Larry, I think Jim was just trying to be funny/cute - trying to lighten the mood a bit by adding the comment about hallucinogenic - since you included that term in your earlier e-mail.
I agree - it seems to make more sense to human thinking to have these separate and to change the word "marriage" to "relationship". I'm sure it makes perfect sense program-wise as it is, it allows the setting of some flag/switch/etc and was a great thought at the time it was originally added. And I realize there are other ways of indicating the lack of relationship and children using different parts of this program. But the designers need to realize that it is time to "correct" the "oversight" of the original field's intent, and instead make it more "humanly intuitive": _ This person had no KNOWN children _ This person had no KNOWN relationships My understanding is the whole reason for having that (single) check box is to indicate that this is an "end-of-the-line" person so no further research is needed. Without that check box, one might see a person in their tree and wonder "Gee, did I research this person already, do I need to look for their kids/partner?" With this check box it lets me know "oh, I'm already pretty sure that this person needs no further research, I don't need to dig for children/partners". So another option would be to change that single check box's wording to _ This person needs no further research for relationships/children (end-of-the-line, no known children or relationships) (Would it be better worded as "end-of-line" or "end-of-tree" or "end-of-branch" or ???) So, either split it in two so it make more sense "humanly" (and, if both boxes are checked it then indicates "end-of-line"), or change the wording to indicate what the checkbox is REALLY trying to indicate. And, at the risk of ruffling more feathers, I'd like to suggest the "Marriage" heading on the Family view be changed to "Relationship" (or "Marriage/Relationship info" like it is on the resulting pop-up window). I say that because this section is not ONLY to record a marriage, but also to record any relationship that resulted in children (or may have resulted in children). Bob On 04/08/2015 08:54, Larry Lee wrote: > > Jim, et al, > > I agree with John (and many others) obviously since I advocated for > the split early in this thread and in previous threads. And I am not > hallucinogenic. > > I am a person born from an unknown father and a known mother, > therefore correct recording of this fact is important to me. This man > never married my mother but had a relationship and it is important to > distinguish between the two. > > I am glad to know there is a suggestion to fix this (it's been so long > ago I might have suggested it but I don't keep a log of my suggestions). > > The main issue is this has been suggested and many users have replied > that they agree. This is such a common occurrence that it demands a > correct method of recording. > > Unfortunately there seems to be a reluctance to differentiate between > relationships and marriages in Legacy which I feel is regrettable. > > Larry > > On Apr 7, 2015 12:45 PM, "Jim Terry/Support" <jimte...@legacyusers.com > <mailto:jimte...@legacyusers.com>> wrote: > > John, > > You seem to have a lot of anxiety over this issue, to the point of > having > hallucinations. If you want to submit this as a suggestion for an > enhancement to the Legacy program, please visit > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Suggest.asp. We are always seeking > new ways > to make Legacy better. > > Jim, > Legacy Technical Support > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > From: "John Lisle" <leg...@johnlisle.com > <mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com>> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 12:38 PM > > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > > > JIm, > > > > Sure... I do it all the time, but I was not talking about marriage > status. > > > > I was talking about the checkbox "This person was never married and > > has no children" which is the subject of this thread. > > > > I know that a user can decide that the word "married" in that > > checkbox can mean whatever they want it to mean, but I hallucinate > > that most users assume it means just what it says "married" - formal > > ceremony with "binding" contract assumption. > > > > But, with the checkbox being a combination of two attributes and no > > way to identify what means married, the use of the checkbox will be, > > in my opinion, inconsistent or ambiguous between various users. > > > > john. > > > > At 02:39 PM 4/7/2015, Jim Terry/Support wrote: > > >John, > > > > > >Legacy users are free to create whatever Marriage Status they > want and > > >create whatever wording options they want to handle the > majority of the > > >most bizarre, unlikely relationships or non-relationships they can > think > > >about. > > > > > >Jim > > >Legacy Technical Support > > > > > > > > >-------- Original Message -------- > > > > From: "John Lisle" <leg...@johnlisle.com > <mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com>> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:30 AM > > > > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > > > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never > Married? > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > > > I agree but... > > > > > > > > I think that this most people think of this attribute of "Never > > > > Married" as being no formal marriage event, not no > relationships. > > > > > > > > Further, even were it to mean No Relationships, unless we have > > > > perfect knowledge of the person's life, we would have to say "No > > > > KNOWN Relationships" and, of course, that attribute could > also mean > > > > no known marriages. > > > > > > > > More fuel to why those attributes need to be split. (I still > think > > > > those attributes need to be combines with Child Status items as > > > > described earlier.) > > > > > > > > If a man was a sperm donor, he likely has children although > he may > > > > not know who they are. And, unless one of those children later > > > > determines his/her biological paternity, that passing on of > genes > > > > will never be known. > > > > > > > > Of course, there is the other case of surrogate motherhood. > It can > > > > either be based on placing fertilized egg in surrogate or it > could > be > > > > that surrogate mother provides the egg. > > > > > > > > Did you know that 3 of Mitt Romney's son Tagg's children > were from a > > > > surrogate mother? > > > > > > > > Modern science and 21st century laws are making > relationships much > > > > more complex... :-) > > > > > > > > john. > > > > > > > > At 11:10 AM 4/7/2015, Jim Terry/Support wrote: > > > > >In a case of in vitro fertilization there is a father and he is > Unknown. > > >We > > > > >haven't started cloning people yet, so for now there is still a > > >biological > > > > >father and biological mother. > > > > > > > > > >Jim > > > > >Legacy Technical Support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-------- Original Message -------- > > > > > > From: "MikeFry" <emjay...@gmail.com > <mailto:emjay...@gmail.com>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:50 AM > > > > > > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > > > > > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never > Married? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2015/04/07 00:19 AM, Kelly Booth wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a in vitro fertilization in my tree - she never > married > but > > >I > > > > >can't check > > > > > > > that box because it includes "no children" and that is > not the > > >case. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's still a "relationship". Even if the father is > unknown, as > is > > > > >likely in > > > > > > that case. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Mike Fry (Jhb) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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://support.legacyfamilytree.com > > > > 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 > > > > > > 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://support.legacyfamilytree.com > > 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 > > > > 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://support.legacyfamilytree.com > 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 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://support.legacyfamilytree.com 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
