My impression is that there will NEVER be convergence on this topic. It's just going round and round, with little or no compromise and new understanding.
I'm making great use of the delete key, and barely reading the posts in this thread now, after the first line or so. If there have been any pearls of wisdom at the end of longer posts, they've been lost to me. Such is life. Legacy staff - can we have an end to this thread, please? It's going nowhere, yet is not ending of its own accord. Wendy Ward Walker said the following on 24/06/2013 8:50 a.m.: > Sorry, Don. I thought that we were not yet converging on clarity (much less > on agreement), and I thought I was adding something that had not yet been > expressed. But I'll reply off-list to Ron Taylor's response (which is a fair > point but I still disagree). > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Hendershot > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:33 AM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Cc: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages > > Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take > it off-line! It was already old last week. > > ~Don > > > On Jun 23, 2013, at 8:49 AM, "Ward Walker" <wnkwal...@rogers.com> wrote: > >> OK, if we are reasonably clear on the underlying database structure and >> the >> use of a 'marriage' record for any relationship that produces a child, let >> me ask this: what would be the precise meaning of adding a specific >> database >> flag (i.e., a checkbox for the individual) that says the person did not >> marry? Such a flag could not have a biological context, but rather would >> have a cultural meaning, certainly subject to interpretation. Wouldn't >> some >> people interpret it as referring to religious weddings, only. Other people >> would include official civil weddings. What about couples that have lived >> together common law for 40 years, with no wedding? Would checking the box >> include or exclude that? What about a marriage that is annulled after 10 >> days? >> >> My point is that such observations belong in Notes or Event/Facts, where >> they can be explained in context. Having a database construct is only >> useful >> for such things as generating a symbol next to the name in Family view, or >> for automatically adding a statement in a report (with hard-coded >> wording), >> or possibly for a search criterion. Such a database construct/checkbox >> should only be used for a fact that is well-defined and not subject to >> personal interpretation. >> >> To me, even the current checkbox has limited usefulness, for the same >> reasons. It is helpful for the 'no children' part of it. And perhaps the >> 'not marry' part can sometimes be a helpful research aid to save me from >> searching records for an official marriage that is somehow already known >> not >> to exist. But notes can do that too. >> >> Ward >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tony Rolfe Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
