Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Melody B]

Yep.  The date in question was specifically listed in a source - a Wisconsin
Death Date index.
Since 29 February in and of itself is uncommon I didn't really look at the
year.   Well, you know, until after I'd hit send on my message. ;)


On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:29 PM, RICHARD SCHULTHIES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> The year must be divisible by four. Both 1892 and 1896
> were the leap years aorund the time. Some clerks got
> it wrong so it could be recorded by you correctly by
> the person incorrectly. Choose the Potential Problems
> to acknowledge you accept it was 'wrong'.
> Rich in LA CA
>
> --- Melody B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a
> > date for something or other
> > that is "29 Feb 1894".
> >
> > To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894
> > should have been a leap
> > year.
> >
> > Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I
> > don't know why.
> >
> > And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having
> > a problem with it - it
> > flags it as a bad date Every single time.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Take care,
> > Melody
> > If not now, when?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Legacy User Group guidelines:
> >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> > Archived messages:
> >
> >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> > Online technical support:
> > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> > To unsubscribe:
> > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages:
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
>
>
>


-- 
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when?




Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

The year must be divisible by four. Both 1892 and 1896
were the leap years aorund the time. Some clerks got
it wrong so it could be recorded by you correctly by
the person incorrectly. Choose the Potential Problems
to acknowledge you accept it was 'wrong'.
Rich in LA CA

--- Melody B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a
> date for something or other
> that is "29 Feb 1894".
> 
> To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894
> should have been a leap
> year.
> 
> Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I
> don't know why.
> 
> And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having
> a problem with it - it
> flags it as a bad date Every single time.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Take care,
> Melody
> If not now, when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legacy User Group guidelines: 
>http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages: 
>   
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> To unsubscribe:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
> 
> 




Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[John Clare]

No, 1894 doesn't divide by 4. 1894 was not a leap year. 1896 and 1892 were
leap years.
John

2008/7/22 Melody B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or
> other that is "29 Feb 1894".
>
> To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap
> year.
>
> Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.
>
> And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it
> flags it as a bad date Every single time.
>
>
>
> --
> Take care,
> Melody
> If not now, when?
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>




Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Art Seddon]

Since Leap years are years divisible by 4, except century years only if 
divisible by 400, 1894 was not a leap year.

Art Seddon

- Original Message - 
From: Melody B
To: Legacy User Group
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?


I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or other 
that is "29 Feb 1894".

To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap 
year.

Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it 
flags it as a bad date Every single time.



-- 
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when?


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1565 - Release Date: 7/21/2008 6:36 
PM




Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[John Magyari]

1892 and 1896 were leap years.

Why do assume 1894 is a leap year?

Melody B wrote:
I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or 
other that is "29 Feb 1894".


To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a 
leap year.


Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it 
- it flags it as a bad date Every single time.




--
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when?

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp





Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Elizabeth Cunningham]

1896 was a leap year.  1894 was not.

  Elizabeth C

Melody B wrote:
I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or 
other that is "29 Feb 1894".


To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a 
leap year.


Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it 
- it flags it as a bad date Every single time.


--
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when?








Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Phil Warn]

melody,

1894 is NOT a leap year as it is not divisible by 4.

The simple rule for divisibility by 4 is that the 
last TWO digits of the number are divisible by 4.


94 is not divisible by 4.

1892 and 1896 are.

QED.

Phil.
At 18:51 22/07/2008, Melody B wrote:

I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a 
date for something or other that is "29 Feb 1894".


To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap year.


Phil Warn ô¿ô
Genealogists do it backwards
Family Historians take all steps
"The Warn family in Tetbury from 1722" 
 





Legacy User Group guidelines:
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Laurel Feal]

According to a online perpetual calendar, 1894 was not a leap year.   1892, 
1896 etc.. were leap years.
Laurel 




> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:51:39 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?
>
> I don't know if this is a bug or not. I have a date for something or other 
> that is "29 Feb 1894".
>
> To me, that sure looks like a valid date. 1894 should have been a leap year.
>
> Unless of course it wasn't. But if not, then I don't know why.
>
> And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it 
> flags it as a bad date Every single time.
>
>
>
> --
> Take care,
> Melody
> If not now, when?
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
> Archived messages:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

_




Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Juergen Amling]

1894 was not a leap year. 94 is not divisable by 4. Only 1892 or 1896 is.
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Melody B
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:52 PM
To: Legacy User Group
Subject: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or other
that is "29 Feb 1894".

To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap
year.

Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it
flags it as a bad date Every single time.



--
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when? 

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp





Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[david]

  Melody,

 1894 is not divisible by 4 and therefore not a leap year.

 Regards,
  Dave (NZ).





From: Melody B
Sent: Wed 23/07/2008 05:51
To: Legacy User Group
Subject: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?


I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or other 
that is "29 Feb 1894".

To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap year.

Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it 
flags it as a bad date Every single time.



-- 
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when? 
: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp





Legacy User Group guidelines: 

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages: 

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Dave Johnson]

According to the Legacy calendar, 1892 and 1896 are leap years but no 1894.

 

Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Melody B
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Legacy User Group
Subject: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

 

I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or other
that is "29 Feb 1894".

To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap
year.

Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it
flags it as a bad date Every single time.



-- 
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when? 

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp






Legacy User Group guidelines: 

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages: 

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Dave Naylor]

On 22 Jul 2008  Melody B wrote:

> I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something
> or other that is "29 Feb 1894".
> To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a
> leap year.

Why should it have?  94 is not divisible by 4 and so is *not* a leap 
year.
 
Cheers, -- Dave N.
-- 
  David Naylor, Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada. 
---




Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Larry]

1894 not a leap year.  Not divisible evenly by 4

Melody B wrote:
I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or 
other that is "29 Feb 1894".


To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a 
leap year.


Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it 
- it flags it as a bad date Every single time.




--
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when?

Legacy User Group guidelines:
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp





Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Gene Young]

Melody B wrote:
I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or 
other that is "29 Feb 1894".


To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap 
year.




1894/4= 473.5

Not divisible by 4, therefor not a leap year.

--
Gene Y.
n2kvs
Researching Young, Zies, Harer & Cox with
Legacy Family Tree
http://h1.ripway.com/egptech/



Legacy User Group guidelines: 
  http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
  http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

[LegacyUG] 29 February 1894 - What's wrong with this date?

[Melody B]

I don't know if this is a bug or not.  I have  a date for something or other
that is "29 Feb 1894".

To me, that sure looks like a valid date.  1894 should have been a leap
year.

Unless of course it wasn't.  But if not, then I don't know why.

And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it
flags it as a bad date Every single time.



-- 
Take care,
Melody
If not now, when?




Legacy User Group guidelines: 
   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages: 
   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp