hurry when I wrote that. I meant msconfig and going to the
Startup Tab and unchecking unnecessary startup items. Sorry about that.

Pam

[Paul Blair]

Pam wrote:

"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Pam wrote:
\> config.sys hasn't been in practical use since Windows 95. Why would you


I was in a hurry when I wrote that. I meant msconfig and going to the
Startup Tab and unchecking unnecessary startup items. Sorry about that.

Pam

Paul

[Denis Beauregard]

Le Sun, 08 Oct 2006 14:03:29 GMT, "Dora Smith"
<[email protected]> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:

But I can hope that everyone else reads my output that closely! LOL!

Verminator, I found this posted to the French genealogy newsgroup, which
does not have a very large active membership. Do you actually have French
ancestors? Or did you follow me here in order to argue with me, because I
mentioned I would post my query about how to solve this problem on the
French newsgroup because I'm specifically running into it with French
Canadian ancestors, and someone else said that Dennis Beauregard and another
individual have been working on this problem? Who's the troll around here?

Dora:

Can you change our OE setting so as to quote at the top and
answer AFTER the message ? This makes your messages hard to read.
Top posting is to avoid, in particular in a thread.

Also, avoid cross-posting to irrelevant newsgroups like
soc.genealogy.marketplace or soc.genealogy.misc or alt.genealogy
in this thread.

I have not seen the message saying I was working about "this problem".
I don't understand what you mean. Nearly all genealogical softwares
will allow multi-spouses families at the data entry. And in all
countries with monogamic families, you will find someone having issues
from many marriages. I don't see why this would be specific to us.
For example, I checked the many New Englanders that were the ancestors
of captives brought to Quebec in the 1690s and there are many families
in New England where the father had many spouses and issues from each
wife.

As for verminator, I don't know why but his message in SGC never
shown. Perhaps because of over cross-posting ?


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[[email protected]]

Dora Smith wrote:

Lesbian!

Verminator, you are seriously a wonder! Nothing I've said in the past
week has come close to that statement.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith

You said-and I quote:

ii Daniel4 Thompson , born 13 Mar 1801 in London
Britain, Chester, PA; died 25 Jul 1868 in London Britain, Chester, PA. She
married bef 1826 in New Garden, Chester, PA Beulah C. or G. Hughes , born
1802 in Chester County, PA; died 1882 in London Britain, Chester, PA.
Notes: Daniel and/or Ezra were the elders of the London Britain (Orthodox)
Meetting.

Note the phrase "SHE married bef 1826 in New Garden, Chester, PA Beulah
C. or G. Hughes ". This indicates that two females were married- does
it not?

It was you yourself who indicated that this was a lesbian marriage.
Perhaps it was just sloppy data entry on your part?

--
The Verminator

Austin, TX
[email protected]
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dora Smith wrote:

Here's an example from my ahentafel report.

ii Daniel4 Thompson , born 13 Mar 1801 in
London
Britain, Chester, PA; died 25 Jul 1868 in London Britain, Chester, PA.
She
married bef 1826 in New Garden, Chester, PA Beulah C. or G. Hughes , born
1802 in Chester County, PA; died 1882 in London Britain, Chester, PA.
Notes: Daniel and/or Ezra were the elders of the London Britain
(Orthodox)
Meetting.

I'd hardly consider a lesbian marriage before 1826 Orthodox- be it
Quaker or any other religion!

If it by some chance wasn't a lesbian marriage then it indicates sloppy
work on the part of the party entering the data - a flaw no genealogy
program can overcome.

--
The Verminator

[Dora Smith]

Denis:

My e-mail is set up as you prefer; I don't know why Outlook Express is
handling newsgroups differently. I wonder if it's actually a newsreader
problem rather than what I'm doing. I'm replying to your message, and I am
typing at the top of the page, if that isn't where it shows up.

Verminator's comments are showing up specifically in the newsreader part of
Outlook Express under this newsgroup, but you aren't missing a whole lot.
Should there be a need for it, I could send them to you privately. On
the soc.genealogy.computing group I've not even read the bulk of what he
writes.

As you know, it is hard to send you anything privately at the moment.
Something I did try to e-mail you bounced back to me. I wonder if you also
did not see my original post to ths list on this topic. I was specifically
trying to write to you to follow up on it.

The bulk of this discussion has taken place on the soc.genealogy.computing
newsgroup. That is one long and complex discussion, and there is much of
it that one might reasonably not want to read, but I saw that you posted on
it at one point. On a different part of that discussion, someone else said
that you and someone else, I think the name might be Yvon, were working on
this issue. He has a web site, which I did find, and he refers to Brothers
Keeper, which is a solution to the problem I am addressing.

Most of my own ancestry is Anglo and German. Of course, I have families
that include more than one marriage. Most people seem to be dealing with
the failure of the more popular genealogy programs to include all spouses
and all of the children of each ancestor, by copious copying and pasting.
That is a viable solution when you have fairly small databases and not a
whole lot of families that run into that situation.

French-Canadians considered it a moral duty to have very large numbers of
children. Until now, I didn't know it was possible for a monogamous
individual to have two dozen children. Several of my brother in law's
ancestors did. Both men and women promptly remarried upon the death of a
spouse. Women died quite young, most often of bearing too many children,
which killed off half the children as well. My New England and
Pennsylvania ancestors had just ten children a piece; most mothers lived
long enough to bear all the father's children, and most children of most
families lived to reach adulthood. Atleast half of my brother in law's
French Canadian ancestors had children by more than one spouse. Now, my
brother in law's French Canadian ancestors are all the ancestry of his
father's mother, and all the ancestry of his mother's mother; which makes
the father of my nephews half French Canadian. Since my sister is the only
member of my parents' family who will ever bear children, my genealogical
work is theirs. My brother in law's mother took one look at her family
past and told me that the fact that almost no children in her family grew up
with both natural parents was part of teh severe family dysfunction that
caused her to be placed for adoption at birth and raised in foster care.
Multiple marriages and stepchildren are a real and distinctive feature of
French Canadian culture.

It is also even more important than usual to have the whole family in the
ancestor report. For instance, my brother in law's mother's mother was
raised by a grandmother who was not her father's mother, and aunts who were
not children of her grandfather and her father's mother. It was certainly
lucky for her that these four women who took her in and raised her did not
define family as narrowly as the designers of genealogical programs and some
of the people who've been arguing with me over teh past week, but most
French Canadians really would not think that way. The large families that
resulted from their marriage and childbearing patterns were close knit,
cared for each other and, as importantly, migrated together.

The individual who suggested you and someone named Von or Yvon on the post
on the soc.genealogy.computing discussion said that you are working
specifically on the problem of genealogical programs being able to print all
the spouses and all the children in an ancestor report. Why do you figure
two French Canadians would be specifically who is working on that? When I
went to Mr. Von's or Yvon's (sorry, don't know where I wrote his name down)
web site, I found that he recommends Brother's Keeper, which does
specifically address that issue.

I guess I could find her post again - not easy in that big mush of messages,
and if I see the wrong thing someone wrote I'll be tempted to answer back,
which is pointless in that discussion at this point. (I think that
everyone with something constructive to contribute has said it, and we were
starting to argue in circles.) Once I know his name I could contact Mr.
Von or Yvon, who may possibly know what she was talking about. I could
also ask her, but she said some very mixed things that left me thinking she
herself does not know or a solution nor particularly want one, and teh
entire post may have been mostly a game intended to dig at me. If she had
knowledge of how to solve the problem, why not share it with the list
instead of cattily telling people to write to her privately? She also
specifically said there is no solution to the problem, which makes no sense
in terms of saying that she knows who has a solution.

What means do you know of by which French Candian family genealogists
incorporate all the spouses and all the children in their ancestor reports?
Since most French Canadians can easily trace all lines of ancestry back
three centuries to 17th century France, as I did for nearly all lines of
both my brother in law's grandmothers, it is unreasonable to think that most
of them are pasting together some jumble of descendancy reports to arrive at
a comprehensive family tree of the information, and it is equally
unreasonable to think they are sitting there hand typing all that missing
data into their reports. Certainly they would not be wanting to.

Just to repeat, in case you did not get that post, PAF Companion, Brothers
Keeper, and The Complete Genealogical Reporter print out all the children of
all spouses of each ancestor, in ancestor reports, PAF Companion does it
best, and it may be the case that other Companion type programs developed
adn sold by Prodigy do exactly the same thing. I had posted an example.
I could post that again if you never got it.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]

"Denis Beauregard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dora:

Can you change our OE setting so as to quote at the top and
answer AFTER the message ? This makes your messages hard to read.
Top posting is to avoid, in particular in a thread.

I have not seen the message saying I was working about "this problem".
I don't understand what you mean. Nearly all genealogical softwares
will allow multi-spouses families at the data entry. And in all
countries with monogamic families, you will find someone having issues
from many marriages. I don't see why this would be specific to us.
For example, I checked the many New Englanders that were the ancestors
of captives brought to Quebec in the 1690s and there are many families
in New England where the father had many spouses and issues from each
wife.

As for verminator, I don't know why but his message in SGC never
shown. Perhaps because of over cross-posting ?


Denis

--

[Dora Smith]

Denis:

The other person she referred to is Yvon Cyr.

I have now written to him.

If neither of you turns out to know what she was talking about, I won't be
too bent out of shape. It kind of looked like you might not, though I'm
afraid I did have hope. It is possible I hoped too hard.

But how do you in actuality incorporate all the spouses and their children
for each ancestor into your own ancestor reports?

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]

The individual who suggested you and someone named Von or Yvon on the post
on the soc.genealogy.computing discussion said that you are working
specifically on the problem of genealogical programs being able to print
all the spouses and all the children in an ancestor report. Why do you
figure two French Canadians would be specifically who is working on that?
When I went to Mr. Von's or Yvon's (sorry, don't know where I wrote his
name down) web site, I found that he recommends Brother's Keeper, which
does specifically address that issue.

[Denis Beauregard]

Le Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:34:18 GMT, "Dora Smith"
<[email protected]> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:

My e-mail is set up as you prefer; I don't know why Outlook Express is
handling newsgroups differently. I wonder if it's actually a newsreader
problem rather than what I'm doing. I'm replying to your message, and I am
typing at the top of the page, if that isn't where it shows up.

I don't understand. If you don't see the message to which you reply,
how can you reply to that message ? Only from memory ? You can't
answer point by point ?

Verminator's comments are showing up specifically in the newsreader part of
Outlook Express under this newsgroup, but you aren't missing a whole lot.
Should there be a need for it, I could send them to you privately. On
the soc.genealogy.computing group I've not even read the bulk of what he
writes.

As you know, it is hard to send you anything privately at the moment.
Something I did try to e-mail you bounced back to me. I wonder if you also
did not see my original post to ths list on this topic. I was specifically
trying to write to you to follow up on it.

It should be working now but I don't want to receive emails just to
receive emails. If there is something to correct in my works or site,
it is one thing. But I have no time to discuss a lot of things.
Doing this, I would spend the rest of my life with doing no more
genealogical works.

The bulk of this discussion has taken place on the soc.genealogy.computing
newsgroup. That is one long and complex discussion, and there is much of
it that one might reasonably not want to read, but I saw that you posted on
it at one point. On a different part of that discussion, someone else said
that you and someone else, I think the name might be Yvon, were working on
this issue. He has a web site, which I did find, and he refers to Brothers
Keeper, which is a solution to the problem I am addressing.

I hate that software and don't see which Yvon it can be. It was
probably not me.

Most of my own ancestry is Anglo and German. Of course, I have families
that include more than one marriage. Most people seem to be dealing with
the failure of the more popular genealogy programs to include all spouses
and all of the children of each ancestor, by copious copying and pasting.
That is a viable solution when you have fairly small databases and not a
whole lot of families that run into that situation.

French-Canadians considered it a moral duty to have very large numbers of
children. Until now, I didn't know it was possible for a monogamous

Actually, catholics, not F.C. You should see the same in Italy,
Ireland, Poland or Latin America, for example, which are
catholic area. But the Muslims have the same moral duty.

individual to have two dozen children. Several of my brother in law's

You should see the same thing in early New England and Virginia.
This is related to pioneering area too. The % of F.C. families
with over 10 children is likely lower than you think, but odds
are larger that you descend from the larger family than the
smaller, so you will have the wrong feeling the average family
is larger.

In my database, I have all the children for only a small number of
families (it is not my priority). At this time, I have:

about 4360 children I consider to be part of complete families

the largest family (one father and one mother, no child from a
widow/er) is 19.

150 has 10 or more, i.e. one child has no. 10
122 has 11 or more
81 for 12
60 for 13
40 for 14
22 for 15
14 for 16
10 for 17
6 for 18
1 for 19

1072 has 1 or more, but in some cases, it is an immigrant
557 has 2 or more
365 has 5 or more

In the 10 or more, 2 families are in France, one in Illinois.

ancestors did. Both men and women promptly remarried upon the death of a
spouse. Women died quite young, most often of bearing too many children,
which killed off half the children as well. My New England and
Pennsylvania ancestors had just ten children a piece; most mothers lived
long enough to bear all the father's children, and most children of most
families lived to reach adulthood. Atleast half of my brother in law's
French Canadian ancestors had children by more than one spouse. Now, my
brother in law's French Canadian ancestors are all the ancestry of his
father's mother, and all the ancestry of his mother's mother; which makes
the father of my nephews half French Canadian. Since my sister is the only
member of my parents' family who will ever bear children, my genealogical
work is theirs. My brother in law's mother took one look at her family
past and told me that the fact that almost no children in her family grew up
with both natural parents was part of teh severe family dysfunction that
caused her to be placed for adoption at birth and raised in foster care.
Multiple marriages and stepchildren are a real and distinctive feature of
French Canadian culture.

Try to find a copy of the dictionary of New England by James Savage
and you will see a lot of large families and widower remarried.
Your other lines can be recent immigrants.

It is also even more important than usual to have the whole family in the
ancestor report. For instance, my brother in law's mother's mother was
raised by a grandmother who was not her father's mother, and aunts who were
not children of her grandfather and her father's mother. It was certainly
lucky for her that these four women who took her in and raised her did not
define family as narrowly as the designers of genealogical programs and some
of the people who've been arguing with me over teh past week, but most
French Canadians really would not think that way. The large families that
resulted from their marriage and childbearing patterns were close knit,
cared for each other and, as importantly, migrated together.

The individual who suggested you and someone named Von or Yvon on the post
on the soc.genealogy.computing discussion said that you are working
specifically on the problem of genealogical programs being able to print all
the spouses and all the children in an ancestor report. Why do you figure
two French Canadians would be specifically who is working on that? When I
went to Mr. Von's or Yvon's (sorry, don't know where I wrote his name down)
web site, I found that he recommends Brother's Keeper, which does
specifically address that issue.

Since I don't know that Yvon, I hate BK, and I don't develop softwares
for other (no time to maintain that anyway), I am pretty sure it was
not about me.

Another thing to keep in mind is that you would have to make some
choices when printing this kind of extended family. Suppose we have
many families.

Abe marries Beth, 5 children. Abe dies. Beth marries Charles. 5
more children. Charles dies. Beth marries Don. 5 more child.
Don dies. Beth marries Eugene. Beth dies. She has 20 children
from 4 marriages

Fanny marries Gus, 5 children. Gus dies, etc. Fanny survives after
20 children from 4 marriages too, but the last husband, Henry, dies.

And then, Beth marries Henry. How would you print that ? A software
like you want would have to figure all that information. But there
are also some cancelled marriage contracts. And you may increase
the complexity by having some husbands of Beth or Fanny being widower
with children from previous marriages and out of wedlock.

No software would be bright enough to figure all that because this
is too rare and a programmer will write something for most users,
not for one specific client. So, you can't get a universal solution.

You can get an approximate solutions, like all children from the same
father or mother and different spouses, which is not the same as the
whole extended family.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Denis Beauregard]

Le Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:06:16 GMT, "Dora Smith"
<[email protected]> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:

Denis:

The other person she referred to is Yvon Cyr.

That scammer knows nothing about programming but he knows how to make
scams. "not for profit" he will pretend, but meaning no profit for
other than himself.

I have now written to him.

You will lose your time and maybe money.

If neither of you turns out to know what she was talking about, I won't be
too bent out of shape. It kind of looked like you might not, though I'm
afraid I did have hope. It is possible I hoped too hard.

But how do you in actuality incorporate all the spouses and their children
for each ancestor into your own ancestor reports?

I don't. Where in the 20 000 family sheets in my site do you see what
you mean ?


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Dora Smith]

This might post twice.

See my subsequent post for much of this.

FTM is sure fascinating. Way Family Origins explains it they turned into
Roots Magic, but I am also getting the idea that the owners and the
programmers may have gone in different directions. People keep trying to
straighten me out about it with contradictory information. While I
started my efforts with FTM, I really don't expect Rootsmagic to be as
complicated; it does look like a small independent company.

Reports these programs produce need to fill more than one need. Few of us
submit our work to NEHGS any more. We'd like our descendancy reports to
look professional, but I only use them when it makes sense to trace forward
instead of backward, like when I want to discuss a family group or include
collateral relatives. Family group sheets make sense for the kind of
limited genealogical information my mother had, or to trace a single direct
line.

I can clearly see that Roots Magic and Legacy are different than FTM, and
their developers do hang out on these groups - and they're just a little
better at listening than FTM. They have evolved to accept irregular dates.
But this persistent bug about including only some of the children in a
family is nothing short of stupid. Possibly deliberate motivated stupidity
of some sort. There are people who don't want to know their ancestors had
multiple spouses? It's mature to have less than as little information as
possible?

From what I have seen on the Roots Magic and Legacy lists, it is conceivable
that the programmers are so into small details that they've lost the ability
to see the forest for the trees. They do often give that impression when
they answer a suggestion they don't want to implement. They talk like
Austin city bureacrats discussing anything to do with the city bus system.
No matter how major or critical the issue for how many people, they stay
bogged down on small details and give all of them equal weight.

I wonder if it is true that the developers of Family Origins OR Roots Magic
have ever had anything to do with FTM? If so, there could be selection
bias behind the strange biases in our genealogical software companies.
There had to have been a peculiar group of people who were willing to
develop FTM. I'll just check into that; it would be well worth knowing.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX


--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:13:05 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:


I will find out who are the most important stockholders of FTM, Legacy,
and
Roots Magic, and write to them with examples. And I will post that
informaition when I find it.

Enjoy the search... Most Genealogy programs are produced by small
privately-owned companies in which the majority owner is the original
programmer -- some of whom have actually responded on these groups. The
reports they produce are based upon the requirements for submission to
the major genealogy associations: NEHGS Register format, NGS Modified
Register, and TAG [I think Legacy includes that format]. All three
family journal reports are /descendent/ reports. /Ancestor/ reports
follow the Ahnentafel scheme, which follows from one person to their
parents (and may include /common/ children of that pair), their parents,
etc.

The only obvious exception in ownership is FTM, which spent much of
its life as a Broderbund product -- until it got sold to the same
organization that bought up Ultimate Family Tree and Family Origins (as
I understand recent reports). That organization chose to discontinue the
more capable, yet more complex to use, and more costly to program, in
favor of FTM -- a product that comes out with a $30 cosmetic upgrade
practically yearly. Unlike TMG, which has had 9 patch updates to the
version 6.x line since 6.x came out, all free. And TMG upgrades tend to
be very major (4.x to 5.x was a complete rewrite of the code converting
from 16-bit W3.11 to 32-bit W9x/WinNT).
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Dora Smith]

See my subsequent post for much of this.

FTM is sure fascinating. Way Family Origins explains it they turned into
Roots Magic, but I am also getting the idea that the owners and the
programmers may have gone in different directions. People keep trying to
straighten me out about it with contradictory information. While I
started my efforts with FTM, I really don't expect Rootsmagic to be as
complicated; it does look like a small independent company.

Reports these programs produce need to fill more than one need. Few of us
submit our work to NEHGS any more. We'd like our descendancy reports to
look professional, but I only use them when it makes sense to trace forward
instead of backward, like when I want to discuss a family group or include
collateral relatives. Family group sheets make sense for the kind of
limited genealogical information my mother had, or to trace a single direct
line.

I can clearly see that Roots Magic and Legacy are different than FTM, and
their developers do hang out on these groups - and they're just a little
better at listening than FTM. They have evolved to accept irregular dates.
But this persistent bug about including only some of the children in a
family is nothing short of stupid. Possibly deliberate motivated stupidity
of some sort. There are people who don't want to know their ancestors had
multiple spouses? It's mature to have less than as little information as
possible?

From what I have seen on the Roots Magic and Legacy lists, it is conceivable
that the programmers are so into small details that they've lost the ability
to see the forest for the trees. They do often give that impression when
they answer a suggestion they don't want to implement. They talk like
Austin city bureacrats discussing anything to do with the city bus system.
No matter how major or critical the issue for how many people, they stay
bogged down on small details and give all of them equal weight.

I wonder if it is true that the developers of Family Origins OR Roots Magic
have ever had anything to do with FTM? If so, there could be selection
bias behind the strange biases in our genealogical software companies.
There had to have been a peculiar group of people who were willing to
develop FTM. I'll just check into that; it would be well worth knowing.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:13:05 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]

I will find out who are the most important stockholders of FTM, Legacy,
and
Roots Magic, and write to them with examples. And I will post that
informaition when I find it.

Enjoy the search... Most Genealogy programs are produced by small
privately-owned companies in which the majority owner is the original
programmer -- some of whom have actually responded on these groups. The
reports they produce are based upon the requirements for submission to
the major genealogy associations: NEHGS Register format, NGS Modified
Register, and TAG [I think Legacy includes that format]. All three
family journal reports are /descendent/ reports. /Ancestor/ reports
follow the Ahnentafel scheme, which follows from one person to their
parents (and may include /common/ children of that pair), their parents,
etc.

The only obvious exception in ownership is FTM, which spent much of
its life as a Broderbund product -- until it got sold to the same
organization that bought up Ultimate Family Tree and Family Origins (as
I understand recent reports). That organization chose to discontinue the
more capable, yet more complex to use, and more costly to program, in
favor of FTM -- a product that comes out with a $30 cosmetic upgrade
practically yearly. Unlike TMG, which has had 9 patch updates to the
version 6.x line since 6.x came out, all free. And TMG upgrades tend to
be very major (4.x to 5.x was a complete rewrite of the code converting
from 16-bit W3.11 to 32-bit W9x/WinNT).
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Paul Blair]

Changing the topic slightly (!) what became of the PAF web-based family
tree beta that was being discussed. I seem to recall the lady was Renee
Zamora, and she showed (or pointed us to) some quite interesting PAF
developments. I was interested because I use web-based software for my
family stuff, as it allows for collaboration between us all.

And Google has a new group looking beyond today's vanilla offerings (or
so it claims - it looks a bit like an advertising site to me) -
http://groups.google.com/group/beyondgen

Paul

Dora Smith wrote:

No problem, my French isn't good!

I'd be glad to check those dates for you if there was a reason to.
However, I posted the report on the family of Eli Wilson and his two wives
in order to demonstrate how PAF Companion, a genealogy program, includes all
spouses and all children of each ancestor, in ancestor and ahnentafel
reports.

I gave the example for two reasons. First,without an example, people often
seem to misunderstand what I am talking about. For instance, people often
think either that I want to include in laws or cousins, or that I actually
want to do descendancy reports. No, I want an ancestor report, that
includes all spouses of each ancestor, and all children of each spouse; in
other words, all of the children of this family sorted by parentage.

Second, I wanted people to see clearly that the wives and the stepchildren
can be included in an ancestor report, and know what software products will
provide this critical basic information. Alot of people think that is
impossible or unreasonably difficult, and that is software developers'
favorite answer to life.

However, if I misunderstand, and actually you have Quaker ancestors who
lived in southeastern Pennsylvania, I'll be glad to send you more
information than that one family!

[Dora Smith]

I THINK this is what you are trying to tell me.

From http://formalsoft.com/orders.htm
As you may know, we (FormalSoft) wrote Family Origins over 12 years ago and
licensed the marketing rights to Parsons Technology. We continued to write
every single version of Family Origins since then.

Parsons Technology was bought up by Mattel, and our contract with Parsons
was assigned to genealogy.com by them.

In January 2003, genealogy.com discontinued Family Origins in favor of their
own genealogy program. This is the third genealogy program they have
acquired the rights to and then discontinued.

Because of this it was necessary for us to develop a new genealogy program
to replace Family Origins.

RootsMagic is the natural successor to Family Origins. Don't be fooled by
the claims of other programs.

a.. RootsMagic was written by the same programming team that wrote every
version of Family Origins.
b.. RootsMagic is the only program that can import your Family Origins
data without losing any information.
c.. RootsMagic's look and feel is closer to Family Origins than any other
program available.
If you are looking for a program that is every bit as easy to use as Family
Origins, and every bit as powerful as Family Origins, and written by the
same programming team that wrote every version of Family Origins, then
RootsMagic is the program for you.



More costly to program, huh? In a post on the FTM list (surely I will be
ejected from that list one of these minutes), I gave the algorithm to accept
irregular dates, thereby saving hte long time for which they would have had
to pay a programmer to think? It really took half a second to think it
through.



If Date Field (equals any of several formats) then Date Field equals ## AAA
#### ELSE Date Field equals 'string'. If I were paid $20 an hour, by the
time I wrote out the code it cost the company $3 to program it.

One program is a little more complex than that, and its detailed explanation
of how it handles dates virtually gives away the algorithm.

BEGIN IF

If DAte Field (equals any of several formats) then Date Field equals ## AAA
####

If Date Field (begins with Betw and contains two strings that correspond to
dates) then Date Field equals 'First String' - 'Second String'

If Date Field reads ## AAA ####/###1 then Date Field equals ## AAA ###1

If Date Field (begins with abt or bef or aft) then Date Field equals
'string'

ELSE

Date Field equals 'string'

Tres dificicile. Also makes unecessary and sometimes incorrect assumptions
about what the person who made the database wants.





To include all children of all spouses in an ancestor report, all they
really have to do is adapt the code they wrote to do that in descendancy
reports.



They shouldn't assume none of us have ever taken computer programming.



But it is probably an important point. I'll have to point out in my letters
that it would not be expensive to make these changes.



By the way, were you trying to tell me that NEHGS requires a certain format
for ancestor reports? It's news to me that NEHGS has ever ALLOWED
ancestor reports. NEHGS focuses on single family lines and on family
groups defined by surname where the information is organized from founder of
a line forward. If that were true, though, the light begins to dawn. At
the dawn of NEHGS, it was not socially de rigeur to have married twice nor
to be a step child. Jeez, and I was wondering what was WITH people! Ha,
ha, ha, ha, chuckle. It's amazing how a rigid rule can program people
right out of using their brains! Sure makes sense of all the people
writing to explain in great depth how only direct ancestors are family.

But you know what? I BELONG to NEHGS! Ha, ha, ha, ha. I needed
access to their online databases. My grandmother had a major fight with
them; I could see if it's my turn. But I wouldn't anticipate such a thing
too hard before confirming that this is actually their rule. I'll just
contact them and ask.


--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]

The only obvious exception in ownership is FTM, which spent much of
its life as a Broderbund product -- until it got sold to the same
organization that bought up Ultimate Family Tree and Family Origins (as
I understand recent reports). That organization chose to discontinue the
more capable, yet more complex to use, and more costly to program, in
favor of FTM -- a product that comes out with a $30 cosmetic upgrade
practically yearly. Unlike TMG, which has had 9 patch updates to the
version 6.x line since 6.x came out, all free. And TMG upgrades tend to
be very major (4.x to 5.x was a complete rewrite of the code converting
from 16-bit W3.11 to 32-bit W9x/WinNT).
--
bieber.genealogy Dennis Lee Bieber
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~bieber.genealogy/

[Dora Smith]

I realized I'd better post this separately or you might not get to it past
all those algorithms.

By the way, were you trying to tell me that NEHGS requires a certain format
for ancestor reports? It's news to me that NEHGS has ever ALLOWED
ancestor reports. NEHGS focuses on single family lines and on family
groups defined by surname where the information is organized from founder of
a line forward. If that were true, though, the light begins to dawn. At
the dawn of NEHGS, it was not socially de rigeur to have married twice nor
to be a step child. Jeez, and I was wondering what was WITH people! Ha,
ha, ha, ha, chuckle. It's amazing how a rigid rule can program people
right out of using their brains! Sure makes sense of all the people
writing to explain in great depth how only direct ancestors are family.

But you know what? I BELONG to NEHGS! Ha, ha, ha, ha. I needed
access to their online databases. My grandmother had a major fight with
them; I could see if it's my turn. But I wouldn't anticipate such a thing
too hard before confirming that this is actually their rule. I'll just
contact them and ask.

But first, as I pointed out, most people aren't creating reports for those
organizations.
They are creating them for family history.

Second, rules of genealogical organizations is no excuse to restrict
peoples'
choices.

Third, reporting requirements for certain purposes of genealogical
organizations
that don't even pertain to family history are no excuse to abandon common
sense.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:13:05 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:


The
reports they produce are based upon the requirements for submission to
the major genealogy associations: NEHGS Register format, NGS Modified
Register, and TAG [I think Legacy includes that format]. All three
family journal reports are /descendent/ reports. /Ancestor/ reports
follow the Ahnentafel scheme, which follows from one person to their
parents (and may include /common/ children of that pair), their parents,
etc.

[Dora Smith]

Thanks, Paul.

And it's a good way to put it in my letters.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:13:05 GMT, "Dora Smith" <[email protected]
declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

I will find out who are the most important stockholders of FTM, Legacy,
and Roots Magic, and write to them with examples. And I will post
that informaition when I find it.

Enjoy the search... Most Genealogy programs are produced by small
privately-owned companies in which the majority owner is the original
programmer -- some of whom have actually responded on these groups. The
reports they produce are based upon the requirements for submission to
the major genealogy associations: NEHGS Register format, NGS Modified
Register, and TAG [I think Legacy includes that format]. All three
family journal reports are /descendent/ reports. /Ancestor/ reports
follow the Ahnentafel scheme, which follows from one person to their
parents (and may include /common/ children of that pair), their parents,
etc.

The only obvious exception in ownership is FTM, which spent much of
its life as a Broderbund product -- until it got sold to the same
organization that bought up Ultimate Family Tree and Family Origins (as
I understand recent reports). That organization chose to discontinue the
more capable, yet more complex to use, and more costly to program, in
favor of FTM -- a product that comes out with a $30 cosmetic upgrade
practically yearly. Unlike TMG, which has had 9 patch updates to the
version 6.x line since 6.x came out, all free. And TMG upgrades tend to
be very major (4.x to 5.x was a complete rewrite of the code converting
from 16-bit W3.11 to 32-bit W9x/WinNT).

Some interesting (and accurate) observations there.

We are probably at a point in time where the (fairly) static software
"models" are getting a bit aged (including supporting software, such as
VFP). At the same time, platforms will be quite remarkably changed with
the arrival of Vista, and the interesting (but not foregone) advent of web
hosting solutions. The retail product may never be the same again!

The marketplace isn't changing in character, but it is in expectations.
Most software buyers are a bit older, often (but not always) with a bit of
spare cash for companies like FTM to appeal to. But there seems to be less
inclination to accept bog-standard, and people want to use programs in a
way that suits their ends, not the simplistic ends presented to us. Look
at the recent brouhaha about Dora's very simple request, and the
complexity entailed in a sort-of solution.

Paul

[Dora Smith]

Denis:

I figured you had probably done your own genealogy in addition to doing so
much work on behalf of the rest of us.

Thanks for the warning about Yvon Cyr. I'll be careful. If you're right,
then since my query has nothing to do with buying anything from him, maybe
he'll ignore me! Grin! Unless he's developing his own software... If
he sends me a sample output I like, and the cost is reasonable, I might give
it a try! That would actually explain everything that woman said about
the solution you and he were supposedly working on. But if it's top
secret, I'm not going to pursue it to death.

By the way, your own message appeared at the bottom of this post - and I bet
that isn't where you put it.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
">>

But how do you in actuality incorporate all the spouses and their children
for each ancestor into your own ancestor reports?

I don't. Where in the 20 000 family sheets in my site do you see what
you mean ?


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 -
http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Dora Smith]

Denis, it isn't hard. You must not have seen this.

I am wondering if your insistence that noone had two dozen kids comes from
breaking families down into separate marriages? I have several people who
had two dozen kids, but nobody who had them all with the same spouse.


20. Eli5 Thompson , born 4 Dec 1770 in Mill Creek, New CAstle, DE; died 19
Sep 1840 in London Britain, Chester, PA, son of 34. Daniel Thompson and 35.
Elizabeth Chambers . He married (1) on 11 Jun 1798 in London Grove,
Chester, PA 21. Elizabeth Wilson , born 16 Jul 1777 in "of" London Grove;
died 11 3rd mo 1803 in New Garden Mtg, Chester, PA, daughter of 36. Ephraim
Wilson and 37. Elizabeth Johnson ; (2) on 19 Aug 1806 in New Garden,
Chester, PA Sarah Scarlett , died 1 Mar 1859 in London Britain, Chester, PA.


Notes for Eli Thompson

settled in White Clay Creek, it may have belonged to New Garden at the
time as part of New Garden was absorbed into London Britain.

Inconsistency of dates and a registration omission leave it unknown which of
the two wives was Ezra's mother. It strongly appears that Ezra's mother was
Elizabeth Wilson, who died giving birth to him or soon after, in early 1804.

Eli Thompson b 12/4/1700 Mill Creek m (1) 6/11/1798, Elizabeth Wilson
m (2) 8/19/1806 Sarah Scarlett Settled in WC, I don't now when, d
9/19/1840, family records at New Garden mm.

Eli seems to have been a very quiet person. I don't know what role he
may have played in his meeting. But he signed the wedding certificate only
of one of his brothers. This means the only wedding he ever went to of his
small, close-knit community was that of one of his brothers. All present
signed a Quaker wedding certificate, and that was almost always alot of
people; usually from half to most of the members of the meeting.



Notes for Elizabeth Wilson

Elizabeth Wilson b 7/16/1777 d "11, 3rd mo, 1803"

(New Garden meeting records)

Translate: January 11, 1803.

I think it possible she really died January 11, 1804, but so far
cannot confirm. If she died in 1803, Ezra was born to a ghost, or else
illegitimately several years before his father remarried.

This is exactly how it is recorded in the New Garden meeting records,
and because it appears to be mistaken, it is important to preserve it
exactly as the Quaker clerk wrote it. The Quaker calendar differed from the
English calendar by two months, and I've never seen an explanation of what
happened when the Quaker and English calenders were in different years;
people must have gotten very confused constantly. Further, people write the
previous year all of the time when writing dates in early January. I think
she really died on January 11, 1804, the only logical way to account for
Ezra's birth in 1804. Eli didn't marry his second wife until August, 1806!
Ezra's birth is not recorded in the New Garden records, though a Miller
genealogy says Ezra was a son of Eli, and Eli passed some of his land on
White Clay Creek to Ezra upon Ezra's marriage, and both naming patterns and
patterns of family political participation as well as the fact that Ezra
became an Orthodox Quaker make it clear that Ezra was close kin to Eli. I
suspect Elizabeth died of giving birth to Ezra. Her death is recorded, but
they would have had a funeral, the abnormally quiet, probably depressed
father forgot to register the birth of his son! In addition, Ezra's birth is
not recorded at ANY Quaker meeting, to anyone- and he was a Quaker.



Children of Eli Thompson and Elizabeth Wilson were as follows:

i Joel4 Thompson , born 12 Jun 1799 in London
Britain, Chester, PA. He married (1) on 11 May 1829 in New London, Chester,
PA Rachel Spencer , born 14 Jun 1803 in prob New Garden, New London,
Chester, PA; died 24 Feb 1851 in New Garden, Chester, PA; (2) bef 1827 in
Chester Co, PA Mary Matlack (Hickman) , died in West Chester, PA. Notes:
settled in New Garden Township.

ii Daniel4 Thompson , born 13 Mar 1801 in London
Britain, Chester, PA; died 25 Jul 1868 in London Britain, Chester, PA. She
married bef 1826 in New Garden, Chester, PA Beulah C. or G. Hughes , born
1802 in Chester County, PA; died 1882 in London Britain, Chester, PA.
Notes: Daniel and/or Ezra were the elders of the London Britain (Orthodox)
Meetting. The London Britain meeting was Orthodox and starteda t about the
same time as the Mill Creek Hicksite Meeting, the leader of which was a
James Thompson, another member of this clan. But the Hicksite/ Quaker split
was about the developing middle class (who were assimilating into the
mainstream) vs traditional farmers with a more traditional outlook who in
fact opposed the developing Capitalist economy as a threat to their
livlihoods. Eli was one of the sons of his father whose sons and grandsons
were upwardly mobile, and they went with the minority in rural Chester
County orthodox position. The Orthodox Quakers held something fairly closely
resembling ordinary Protestant church services, and adopted a belief in the
Trinity, the Hicksites maintain to this day their traditional Quaker ways of
thinking and mode of worship.

10 iii Ezra Sr.4 Thompson , born abt 1804 in London
Britain, Chester, PA; died 1873 in London Britain, Chester, PA. He married
prob 1832 in prob London Britain, Chester, PA Mary Webster Miller , born 17
Nov 1808 in New Garden, Chester, PA; died 1887 in London Britain, Chester,
PA, daughter of John Miller and Mary Webster .

iv Joshua4 Thompson , born 20 May or Jul 1786 in
New Garden, Chester, PA.



Children of Eli Thompson and Sarah Scarlett were as follows:

i Mary4 Thompson , born 15 May 1810 in London
Britain, Chester, PA. She married in 1827 in Spencer's Mtg, New London,
Chester, PA Jeremiah Starr , born in New Garden, Chester, PA.

--
Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX
[email protected]
"Denis Beauregard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Le Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:34:18 GMT, "Dora Smith"
[email protected]> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:


Another thing to keep in mind is that you would have to make some
choices when printing this kind of extended family. Suppose we have
many families.

Abe marries Beth, 5 children. Abe dies. Beth marries Charles. 5
more children. Charles dies. Beth marries Don. 5 more child.
Don dies. Beth marries Eugene. Beth dies. She has 20 children
from 4 marriages

Fanny marries Gus, 5 children. Gus dies, etc. Fanny survives after
20 children from 4 marriages too, but the last husband, Henry, dies.

And then, Beth marries Henry. How would you print that ? A software
like you want would have to figure all that information. But there
are also some cancelled marriage contracts. And you may increase
the complexity by having some husbands of Beth or Fanny being widower
with children from previous marriages and out of wedlock.

No software would be bright enough to figure all that because this
is too rare and a programmer will write something for most users,
not for one specific client. So, you can't get a universal solution.

You can get an approximate solutions, like all children from the same
father or mother and different spouses, which is not the same as the
whole extended family.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 -
http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Denis Beauregard]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:55 GMT, "Dora Smith"
<[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

Denis, it isn't hard. You must not have seen this.

I am wondering if your insistence that noone had two dozen kids comes from
breaking families down into separate marriages? I have several people who
had two dozen kids, but nobody who had them all with the same spouse.

I don't say it never happened, but it was less frequent than you may
think.

You can check with Tanguay
http://bibnum2.banq.qc.ca/bna/numtextes/at802.htm and select volume
1 (early years) or 2 to 6 (1700s to 1765) and try to find a family
with 2 dozens of kids with one spouse.

I made a short test from Jetté (it covers 1600s to 1730) in the
first 20 pages (out of 1200), 2 families with 16 children from
the same wife, none with more.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2006-10-12, James W Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

If you haven't seen this new testing site the LDS Church has up, you're
missing a real treat.

They are testing a 'smart pedigree viewer' feature that may or may not
make the cut, much like projects on Google Labs come and go. But this
one looks like a real winner based on what I saw tonight.

You need to have a high-speed connection. Go to
http://www.familysearchlabs.org/ and then click on the link to the
Smart Pedigree Viewer.

If you don't have the latest Flash plugin, v9.0.r16, it will ask you if
you want to update it. Click yes. You will then see the search
screen.

If you decide to install the Flash player/plugin, take a
good look at the license. It contains a clause that
obligates you to let them "audit" your computer, and it
doesn't say whether the audit would be done over the network
or in person. If somebody from Macromedia shows up at your
door and wants in to "audit" your computer, you agreed to
let him in when you accepted the license.

As much as I am in favor of the efforts of familysearch.org,
it's going to be a very cold day somewhere before I give out
keys to my house.

--
Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Denis Beauregard]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:56:56 GMT, "Robert M. Riches Jr."
<[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

If you decide to install the Flash player/plugin, take a
good look at the license. It contains a clause that
obligates you to let them "audit" your computer, and it
doesn't say whether the audit would be done over the network
or in person. If somebody from Macromedia shows up at your
door and wants in to "audit" your computer, you agreed to
let him in when you accepted the license.

As much as I am in favor of the efforts of familysearch.org,
it's going to be a very cold day somewhere before I give out
keys to my house.

Macromedia has non-sense licenses for a while. I think in a
previous one, they said they could take anything on your PC
or something like that.

Moreover, it is not in the policy of LDS to let someone package
data in a financial mean like the Flash licensing. It would
closer to their policy to use Javascript, which is a more open
language than Flash which is owned by one company and which
often has non-sense licensing.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1721 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1765
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginning to 1765

[Dave Hinz]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:56:56 GMT, Robert M. Riches Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:

If you decide to install the Flash player/plugin, take a
good look at the license. It contains a clause that
obligates you to let them "audit" your computer, and it
doesn't say whether the audit would be done over the network
or in person.

Riiiiiight. Because macromedia has the resources to show up at some
random genealogist's house to knock on the door and see a computer.
Sorry Robert, but this is a case of someone reading too much into it.

If somebody from Macromedia shows up at your
door and wants in to "audit" your computer, you agreed to
let him in when you accepted the license.

I suggest you re-evaluate what you choose to get outraged about; you're
pole-vaulting over a mouse turd on thise one.

As much as I am in favor of the efforts of familysearch.org,
it's going to be a very cold day somewhere before I give out
keys to my house.

The choice of words makes me suspect your dislike of flash is based on
more than just this.

[David Rowell]

James W Anderson wrote:

If you haven't seen this new testing site the LDS Church has up, you're
missing a real treat.
Could be - wish the site builders would have let me.


You need to have a high-speed connection.

I have one - several megabytes / sec (no not bits)

Go to
http://www.familysearchlabs.org/ and then click on the link to the
Smart Pedigree Viewer.

And I wind up at a (Macromedia?) site that just sits there

If you don't have the latest Flash plugin, v9.0.r16,

I don't

it will ask you if you want to update it.

doesn't ask just sits there




From the site blog (link on familysearchlabs.org main page)

Blog won't let me offer feedback either.

You see, according to the genealogy community I've been branded a leper
because I use Ubuntu Linux! Macromedia lets us use version 7 of flash
but apparently has no inclination to support Linux with anything newer.
Can't the site builders use any graphic technology that is widely
available throughout the world? A technology that is perhaps a bit less
flaky than flash?

BTW. PAF 5.2 runs pretty well under Wine on Linux wish they'd spend just
a little effort to make it run perfectly. The Linux community has
expended substantial effort to make PAF run now if ...

Dave Rowell

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2006-10-12, David Rowell <[email protected]> wrote:

James W Anderson wrote:

From the site blog (link on familysearchlabs.org main page)

Blog won't let me offer feedback either.

There is a place to send feedback via email. I used that
method to send (negative) feedback on the issue with the
audit clause in the Flash license. By the way, I received
a reply to that feedback email that _AGREED_ there are
issues with the Flash player's license.

You see, according to the genealogy community I've been branded a leper
because I use Ubuntu Linux! Macromedia lets us use version 7 of flash
but apparently has no inclination to support Linux with anything newer.
Can't the site builders use any graphic technology that is widely
available throughout the world? A technology that is perhaps a bit less
flaky than flash?

It would be off topic to ask how you like Ubuntu, so I
won't. I use Mandriva, myself.

BTW. PAF 5.2 runs pretty well under Wine on Linux wish they'd spend just
a little effort to make it run perfectly. The Linux community has
expended substantial effort to make PAF run now if ...

You got PAF to run under Wine? I spent some time several
months ago trying to get it to work, and I did not succeed
at getting more than a tiny bit to work. How did you get it
to work?

Thanks.

--
Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2006-10-12, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:56:56 GMT, Robert M. Riches Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:

If you decide to install the Flash player/plugin, take a
good look at the license. It contains a clause that
obligates you to let them "audit" your computer, and it
doesn't say whether the audit would be done over the network
or in person.

Riiiiiight. Because macromedia has the resources to show up at some
random genealogist's house to knock on the door and see a computer.
Sorry Robert, but this is a case of someone reading too much into it.

Perhaps. However, the email reply I received to my
(negative) feedback about the use of Flash on the site in
question _agreed_ with me that Flash has license issues.

If somebody from Macromedia shows up at your
door and wants in to "audit" your computer, you agreed to
let him in when you accepted the license.

I suggest you re-evaluate what you choose to get outraged about; you're
pole-vaulting over a mouse turd on thise one.

Outraged??? All I suggested is for those considering
downloading the Flash player to check the license. If
you're okay with the audit clause, that's fine with me.
I'm just suggesting each individual's decision should be an
informed decision.

As much as I am in favor of the efforts of familysearch.org,
it's going to be a very cold day somewhere before I give out
keys to my house.

The choice of words makes me suspect your dislike of flash is based on
more than just this.

But, overreacting is so much _FUN_!!!

You may be right. I have been annoyed on several occasions
when some business web site has been completely unusable
because the whole site was based on Flash, and the required
version of Flash player was not even available for Linux.
I'm also a strong believer that, while proprietary software
has a place, file formats should be open to allow full
competition and interoperability.

There may have been some spill-over dislike for the audit
clause in the Flash player license from similar-minded
recent events like the SCO lawsuits against Linux users, the
Sony rootkit fiasco, the Digital Restrictions Management
push, language on music CD packaging forbidding the buyer
from _loaning_ a CD to a friend (even for purposes other
than copying), and Microsoft's attempts to have free and
open source software banned.

On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to audit provisions
in any software, especially when the provision is buried in
a maze of legalese in the middle of a huge license (often
presented in a teeny tiny window). I'm told much of the
malware/adware/spyware problem is related to buried
provisions in click-through licenses.

Did I overreact about the audit clause? I suppose it could
be debated. I guess I don't see anything too very wrong
with suggesting that people check the license to know what
they are agreeing to.

--
Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Kerry Raymond]

Well, it doesn't like large GEDCOMs. I uploaded mine (27M) and got errors. I
reported it on the feedback link and they replied saying yes there were
problems with large GEDCOMs.

Kerry

[Doug McDonald]

Kerry Raymond wrote:

Well, it doesn't like large GEDCOMs. I uploaded mine (27M) and got errors. I
reported it on the feedback link and they replied saying yes there were
problems with large GEDCOMs.

I tried my 4.3 Mbyte GEdcom (mostly notes) and it failed.

I tried cutting out the note (655 kbyte) and it failed.

I tried no notes and only 14 generations and it failed.

At 7 generations it worked.

Odd ... I wrote my very own viewer, and it works fine
with up to 63 generations, and up to 30000 people. Of
course, it does not use Flash or work on the Web.

Doing a large file in Javascript or even Java would not be
very easy, due to speed problems.

Doug McDonald

[Dave Hinz]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:00:01 GMT, Robert M. Riches Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:

There may have been some spill-over dislike for the audit
clause in the Flash player license from similar-minded
recent events like the SCO lawsuits against Linux users, the
Sony rootkit fiasco, the Digital Restrictions Management
push,

OK, now you've gone from "overreacting" to "silly".

language on music CD packaging forbidding the buyer
from _loaning_ a CD to a friend (even for purposes other
than copying),

Fair use. Change the law or they can pretend any terms they want, but
it's legal for me to lend and make backup copies. Hardly
familysearchlab's fault now, is it?

and Microsoft's attempts to have free and
open source software banned.

Sorry man but getting upset about macromedia (and/or adobe? When did
_that_ happen?) isn't in the same league as SCO, Sony, and M$.

On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to audit provisions
in any software, especially when the provision is buried in
a maze of legalese in the middle of a huge license (often
presented in a teeny tiny window). I'm told much of the
malware/adware/spyware problem is related to buried
provisions in click-through licenses.

The malware/adware/spyware problem is due to people who just click on
"yes please, install a cute little bongo monkey on my desktop".
Macromedia reserving the right to, what, add a "phone home" or
something? Orders of magnitude different. Sense of perspective and all
that.

Did I overreact about the audit clause? I suppose it could
be debated. I guess I don't see anything too very wrong
with suggesting that people check the license to know what
they are agreeing to.

I _never_ read licenses. Ever. Not once in 26 years of doing computers.
They can pretend any limitations they want, but if they show up to audit
my machine, I'll invite them to leave. If they don't, they'd be treated
as any other unwelcome intruder. But it's hardly a reason to not use a
useful tool.

[Dave Hinz]

You see, according to the genealogy community I've been branded a leper
because I use Ubuntu Linux!

Oh, FFS. what is this, "feel sorry for myself" week on sgc? Software
gets developed that doesn't work everywhere sometimes. boo farking
hoo. And before you go and assume I'm some M$ zealot, check my headers.

Macromedia lets us use version 7 of flash
but apparently has no inclination to support Linux with anything newer.

Sounds like a marvellous reason to keep a copy of that other OS around.
That's what boot camp and/or GRUB are for, after all.

BTW. PAF 5.2 runs pretty well under Wine on Linux wish they'd spend just
a little effort to make it run perfectly. The Linux community has
expended substantial effort to make PAF run now if ...

As someone who as been part of the linux community since the kernel 1.2
days, yeah, what else is new. Maybe you should call familysearch and/or
macromedia and, you know, demand your money back.

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2006-10-13, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:00:01 GMT, Robert M. Riches Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:

language on music CD packaging forbidding the buyer
from _loaning_ a CD to a friend (even for purposes other
than copying),

Fair use. Change the law or they can pretend any terms they want, but
it's legal for me to lend and make backup copies. Hardly
familysearchlab's fault now, is it?

Hi Dave,

You implied a question of what had predisposed me to be
unhappy about Flash. My text above was an attempt to answer
your implied question. Did I say anything was
familysearchlab's fault?

If there's a fault, it is that of the Flash license. I'm a
little disappointed to see familysearchlab using something
with a problematic license, that's all. I'm hoping the
license will be fixed as Adobe integrates Macromedia
organization into Adobe over the next year or three--or that
the open source Flash player flies.

--
Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:

You see, according to the genealogy community I've been branded a leper
because I use Ubuntu Linux!

Oh, FFS. what is this, "feel sorry for myself" week on sgc? Software
gets developed that doesn't work everywhere sometimes. boo farking
hoo. And before you go and assume I'm some M$ zealot, check my headers.

Macromedia lets us use version 7 of flash
but apparently has no inclination to support Linux with anything newer.

Sounds like a marvellous reason to keep a copy of that other OS around.
That's what boot camp and/or GRUB are for, after all.

BTW. PAF 5.2 runs pretty well under Wine on Linux wish they'd spend just
a little effort to make it run perfectly. The Linux community has
expended substantial effort to make PAF run now if ...

As someone who as been part of the linux community since the kernel 1.2
days, yeah, what else is new. Maybe you should call familysearch and/or
macromedia and, you know, demand your money back.

Get up on the wrong side of the bed, Dave? IMO, this is a real
issue with many sites and appears, unfortunately, to be the direction
familysearch.org is heading. Even granting the majority of computer
abusers do so with some form of windoze, AKA Gates' Universal Computer
Virus, it is a mistake to require a specific application or browser be
installed in order to access even the most basic presentation. For
bells'n'whistles beyond a basic presentation ... well, mebbe so, but
basic access should be architecture/browser/application neutral.

As an aside, I was told by the folks at the familysearchlabs site that
flash 9 will be released for linux sometime around the beginning of the
new year, which may well render some of this discussion moot. I'll add,
too, that the project lead seemed entirely unsympathetic to the idea of
neutrality, which kinda torqued me (kinda, nothing, _really_ torqued me!).
We'll see what eventuates.

Southwestern Ol' Bob


--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to
prove that the other party is unfit to rule---and both commonly succeed,
and are right." ---H. L. Mencken

[T.M. Sommers]

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:56:56 GMT, Robert M. Riches Jr. <[email protected]> wrote:

If you decide to install the Flash player/plugin, take a
good look at the license. It contains a clause that
obligates you to let them "audit" your computer, and it
doesn't say whether the audit would be done over the network
or in person.

Riiiiiight. Because macromedia has the resources to show up at some
random genealogist's house to knock on the door and see a computer.
Sorry Robert, but this is a case of someone reading too much into it.

Have you read the license? It does indeed give them the right to
"audit" your computer. Maybe they won't ever exercise that
right, but they do claim to have it.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- [email protected] -- AB2SB

[Hugh Watkins]

elextek wrote:

What are genenalogists, family historians, and others doing to backup their
genealogy data files? Do they store them offsite ? Keep a backup CD in their
home office?

Thanks in advance for your input.

I upload them to http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=hughw36
see http://wc.rootsweb.com/ for the details

and email them to myself as an attachemnt in google mail

just moved a file from one room to the next by doing that

Hugh W


--

new phone = new daily blog
http://upsrev622.blogspot.com/

family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com

[Hugh Watkins]

john wrote:

elextek wrote:

What are genenalogists, family historians, and others doing to backup
their genealogy data files? Do they store them offsite ? Keep a backup
CD in their home office?

Thanks in advance for your input.


Elextek


Apart from using CDs/DVDs, many ISPs now give you 2Gb of e-mail space.
It is easy to zip up your genealogy database files every day (excluding
images) and send yourself a copy to one of those accounts.

and if you change your isp?

best to keep ISp and mail services separated

Hugh W

--

new phone = new daily blog
http://upsrev622.blogspot.com/

family history
http://hughw36.blogspot.com