Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Jay, Legacy only gets to know about these things (officially) by those who properly register their suggestions as stated many times on this list be the Legacy Support workers. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ From: Jay Wilpolt Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 3:12 AM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? How else is Legacy supposed to know HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS !!! IF we dont keep beating this dead horse On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, STEPHEN wrote: I agree. This has long since reached the dead horse stage. -- From: "William Hoff" To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 2:13:03 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? Let's drop this On Apr 8, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Susan Stuhlsatz-Reese wrote: I confess that I don't share much optimism for these kind of changes either to be made in the software either. Yet, the LDS member who guided my group of boy scouts in their genealogy merit badge stated that he liked finding a messy family in his line and the messier the better. That gives me hope. My LDS neighbor loved scrapbooking tidbits of the lives of her family, not just how they passed DNA. That also gives me hope. Surely holy people can remain holy despite these things in the world that are outside their control. What an interesting time we are living in. Why not document it? Regards, Sue On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:53 PM, John Lisle wrote: Mike, It will change. I did not suggest when. The owners are LDS, but the great majority of their users are not LDS, and even Utah now allows (begrudgingly) same sex marriages. Their LDS membership does not seem to be the controlling factor. Messages I have seen from them seem very sincere that this is something they want to fix. Not only do they have to change their data model, but they also have to make significant in a lot of their tools, reports, etc. john. At 02:35 PM 4/8/2015, MikeFry wrote: >On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > > > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal > > in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, > > but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now > > needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and > > now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most > > folks family history. > >I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of the >company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate >against such a >change. > >-- >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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Sorry Tessa, IF Legacy paid attention to the market and the needs of its customers they would have made many of the suggested changes already Face the facts ..they dont want to and I doubt they ever will On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Tessa Keough wrote: > I like Legacy and hope that they continue to pay attention to the > market and the needs of their customers because, when all is said and > done, it is a business that provides a product to the public. > > Whether it is the administrators or the programmers - ease of use, > keeping up with the competition, offering useful and necessary > features, and updates that take care of previous bugs and don't add > new ones - is what it is all about. I am sure these companies all > watch each other and then make decisions based on where they want > their product to go in the future. Sadly we have seen promising > programs fall by the wayside and others never take off if they can't > satisfy their customer base. > > I am under the impression (don't know why) that it is a small group > but they are involved in all aspects. It would be interesting to know > more and I would guess those who have been on the cruises might have a > better idea of the players and their attitudes/capabilities. > > Tessa > > Tessa Keough > Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS > Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+ > Society for One-Place Studies, Plate Cove East, Newfoundland > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot > wrote: > > I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this. And given the > fact that the "programmers" are part of the executive management team, I'd > say the chance of a major change to this aspect of relationships is on par > with the drought in California ending tomorrow. (I always thought that > Millennia used job-shop or contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?) > > > > Brian in CA > > > > > SNIP > > > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
How else is Legacy supposed to know HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS !!! IF we dont keep beating this dead horse On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:43 PM, STEPHEN wrote: > I agree. This has long since reached the dead horse stage. > > -- > *From: *"William Hoff" > *To: *legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Sent: *Wednesday, April 8, 2015 2:13:03 PM > *Subject: *Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > Let's drop this > > > > On Apr 8, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Susan Stuhlsatz-Reese > wrote: > > I confess that I don't share much optimism for these kind of changes > either to be made in the software either. Yet, the LDS member who guided my > group of boy scouts in their genealogy merit badge stated that he liked > finding a messy family in his line and the messier the better. That gives > me hope. My LDS neighbor loved scrapbooking tidbits of the lives of her > family, not just how they passed DNA. That also gives me hope. Surely holy > people can remain holy despite these things in the world that are outside > their control. What an interesting time we are living in. Why not document > it? > Regards, > Sue > > > > On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:53 PM, John Lisle > wrote: > > > Mike, > > It will change. I did not suggest when. > > The owners are LDS, but the great majority of their users are not > LDS, and even Utah now allows (begrudgingly) same sex marriages. > Their LDS membership does not seem to be the controlling factor. > Messages I have seen from them seem very sincere that this is > something they want to fix. > > Not only do they have to change their data model, but they also have > to make significant in a lot of their tools, reports, etc. > > john. > > At 02:35 PM 4/8/2015, MikeFry wrote: > >On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > > > > > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > > > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > > > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal > > > in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, > > > but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now > > > needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and > > > now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most > > > folks family history. > > > >I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of > the > >company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate > >against such a > >change. > > > >-- > >Regards, > >Mike Fry (Jhb) > > > > > > > > > >Legacy User Group guidelines: > > > >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > <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 > <http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/>). > > > >To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp> > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > <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 > <http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/>). > > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp> > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > <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.
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
LOL On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Pat Hickin wrote: > Personally, I don't see why religious beliefs have anything to do with > it. It's a matter of simple logic that you may not know (& that in the > case of a man, the individual *himself* may not know whether he's > produced children. > > Pat > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Tessa Keough wrote: > >> I like Legacy and hope that they continue to pay attention to the >> market and the needs of their customers because, when all is said and >> done, it is a business that provides a product to the public. >> >> Whether it is the administrators or the programmers - ease of use, >> keeping up with the competition, offering useful and necessary >> features, and updates that take care of previous bugs and don't add >> new ones - is what it is all about. I am sure these companies all >> watch each other and then make decisions based on where they want >> their product to go in the future. Sadly we have seen promising >> programs fall by the wayside and others never take off if they can't >> satisfy their customer base. >> >> I am under the impression (don't know why) that it is a small group >> but they are involved in all aspects. It would be interesting to know >> more and I would guess those who have been on the cruises might have a >> better idea of the players and their attitudes/capabilities. >> >> Tessa >> >> Tessa Keough >> Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS >> Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+ >> Society for One-Place Studies, Plate Cove East, Newfoundland >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot >> wrote: >> > I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this. And given the >> fact that the "programmers" are part of the executive management team, I'd >> say the chance of a major change to this aspect of relationships is on par >> with the drought in California ending tomorrow. (I always thought that >> Millennia used job-shop or contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?) >> > >> > Brian in CA >> > >> > >> SNIP >> >> >> >> >> 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I agree, I am starting to remember why I stopped the user group years ago! Mike McDermott, San Jose, CA In a message dated 4/8/2015 3:45:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, stephen.gra...@comcast.net writes: I agree. This has long since reached the dead horse stage. 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I second and third that proposition. > On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:13 PM, William Hoff wrote: > > Let's drop this > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I agree. This has long since reached the dead horse stage. - Original Message - From: "William Hoff" To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 2:13:03 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? Let's drop this On Apr 8, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Susan Stuhlsatz-Reese < susieskinc...@yahoo.com > wrote: I confess that I don't share much optimism for these kind of changes either to be made in the software either. Yet, the LDS member who guided my group of boy scouts in their genealogy merit badge stated that he liked finding a messy family in his line and the messier the better. That gives me hope. My LDS neighbor loved scrapbooking tidbits of the lives of her family, not just how they passed DNA. That also gives me hope. Surely holy people can remain holy despite these things in the world that are outside their control. What an interesting time we are living in. Why not document it? Regards, Sue On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:53 PM, John Lisle < leg...@johnlisle.com > wrote: Mike, It will change. I did not suggest when. The owners are LDS, but the great majority of their users are not LDS, and even Utah now allows (begrudgingly) same sex marriages. Their LDS membership does not seem to be the controlling factor. Messages I have seen from them seem very sincere that this is something they want to fix. Not only do they have to change their data model, but they also have to make significant in a lot of their tools, reports, etc. john. At 02:35 PM 4/8/2015, MikeFry wrote: >On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > > > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal > > in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, > > but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now > > needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and > > now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most > > folks family history. > >I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of the >company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate >against such a >change. > >-- >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 Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legac
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
On 2015/04/08 20:51 PM, John Lisle wrote: > The owners are LDS, but the great majority of their users are not > LDS, and even Utah now allows (begrudgingly) same sex marriages. > Their LDS membership does not seem to be the controlling factor. > Messages I have seen from them seem very sincere that this is > something they want to fix. I thought the LDS church was more interested in the past rather than the present and the future. That in itself would indicate that same-sex relationships are very low on the to-do list. -- 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Let's drop this > On Apr 8, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Susan Stuhlsatz-Reese > wrote: > > I confess that I don't share much optimism for these kind of changes either > to be made in the software either. Yet, the LDS member who guided my group of > boy scouts in their genealogy merit badge stated that he liked finding a > messy family in his line and the messier the better. That gives me hope. My > LDS neighbor loved scrapbooking tidbits of the lives of her family, not just > how they passed DNA. That also gives me hope. Surely holy people can remain > holy despite these things in the world that are outside their control. What > an interesting time we are living in. Why not document it? > Regards, > Sue > > > > On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:53 PM, John Lisle wrote: > > > Mike, > > It will change. I did not suggest when. > > The owners are LDS, but the great majority of their users are not > LDS, and even Utah now allows (begrudgingly) same sex marriages. > Their LDS membership does not seem to be the controlling factor. > Messages I have seen from them seem very sincere that this is > something they want to fix. > > Not only do they have to change their data model, but they also have > to make significant in a lot of their tools, reports, etc. > > john. > > At 02:35 PM 4/8/2015, MikeFry wrote: > >On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > > > > > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > > > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > > > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal > > > in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, > > > but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now > > > needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and > > > now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most > > > folks family history. > > > >I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of the > >company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate > >against such a > >change. > > > >-- > >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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Personally, I don't see why religious beliefs have anything to do with it. It's a matter of simple logic that you may not know (& that in the case of a man, the individual *himself* may not know whether he's produced children. Pat On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Tessa Keough wrote: > I like Legacy and hope that they continue to pay attention to the > market and the needs of their customers because, when all is said and > done, it is a business that provides a product to the public. > > Whether it is the administrators or the programmers - ease of use, > keeping up with the competition, offering useful and necessary > features, and updates that take care of previous bugs and don't add > new ones - is what it is all about. I am sure these companies all > watch each other and then make decisions based on where they want > their product to go in the future. Sadly we have seen promising > programs fall by the wayside and others never take off if they can't > satisfy their customer base. > > I am under the impression (don't know why) that it is a small group > but they are involved in all aspects. It would be interesting to know > more and I would guess those who have been on the cruises might have a > better idea of the players and their attitudes/capabilities. > > Tessa > > Tessa Keough > Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS > Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+ > Society for One-Place Studies, Plate Cove East, Newfoundland > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot > wrote: > > I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this. And given the > fact that the "programmers" are part of the executive management team, I'd > say the chance of a major change to this aspect of relationships is on par > with the drought in California ending tomorrow. (I always thought that > Millennia used job-shop or contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?) > > > > Brian in CA > > > > > SNIP > > > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I like Legacy and hope that they continue to pay attention to the market and the needs of their customers because, when all is said and done, it is a business that provides a product to the public. Whether it is the administrators or the programmers - ease of use, keeping up with the competition, offering useful and necessary features, and updates that take care of previous bugs and don't add new ones - is what it is all about. I am sure these companies all watch each other and then make decisions based on where they want their product to go in the future. Sadly we have seen promising programs fall by the wayside and others never take off if they can't satisfy their customer base. I am under the impression (don't know why) that it is a small group but they are involved in all aspects. It would be interesting to know more and I would guess those who have been on the cruises might have a better idea of the players and their attitudes/capabilities. Tessa Tessa Keough Guild of One-Name Studies, Keough (Keogh, Kough & Kehoe) Registered ONS Legacy Virtual Users' Group Community on Google+ Society for One-Place Studies, Plate Cove East, Newfoundland On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this. And given the fact > that the "programmers" are part of the executive management team, I'd say the > chance of a major change to this aspect of relationships is on par with the > drought in California ending tomorrow. (I always thought that Millennia used > job-shop or contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?) > > Brian in CA > > SNIP 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I was wondering when somebody was going to mention this. And given the fact that the "programmers" are part of the executive management team, I'd say the chance of a major change to this aspect of relationships is on par with the drought in California ending tomorrow. (I always thought that Millennia used job-shop or contract programmers. Wonder when that changed?) Brian in CA -Original Message- From: MikeFry [mailto:emjay...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 11:36 AM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal in > the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, but > it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now needs > it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and now > such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most folks > family history. I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of the company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate against such a change. -- 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I confess that I don't share much optimism for these kind of changes either to be made in the software either. Yet, the LDS member who guided my group of boy scouts in their genealogy merit badge stated that he liked finding a messy family in his line and the messier the better. That gives me hope. My LDS neighbor loved scrapbooking tidbits of the lives of her family, not just how they passed DNA. That also gives me hope. Surely holy people can remain holy despite these things in the world that are outside their control. What an interesting time we are living in. Why not document it? Regards, Sue On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 1:53 PM, John Lisle wrote: Mike, It will change. I did not suggest when. The owners are LDS, but the great majority of their users are not LDS, and even Utah now allows (begrudgingly) same sex marriages. Their LDS membership does not seem to be the controlling factor. Messages I have seen from them seem very sincere that this is something they want to fix. Not only do they have to change their data model, but they also have to make significant in a lot of their tools, reports, etc. john. At 02:35 PM 4/8/2015, MikeFry wrote: >On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > > > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal > > in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, > > but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now > > needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and > > now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most > > folks family history. > >I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of the >company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate >against such a >change. > >-- >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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Mike, It will change. I did not suggest when. The owners are LDS, but the great majority of their users are not LDS, and even Utah now allows (begrudgingly) same sex marriages. Their LDS membership does not seem to be the controlling factor. Messages I have seen from them seem very sincere that this is something they want to fix. Not only do they have to change their data model, but they also have to make significant in a lot of their tools, reports, etc. john. At 02:35 PM 4/8/2015, MikeFry wrote: >On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > > > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal > > in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, > > but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now > > needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and > > now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most > > folks family history. > >I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of the >company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate >against such a >change. > >-- >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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
On 2015/04/08 19:18 PM, John Lisle wrote: > One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not > support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model > for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal > in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, > but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now > needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and > now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most > folks family history. I don't share your optimism that Legacy will be changed. The founders of the company are, I believe, LDS members and that fact would mitigate against such a change. -- 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Hi BobsTree2, I thought I was done with this thread but your email requires a response. As much as Legacy is an excellent Family Tree / Genealogy program, it is also a fine Family *History* program. And I suspect that most users who are using Legacy to record their genealogy are also documenting their family history. Why else would they be including pictures and stories and life events? And when you consider family history, you do want to record such relationships as continuing relationships with folks, of same or opposite sex, that may or may not have resulted in an extension of the gene pool. How do you consider a relationship that has only resulted in adopted children? How about relationships between seniors? After my mother died, my Dad remarried a great lady who was 81. I doubt they expected to extend the gene pool by their relationship. :-) One of the major knocks on Legacy by reviewers is that it does not support same sex relationships. I happen to know that the data model for Legacy was created long before the first gay marriage was legal in the US and, unfortunately, changing this is not going to be easy, but it is going to happen as so much of Legacy's customer base now needs it. It is needed because Legacy is a Family History program and now such relationships are becoming increasingly common within most folks family history. As an aside, I do think that there may be some truth in Bob's comment that this checkbox was meant to indicate that a person was an end of line person. Something like when you see "d.s.p." in an "old style" genealogy. But that does not mean a person had no children and did not marry. It means that the person did not leave any heirs. They could have married but did not have legitimate surviving children. If he had illegitimate children, they were never designated as heirs. In today's world, a genealogist might dig deeper. I still believe that replacing this checkbox with a dropdown list of personal attributes better allows each user to define those attributes they feel best characterize the individual in their family history. john. At 12:26 PM 4/8/2015, BobsTree2-Gmail wrote: >Good explanation, you are almost there. For a moment, forget about >relationships, marriages, civil unions, adoptions, etc. Look at >the base of genealogy, genetics, genes, etc. Genealogy was >originally intended to trace the blood sources of a being. The real >terms behind genealogy should be "egg donor" and "sperm >donor". Everything else is just a label.You can use Mother and >Father, or Husband and Wife, or Female Donor and Male Donor. > >What has happened is that people have discovered genealogy programs >and are now trying to use them for their own purposes, tracking >relationships. That is fine, but don't cry if a genealogy program >does not suit your relationship needs. If you don't like it, use a >"relationship" program instead if you can find one. In the >meantime, you can make suggestions, but don't gripe if your request >is ignored if it is not basic to tracking genes. That is why many >programs do not allow for same sex relationships, that is not >tracking a genetic flow, it is tracking a social connection. > >Re, " no known children/marriage, no further research needed" is >just as bad as the other suggestions. In fact, this could mean more >research is needed! The "no research needed" box should be a >personal tag for the individual, not tied to any specific reason; >but a text field with it to explain for personal reasons might be >good to go with the check box. Ie: "uterus removed at age 11". >Should not be exported in a gedcom. > > >On Apr 8, 2015, at 11:24, Robert57P_gmail wrote: > > > 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,
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Good explanation, you are almost there. For a moment, forget about relationships, marriages, civil unions, adoptions, etc. Look at the base of genealogy, genetics, genes, etc. Genealogy was originally intended to trace the blood sources of a being. The real terms behind genealogy should be "egg donor" and "sperm donor". Everything else is just a label.You can use Mother and Father, or Husband and Wife, or Female Donor and Male Donor. What has happened is that people have discovered genealogy programs and are now trying to use them for their own purposes, tracking relationships. That is fine, but don't cry if a genealogy program does not suit your relationship needs. If you don't like it, use a "relationship" program instead if you can find one. In the meantime, you can make suggestions, but don't gripe if your request is ignored if it is not basic to tracking genes. That is why many programs do not allow for same sex relationships, that is not tracking a genetic flow, it is tracking a social connection. Re, " no known children/marriage, no further research needed" is just as bad as the other suggestions. In fact, this could mean more research is needed! The "no research needed" box should be a personal tag for the individual, not tied to any specific reason; but a text field with it to explain for personal reasons might be good to go with the check box. Ie: "uterus removed at age 11". Should not be exported in a gedcom. On Apr 8, 2015, at 11:24, Robert57P_gmail wrote: > 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 > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Maybe a better wording would be: _ end-of-line(no known relationships or children) Again, either split it so it is more humanly intuitive/useful, or change the wording to show what that box is really trying to indicate. Bob On 04/08/2015 11:24, Robert57P_gmail wrote: > 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" > <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" > <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? >> > >>
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
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" <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" <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 co
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Jenny, I respectfully disagree. See my comments inline. On Apr 8, 2015 2:54 AM, "Jenny M Benson" wrote: --- snip --- > Oh for heaven's sake - we're talking about a piece of software here! > It's not human, it doesn't make judgements or offer opinions. > > It's a genealogy program so it's been written to cope with what happens > in genealogy - a man and a woman produce a baby. Nowadays the > circumstances of that happening may differ a great deal to what was > considered "usual" until very recently. > Genealogists do make judgments about their data and the software ought to provide the means to record it as accurately as possible. Yes we can make custom events to handle anomalies but the issue here is that the statement "This individual never married and had no children" can be true but is rarely a known certainty. It is true for my male cousin, as far as I know, however I can't ever know absolutely, and this is an absolute statement. > Maybe the programmers haven't caught up with all the changes yet. Maybe > the owners of Legacy don't WANT to - no one says they have to. There is > an option to suggest changes to the program but there is no obligation > for the Powers That Be to accept them. > > The long and the short of it is, if you don't like the software don't > use it. > It is not a matter of disliking the software but rather one of improvement. Since the statement is absolute, and I can never factually know if it truly is, the statement is useless in my opinion. --- snip --- Larry 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
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" 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" > > 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" > > > > 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... :-) >
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
On 08/04/2015 00:13, Kelly Booth wrote: > I agree wtih you John - the discussion was marriage. The person in my > tree is a cousin that would be highly offended if I called a "test tube" > a relationship. Oh for heaven's sake - we're talking about a piece of software here! It's not human, it doesn't make judgements or offer opinions. It's a genealogy program so it's been written to cope with what happens in genealogy - a man and a woman produce a baby. Nowadays the circumstances of that happening may differ a great deal to what was considered "usual" until very recently. Maybe the programmers haven't caught up with all the changes yet. Maybe the owners of Legacy don't WANT to - no one says they have to. There is an option to suggest changes to the program but there is no obligation for the Powers That Be to accept them. The long and the short of it is, if you don't like the software don't use it. -- Jenny M Benson 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
They *are* the design team as well as management Sincerely, Sherry Technical Support Legacy Family Tree On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > I'm not advocating one side or the other to this potential programming change > but I'm just curious as to why the change is up to the programmers. You'd > think the design and direction of the software would be an executive decision > or at least coming from a management design team. Programmers usually don't > make this decisions as they are just told what to accomplish and are left in > the dark with the mushroom fertilizer. > > Brian in CA 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I'm not advocating one side or the other to this potential programming change but I'm just curious as to why the change is up to the programmers. You'd think the design and direction of the software would be an executive decision or at least coming from a management design team. Programmers usually don't make this decisions as they are just told what to accomplish and are left in the dark with the mushroom fertilizer. Brian in CA No anxiety here. No rain either. -Original Message- From: Sherry/Support [mailto:she...@legacyfamilytree.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:35 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? It's already on the suggestion list. Whether or not the programmers will change it back is up to them Sincerely, Sherry Technical Support Legacy Family Tree On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Jim Terry/Support 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" >> 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. 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I agree wtih you John - the discussion was marriage. The person in my tree is a cousin that would be highly offended if I called a "test tube" a relationship. From: John Lisle To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 3:36 PM 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" > > 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" > > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
The discussion was reasons to split that question. The wording in Legacy is "marriage" in that checkbox, not relationship. There was no marriage and there was a child. If you want to take it a step further, I have a bunch that were married but did not have children. From: Jim Terry/Support To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2015 11:10 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? 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" > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
It's already on the suggestion list. Whether or not the programmers will change it back is up to them Sincerely, Sherry Technical Support Legacy Family Tree On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Jim Terry/Support 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" >> 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. 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
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" > 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" > > > 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" > > > > > 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 > > > &
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" > > 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" > > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
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" > 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" > > > 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
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" > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
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" > 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
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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Another reason to separate "never married" and "had no children" is that proof of each of these situations can come from different sources. You may know someone had no children (perhaps they were physically unable to) but you don't know whether or not they ever married. Thus it would be helpful to be able to record proof of each item separately from the other. Boyd On 7/04/2015 10:19 a.m., Kelly Booth wrote: > /"however there are (at least) two distinct cases where a child was > born and no relationship existed between the parents … in vitro > fertilization where the father is an anonymous donor … and rape where > the victim chooses to keep the child created by the act. In neither of > these cases was there any type of “relationshipâ€, there was simply a > pregnancy and a birth"/ > > 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. > > > > > *From:* Erik Dillenkofer > *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Sent:* Monday, April 6, 2015 4:42 PM > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > Another reason to split the attributes is that even though a person > had a child, they still can have never married. Those two attributes > CAN be mutually exclusive. I know that Legacy “assumes†there was a > relationship that led to the child (and since it was a “relationshipâ€, > to Legacy the parents were “marriedâ€), however there are (at least) > two distinct cases where a child was born and no relationship existed > between the parents … in vitro fertilization where the father is an > anonymous donor … and rape where the victim chooses to keep the child > created by the act. In neither of these cases was there any type of > “relationshipâ€, there was simply a pregnancy and a birth. > *From:*John Lisle [mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com] > *Sent:* Monday, April 6, 2015 1:05 PM > *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > Pat, Michele, Larry, et al, > > I believe Pat is correct in her reasons why these two attributes need > to be split. A person may never have been legally married but might > have been responsible for numerous children. > > As a genealogist, we can say that "No evidence that this person ever > married" and "No known children", but it is hard to make either > assertion and know it to be true. > > I recently reviewed a death certificate for a man filled out by a > family member that asserted the man was unmarried. I have also seen 2 > decades of census listings where he was listed at Single. I also have > a marriage record for the person and assume they divorced because she > remarried. :-) > > I cannot recall any Legacy function that uses this attribute to change > its processing; however, it is an attribute that you can search for. > > Actually, this issue is related to the Child Status issue we discussed > last week. I prefer to think of the Child Status and these attributes > as common elements that I would call "Personal Attributes". I have > submitted a suggestion that this check box be replaced on the > Individual Info window by an attributes drop down box similar to Child > Status box: eg, Twin, Stillborn, Adopted, No known children, No known > marriages, Died Young, d.s.p., etc. The attributes would be part of > the "Child Status" master list that users could add items to. One > difference would be that a user could select multiple attributes; eg, > Stillborn and Twin. > > The above discussion does suggest a way to implement a solution with > L8 to the original question prompting this thread: Add items to > existing Child Status list for "No known marriages" and "No known > children" and then select that Child Status attribute. You can even > search for any of these attributes; the detailed search for Child > Status gets its list of status items by looking at the Child Status > master list. > > john. > > > > At 07:27 PM 4/5/2015, Pat Hickin wrote: > > The point, Michele, of separating the never married and had no > children items is that one can _know_ that an individual never > married. But, especially for men, one is often not be sure there > are no children. I, for one, find it annoying to have to say an > individual had no children when I do not know that for a fact. > The result is that I just leave the box unchecked when I would > like to check it. > > Pat > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
"however there are (at least) two distinct cases where a child was born and no relationship existed between the parents … in vitro fertilization where the father is an anonymous donor … and rape where the victim chooses to keep the child created by the act. In neither of these cases was there any type of “relationship”, there was simply a pregnancy and a birth" 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. From: Erik Dillenkofer To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 4:42 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? Another reason to split the attributes is that even though a person had a child, they still can have never married. Those two attributes CAN be mutually exclusive. I know that Legacy “assumes” there was a relationship that led to the child (and since it was a “relationship”, to Legacy the parents were “married”), however there are (at least) two distinct cases where a child was born and no relationship existed between the parents … in vitro fertilization where the father is an anonymous donor … and rape where the victim chooses to keep the child created by the act. In neither of these cases was there any type of “relationship”, there was simply a pregnancy and a birth. From: John Lisle [mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com] Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 1:05 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? Pat, Michele, Larry, et al, I believe Pat is correct in her reasons why these two attributes need to be split. A person may never have been legally married but might have been responsible for numerous children. As a genealogist, we can say that "No evidence that this person ever married" and "No known children", but it is hard to make either assertion and know it to be true. I recently reviewed a death certificate for a man filled out by a family member that asserted the man was unmarried. I have also seen 2 decades of census listings where he was listed at Single. I also have a marriage record for the person and assume they divorced because she remarried. :-) I cannot recall any Legacy function that uses this attribute to change its processing; however, it is an attribute that you can search for. Actually, this issue is related to the Child Status issue we discussed last week. I prefer to think of the Child Status and these attributes as common elements that I would call "Personal Attributes". I have submitted a suggestion that this check box be replaced on the Individual Info window by an attributes drop down box similar to Child Status box: eg, Twin, Stillborn, Adopted, No known children, No known marriages, Died Young, d.s.p., etc. The attributes would be part of the "Child Status" master list that users could add items to. One difference would be that a user could select multiple attributes; eg, Stillborn and Twin. The above discussion does suggest a way to implement a solution with L8 to the original question prompting this thread: Add items to existing Child Status list for "No known marriages" and "No known children" and then select that Child Status attribute. You can even search for any of these attributes; the detailed search for Child Status gets its list of status items by looking at the Child Status master list. john. At 07:27 PM 4/5/2015, Pat Hickin wrote: The point, Michele, of separating the never married and had no children items is that one can know that an individual never married. But, especially for men, one is often not be sure there are no children. I, for one, find it annoying to have to say an individual had no children when I do not know that for a fact. The result is that I just leave the box unchecked when I would like to check it. Pat On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sherry/Support < she...@legacyfamilytree.com> wrote:I agree Michele. I've found children where I assumed the woman waschildless. There was a day and age when it was shameful to have achild out of wedlock so the woman would go on an extended vacation tovisit family until the baby was born and either someone else in thefamily raised the child as her own or the child was put up forimmediate adoption.It was several years before I found out that a cousin had beenmarried. The marriage was for a very short time because he turned outto be an abusive drunkard and she quickly left him, never to speak ofhim again. All those years I assumed she had never been married.Sincerely,SherryTechnical SupportLegacy Family Tree On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Michele/Support< mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> wrote:> Bernie,> I never even use that option unless the person was an adult and only if I have some sort of evidence to s
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Erik, In both of the cases you cited there is still a father, albeit an unknown one. You can of course submit a suggestion to the programmers to split this option here http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/suggest.asp If you make the suggestion this way it will get logged into our tracking system. I just did a search of the suggestions and I don’t see this one in there. (It is possible that I missed it. Sherry handles the suggestions and she can find things in there that I can’t see). Michele Technical Support mich...@legacyfamilytree.com www.legacyfamilytree.com From: Erik Dillenkofer [mailto:esd...@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 4:43 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? Another reason to split the attributes is that even though a person had a child, they still can have never married. Those two attributes CAN be mutually exclusive. I know that Legacy “assumes” there was a relationship that led to the child (and since it was a “relationship”, to Legacy the parents were “married”), however there are (at least) two distinct cases where a child was born and no relationship existed between the parents … in vitro fertilization where the father is an anonymous donor … and rape where the victim chooses to keep the child created by the act. In neither of these cases was there any type of “relationship”, there was simply a pregnancy and a birth. 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Another reason to split the attributes is that even though a person had a child, they still can have never married. Those two attributes CAN be mutually exclusive. I know that Legacy “assumes” there was a relationship that led to the child (and since it was a “relationship”, to Legacy the parents were “married”), however there are (at least) two distinct cases where a child was born and no relationship existed between the parents … in vitro fertilization where the father is an anonymous donor … and rape where the victim chooses to keep the child created by the act. In neither of these cases was there any type of “relationship”, there was simply a pregnancy and a birth. From: John Lisle [mailto:leg...@johnlisle.com] Sent: Monday, April 6, 2015 1:05 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? Pat, Michele, Larry, et al, I believe Pat is correct in her reasons why these two attributes need to be split. A person may never have been legally married but might have been responsible for numerous children. As a genealogist, we can say that "No evidence that this person ever married" and "No known children", but it is hard to make either assertion and know it to be true. I recently reviewed a death certificate for a man filled out by a family member that asserted the man was unmarried. I have also seen 2 decades of census listings where he was listed at Single. I also have a marriage record for the person and assume they divorced because she remarried. :-) I cannot recall any Legacy function that uses this attribute to change its processing; however, it is an attribute that you can search for. Actually, this issue is related to the Child Status issue we discussed last week. I prefer to think of the Child Status and these attributes as common elements that I would call "Personal Attributes". I have submitted a suggestion that this check box be replaced on the Individual Info window by an attributes drop down box similar to Child Status box: eg, Twin, Stillborn, Adopted, No known children, No known marriages, Died Young, d.s.p., etc. The attributes would be part of the "Child Status" master list that users could add items to. One difference would be that a user could select multiple attributes; eg, Stillborn and Twin. The above discussion does suggest a way to implement a solution with L8 to the original question prompting this thread: Add items to existing Child Status list for "No known marriages" and "No known children" and then select that Child Status attribute. You can even search for any of these attributes; the detailed search for Child Status gets its list of status items by looking at the Child Status master list. john. At 07:27 PM 4/5/2015, Pat Hickin wrote: The point, Michele, of separating the never married and had no children items is that one can know that an individual never married. But, especially for men, one is often not be sure there are no children. I, for one, find it annoying to have to say an individual had no children when I do not know that for a fact. The result is that I just leave the box unchecked when I would like to check it. Pat On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sherry/Support < she...@legacyfamilytree.com <mailto:she...@legacyfamilytree.com> > wrote: I agree Michele. I've found children where I assumed the woman was childless. There was a day and age when it was shameful to have a child out of wedlock so the woman would go on an extended vacation to visit family until the baby was born and either someone else in the family raised the child as her own or the child was put up for immediate adoption. It was several years before I found out that a cousin had been married. The marriage was for a very short time because he turned out to be an abusive drunkard and she quickly left him, never to speak of him again. All those years I assumed she had never been married. Sincerely, Sherry Technical Support Legacy Family Tree On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Michele/Support < mich...@legacyfamilytree.com <mailto:mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> > wrote: > Bernie, > I never even use that option unless the person was an adult and only if I > have some sort of evidence to show that the person never married and never > had children. I don't assume anything. > > Michele > Technical Support > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com <mailto:mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> > www.legacyfamilytree.com <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/> > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Pat, Michele, Larry, et al, I believe Pat is correct in her reasons why these two attributes need to be split. A person may never have been legally married but might have been responsible for numerous children. As a genealogist, we can say that "No evidence that this person ever married" and "No known children", but it is hard to make either assertion and know it to be true. I recently reviewed a death certificate for a man filled out by a family member that asserted the man was unmarried. I have also seen 2 decades of census listings where he was listed at Single. I also have a marriage record for the person and assume they divorced because she remarried. :-) I cannot recall any Legacy function that uses this attribute to change its processing; however, it is an attribute that you can search for. Actually, this issue is related to the Child Status issue we discussed last week. I prefer to think of the Child Status and these attributes as common elements that I would call "Personal Attributes". I have submitted a suggestion that this check box be replaced on the Individual Info window by an attributes drop down box similar to Child Status box: eg, Twin, Stillborn, Adopted, No known children, No known marriages, Died Young, d.s.p., etc. The attributes would be part of the "Child Status" master list that users could add items to. One difference would be that a user could select multiple attributes; eg, Stillborn and Twin. The above discussion does suggest a way to implement a solution with L8 to the original question prompting this thread: Add items to existing Child Status list for "No known marriages" and "No known children" and then select that Child Status attribute. You can even search for any of these attributes; the detailed search for Child Status gets its list of status items by looking at the Child Status master list. john. At 07:27 PM 4/5/2015, Pat Hickin wrote: The point, Michele, of separating the never married and had no children items is that one can know that an individual never married. But, especially for men, one is often not be sure there are no children. I, for one, find it annoying to have to say an individual had no children when I do not know that for a fact. The result is that I just leave the box unchecked when I would like to check it. Pat On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sherry/Support < she...@legacyfamilytree.com> wrote: I agree Michele. I've found children where I assumed the woman was childless. There was a day and age when it was shameful to have a child out of wedlock so the woman would go on an extended vacation to visit family until the baby was born and either someone else in the family raised the child as her own or the child was put up for immediate adoption. It was several years before I found out that a cousin had been married. The marriage was for a very short time because he turned out to be an abusive drunkard and she quickly left him, never to speak of him again. All those years I assumed she had never been married. Sincerely, Sherry Technical Support Legacy Family Tree On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Michele/Support < mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> wrote: > Bernie, > I never even use that option unless the person was an adult and only if I have some sort of evidence to show that the person never married and never had children. I don't assume anything. > > Michele > Technical Support > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com > www.legacyfamilytree.com > 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Michele, I understand that however it says Marriage not Relationship. I know Legacy uses Marriage to include relationships but IMHO I think that is improper usage. Larry On Apr 5, 2015 12:50 PM, "Michele/Support" wrote: > Larry, > > If a person had children then they had a relationship with someone. They > may not have married but they had children together. That situation is > covered under “This couple did not marry.” > > > > Michele > > Technical Support > > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com > > www.legacyfamilytree.com > > > > *From:* Larry Lee [mailto:ldlee...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 3:08 PM > *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > > > Michele, > > This really needs to be split into two boxes, > 1 This individual never married > 2 This individual had no children > > They are not mutually exclusive. > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Pat, Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't say that because I thought it was obvious. Maybe we are both missing something? Larry On Apr 5, 2015 4:29 PM, "Pat Hickin" wrote: > The point, Michele, of separating the never married and had no children > items is that one can *know* that an individual never married. But, > especially for men, one is often not be sure there are no children. I, for > one, find it annoying to have to say an individual had no children when I > do not know that for a fact. The result is that I just leave the box > unchecked when I would like to check it. > > Pat > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sherry/Support < > she...@legacyfamilytree.com> wrote: > >> I agree Michele. I've found children where I assumed the woman was >> childless. There was a day and age when it was shameful to have a >> child out of wedlock so the woman would go on an extended vacation to >> visit family until the baby was born and either someone else in the >> family raised the child as her own or the child was put up for >> immediate adoption. >> >> It was several years before I found out that a cousin had been >> married. The marriage was for a very short time because he turned out >> to be an abusive drunkard and she quickly left him, never to speak of >> him again. All those years I assumed she had never been married. >> >> Sincerely, >> Sherry >> Technical Support >> Legacy Family Tree >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Michele/Support >> wrote: >> > Bernie, >> > I never even use that option unless the person was an adult and only if >> I have some sort of evidence to show that the person never married and >> never had children. I don't assume anything. >> > >> > Michele >> > Technical Support >> > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com >> > www.legacyfamilytree.com >> > >> >> >> >> >> 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
The point, Michele, of separating the never married and had no children items is that one can *know* that an individual never married. But, especially for men, one is often not be sure there are no children. I, for one, find it annoying to have to say an individual had no children when I do not know that for a fact. The result is that I just leave the box unchecked when I would like to check it. Pat On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Sherry/Support wrote: > I agree Michele. I've found children where I assumed the woman was > childless. There was a day and age when it was shameful to have a > child out of wedlock so the woman would go on an extended vacation to > visit family until the baby was born and either someone else in the > family raised the child as her own or the child was put up for > immediate adoption. > > It was several years before I found out that a cousin had been > married. The marriage was for a very short time because he turned out > to be an abusive drunkard and she quickly left him, never to speak of > him again. All those years I assumed she had never been married. > > Sincerely, > Sherry > Technical Support > Legacy Family Tree > > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Michele/Support > wrote: > > Bernie, > > I never even use that option unless the person was an adult and only if > I have some sort of evidence to show that the person never married and > never had children. I don't assume anything. > > > > Michele > > Technical Support > > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com > > www.legacyfamilytree.com > > > > > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I agree Michele. I've found children where I assumed the woman was childless. There was a day and age when it was shameful to have a child out of wedlock so the woman would go on an extended vacation to visit family until the baby was born and either someone else in the family raised the child as her own or the child was put up for immediate adoption. It was several years before I found out that a cousin had been married. The marriage was for a very short time because he turned out to be an abusive drunkard and she quickly left him, never to speak of him again. All those years I assumed she had never been married. Sincerely, Sherry Technical Support Legacy Family Tree On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Michele/Support wrote: > Bernie, > I never even use that option unless the person was an adult and only if I > have some sort of evidence to show that the person never married and never > had children. I don't assume anything. > > Michele > Technical Support > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com > www.legacyfamilytree.com > 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Bernie, I never even use that option unless the person was an adult and only if I have some sort of evidence to show that the person never married and never had children. I don't assume anything. Michele Technical Support mich...@legacyfamilytree.com www.legacyfamilytree.com -Original Message- From: Bernd Hornung [mailto:ber@telus.net] Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2015 4:30 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? It would be nice if it was automatic if the person died under a certain age (i.e. 12). Just a thought. Bernie 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
On 05/04/2015 20:07, Larry Lee wrote: > This really needs to be split into two boxes, > 1 This individual never married > 2 This individual had no children > > They are not mutually exclusive. > You are forgetting that to Legacy, any sort of relationship which produces a child is deemed "a marriage". If a person had a child then they obviously had a relationship of *some* sort, however brief or impersonal, and Legacy treats that as a marriage. -- Jenny M Benson 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I wouldn't be keen on that unless it was optional. I don't tag children because it feels odd to me to say a child who died in infancy never married and had no children. Some things go without saying. It's just a personal thing and I'll probably be shot down for this point of view, it's just how I feel. Olwyn > From: ber@telus.net > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 14:30:01 -0600 > > It would be nice if it was automatic if the person died under a certain > age (i.e. 12). > > Just a thought. > > Bernie > > On 05/04/2015 1:49 PM, Michele/Support wrote: > > > > Larry, > > > > If a person had children then they had a relationship with someone. > > They may not have married but they had children together. That > > situation is covered under “This couple did not marry.†> > > > Michele > > > > Technical Support > > > > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com <mailto:mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> > > > > www.legacyfamilytree.com <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com> > > > > *From:*Larry Lee [mailto:ldlee...@gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 3:08 PM > > *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > > > Michele, > > > > This really needs to be split into two boxes, > > 1 This individual never married > > 2 This individual had no children > > > > They are not mutually exclusive. > > > > > > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Larry, They are if there is no spouse or children attached to the person, If either is present then you use one of the separate tags in the marriage. On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Larry Lee wrote: > Michele, > > This really needs to be split into two boxes, > 1 This individual never married > 2 This individual had no children > > They are not mutually exclusive. > > Larry > On Apr 5, 2015 9:51 AM, "Michele/Support" > wrote: > >> Yes, on the Individual’s Information screen (not the marriage screen) >> there is a check box near the bottom that says, “This individual never >> married and had no children.” >> >> >> >> >> >> Michele >> >> Technical Support >> >> mich...@legacyfamilytree.com >> >> www.legacyfamilytree.com >> >> >> >> *From:* GeoPappas [mailto:papp...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 12:36 PM >> *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com >> *Subject:* [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? >> >> >> >> I understand that there is a way to mark a couple as having never >> married, but is there a way to mark a person as having never married? This >> way I will know not to look for a spouse or a marriage record for that >> person. >> >> >> >> 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 >> -- >> >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4321/9420 - Release Date: 03/31/15 >> >> >> 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
It would be nice if it was automatic if the person died under a certain age (i.e. 12). Just a thought. Bernie On 05/04/2015 1:49 PM, Michele/Support wrote: > > Larry, > > If a person had children then they had a relationship with someone. > They may not have married but they had children together. That > situation is covered under “This couple did not marry.†> > Michele > > Technical Support > > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com <mailto:mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> > > www.legacyfamilytree.com <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com> > > *From:*Larry Lee [mailto:ldlee...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 3:08 PM > *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > Michele, > > This really needs to be split into two boxes, > 1 This individual never married > 2 This individual had no children > > They are not mutually exclusive. > > > > 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Larry, If a person had children then they had a relationship with someone. They may not have married but they had children together. That situation is covered under “This couple did not marry.” Michele Technical Support <mailto:mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> mich...@legacyfamilytree.com <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com> www.legacyfamilytree.com From: Larry Lee [mailto:ldlee...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2015 3:08 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? Michele, This really needs to be split into two boxes, 1 This individual never married 2 This individual had no children They are not mutually exclusive. 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Michele, This really needs to be split into two boxes, 1 This individual never married 2 This individual had no children They are not mutually exclusive. Larry On Apr 5, 2015 9:51 AM, "Michele/Support" wrote: > Yes, on the Individual’s Information screen (not the marriage screen) > there is a check box near the bottom that says, “This individual never > married and had no children.” > > > > > > Michele > > Technical Support > > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com > > www.legacyfamilytree.com > > > > *From:* GeoPappas [mailto:papp...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 12:36 PM > *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > > > I understand that there is a way to mark a couple as having never married, > but is there a way to mark a person as having never married? This way I > will know not to look for a spouse or a marriage record for that person. > > > > 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 > -- > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4321/9420 - Release Date: 03/31/15 > > > 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
Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Thanks. I somehow missed that. On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Michele/Support < mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> wrote: > Yes, on the Individual’s Information screen (not the marriage screen) > there is a check box near the bottom that says, “This individual never > married and had no children.” > > > > > > Michele > > Technical Support > > mich...@legacyfamilytree.com > > www.legacyfamilytree.com > > > > *From:* GeoPappas [mailto:papp...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 5, 2015 12:36 PM > *To:* legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > > > I understand that there is a way to mark a couple as having never married, > but is there a way to mark a person as having never married? This way I > will know not to look for a spouse or a marriage record for that person. > > > > 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 > -- > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4321/9420 - Release Date: 03/31/15 > > > 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
RE: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
Yes, on the Individual’s Information screen (not the marriage screen) there is a check box near the bottom that says, “This individual never married and had no children.” Michele Technical Support <mailto:mich...@legacyfamilytree.com> mich...@legacyfamilytree.com <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com> www.legacyfamilytree.com From: GeoPappas [mailto:papp...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2015 12:36 PM To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? I understand that there is a way to mark a couple as having never married, but is there a way to mark a person as having never married? This way I will know not to look for a spouse or a marriage record for that person. 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 _ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5863 / Virus Database: 4321/9420 - Release Date: 03/31/15 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
[LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married?
I understand that there is a way to mark a couple as having never married, but is there a way to mark a person as having never married? This way I will know not to look for a spouse or a marriage record for that person. 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
