There will be no announcement of the release date before the actual
release. There WILL be an announcement that it HAS been released and
how to obtain it.
-Original Message-
From: Valerie Garton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 4:49
The problem is that the files Valerie was asking about were not about
Legacy and its add on programs!
To me it sounds as if Valerie is very new to computers in general and
is poking around on hers and then asking questions about anything she
doesn't understand- and there is nothing wrong with
I look at it this way. If I can't read every message daily of a list I
subscribe to then I have no business subscribing in the first place.
I can always use the archives to search if I have a specific question.
This helps in two ways:
1) It reduces the load on the list
2) It helps me improve my
I've never had to search for that particular item but
If I were searching with google I'd try the following in the search box:
July -July 1 -July 2 -July 3
I haven't tried this but in theory it should work. While this won't
entirely eliminate the month of July it should eliminate July
Chris,
While this sounds good in theory there are several pitfalls to be aware
of. Unless you have traced those males beck to a time period before
surnames were used there is no way to tell what the history, meaning,
and derivation really are. Surnames arose in different places at
different
Enter source as source citing source of source. That makes it clear
what source you are using and what source your source used.
-Original Message-
From: Jess M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:58 pm
Subject: [LegacyUG] Sourcing
Err.. I've never seen a book with two different size pages in it.
I'd consider it strange if the orientation *didn't* affect the whole
book.
Maybe a custom paper size of 11 x 11... then orientation wouldn't
matter G
-Original Message-
From: Dan Deck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Source and mention ANY info you find on anyone in your line. It may be
of little interest to anyone now but at some point in the future
someone will wish you had.
How many of us complain about not having info on their ancestors?
Don't let future decendants do the same about you AND your
It is not a question of legacy respecting the traditionall family. It
is, rather, a question of Legacy dis-respecting the non-traditional
family.
The traditional family doesn't even represent a majority of families
in the USA anymore - just check the latest reports on composition of US
The term used today by most is natural. She had a natural child by
Mr.X
Lothario is a good word to use for your GGG uncle, or Don Juan, or
Casanova.
-Original Message-
From: Allen Prunty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 6:29 pm
Allen,
While there are several countries that have laws against using
government funds on cloning I think you'lll find far fewer that
actually have laws making it completely illegal.
-Original Message-
From: Allen Prunty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Randy is with Ancestry- programs the gedcom and tree area I think. He
can be found on their message boards.
-Original Message-
From: John Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 3:56 pm
Subject: [LegacyUG] GEDSplit
I found copies of
Paul, try not to pre-judge it.
The learning curve can be as easy or as difficult as one wishes to make
it, depending primarily on how and how many of the advanced features
one uses. It isn't so much can I do but rather which way should
I The customization and flexibility of the
Mike,
Then I am a fourth group.
I do NOT believe same-sex relationships are an abomination but DO
believe that they should not be shown in a genealogical presentation (
as opposed to a family History presentation).
There is nothing wrong with doing family history, as long as you
realize
Unless you are wiling to maintain two separate databases you cannot, at
the same time, show an adopted child in a descendant report or chart
and also not show an adopted child in a descendancy report or chart.
If you believe that non blood-related individuals should be shown in
ancestor
Sara,
Note I said nothing about entering non blood-related people into your
software, be it spouses, adoptees, or whatever. It is how you treat
them after they are entered that makes the difference between a
genealogist and a family historian.
My point is that non blood-related individuals
Sara,
I've taken this off list.
I know you aren't being argumentative and that it is a serious subject
that needs dealing with.
I really have no idea what such charts and reports should be called, I
only know that they should not be called ancestror/descendant charts
and reports.
Actually,
The quick and easy way to do this is:
!) Download TMG 6.12 Trial version
2) Export a gedcom of the people needed from Legacy.
3) Import Legacy Gedcom into a new TMG project.
4) Run TMG statical Report.
Nothing wrong with using different programs to get what you need!
*GRIN*
-Original
Open Office is a suit of OpenSource Office software comparable to
Microsoft Office- and it is free. It containd a word processor,
spreadsheet, database, graphics, etc.
Google Open Office and you'll get tons of info.
-Original Message-
From: Jess M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
I do, although I may not have them all print in a repost.
To paraphrase a Grand Dame of Society... You can never be too rich or
too- or have too many sources
*GRIN*
-Original Message-
From: June [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 9:05
In reality the only time correctness comes into the source questions
is if one is doing a work for a particular publication that has a
requirement that sources must be in a certain format. Other than that
it is pretty much roll your own with respect to how they are entered
and formatted. There
Sureties are- imho- really only for those who maintain the database and
not for those who read our work. They are so subjective as to convey no
information to anyone except the person who determines the surety
level. Your almost certain may be my iffy but possible.
All conclusions about
Hi Pat,
There is indeed a way to handle it... don't make assumptions. *grin*
If you do make them never enter them as anything other than a note and
explain why you made the assumption. If the info is iffy then never
entey it in source, place, event, etc.
Now granted, this will lead to a lot
My best advice on sources is to download the trial version of The
Master Genealogist v6.12 and make copies of their source templates.
I've found them a wonderful guide to organizing sources. I just copied
them off and made a mini-manual that I keep on my desk.
-Original Message-
The Trial version of TMG v6.12 can be found at :
http://www.whollygenes.com/
I should note that I have no connection with the company other than a
satisfied user.
-Original Message-
From: Pat Hickin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sat, 22 Sep 2007
The reality is that there is no law which prohibits a royal from
adopting. If Crown Princess Victoria decided to adopt and never married
then on her death her sister and not her adopted child would become
monarch.
My point was that a sweeping over-generalization was made and needed to
be
None to my knowledge; but just what does that prove? It certainly
doesn't prove that they *can't* adopt.
One exception, while not european and not an heir, was Maximilian of
Mexico who did have an adoptee as his heir
Several Noble families - the Biron von Curtlands for one, and one
branch of
Anne,
They may well be treated the same but the statement that said the law
*requires* ALL adoptees be treated the same was in error-period. Even
the poster has admitted it was in error.
-Original Message-
From: Anne Hildrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Sara,
With regard to the US adoptions, I believe it to be as you have stated.
-Original Message-
From: Sara Binkley Tarpley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 7:38 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Adopted Daughter unmarried mother
I want to
You'll note that I never used the term English Law... however-
There are three specific instances under British law that required
different treatment of adoptees from biological children.
1) No adoptee can ever inherit the crown
2) No adoptee can ever inherit a Title or Peerage
3) No adoptee
Easy- No adoptee can ever inherit the crown. If that isn't treating
adoptees different from biological children I don't know what is.
-Original Message-
From: Anne Hildrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 8:57 am
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG]
Thanks John,
There have also been one or two that specified a brother of the
original Grantee as the default heir in case there was no heir of the
body... but there has never been one that specified an adoptee.
Peerages and Titles are all about bloodlines and have nothing to do
with social
Why should the use of genealogically correct terms hurt anyone??
Unless, of course, people have been brought up tand taught to believe
that calling a relationship adoptive is somehow demeaning to those
involved in the relationship. If that is the case then it is those who
taught such a meaning
HUH??
Care to rephrase that?
First you say their children and all spouses and then say NO
children
-Original Message-
From: Pat Hickin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUG LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 9:00 pm
Subject: [LegacyUG] 2-generation descendant
My point is *why* is it a sensitive subject at all...unless one has
been taught that it is something to be sensitive about?
-Original Message-
From: ronald ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 9:28 am
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG]
If that is what they meant then they want a 1 generation descendant
report (i.e. first generation descendants and spouses of those
descendants) of the proginator couple.
-Original Message-
From: Jenny M Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Sent: Wed, 19
Actually, the wording needs to be changed to This couple had no
descendants. Then a note added about the adopted child would suffice.
-Original Message-
From: Sara Binkley Tarpley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 3:35 pm
Subject: Re:
There is no way that the couple should be regarded as grandparents of
the offspring of the adopted child-period. They should be regarded as
the adoptive grandparents.
I've said it once and I'll say it again...
family historians need to get their own terms for non-biological
relationships and
Whoever came up with the idea of allowing HTML coding in E-Mail should
be shot-period!
A worthless waste of bandwidth and resources.
--
The Verminator
-Original Message-
From: Mike Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 4:19 am
Subject:
What did you name it? Just search your hard drive for *.ged (without
quotes) and you will get a list of all gedcoms and what folder they are
in.
-Original Message-
From: Tish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 6:44 pm
Subject: [LegacyUG]
I usually don't add a person to my main database unless I have at least
three unique sources for an event.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Keener [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing Question
Sorry, but
Leave them out of my data... no; but they go into my research database
not my main database.
I will mention in a memo in my main database that X and Y apparently
have a child Z for which I have only a birth certificate but child Z
will not be in the database as an individual.
Not quite... while both sets of children from the previous marriages
will be half siblings of the issue of the second marriage they will not
be related by blood to each other.
-Original Message-
From: marilyn E B [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sat, 8
Darlene,
Boible Thumping 101 is down the hall to the right.
To paraphrase Jimmy Buffet... take your god and shove it.
-Original Message-
From: Darlene Don Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Evan Henderson [EMAIL PROTECTED];
LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 8:39
Not a discussion- just a comment.
Any genealogical/family historian program offered to the general public
should not be biased toward or against any one particular culture or
religion. Since in some contries and at least one state homosexuals can
legally marry and are thus LEGAL spouses such
I hope I'm wrong but it seems to me that Legacy may be going down the
same road Ultimate Fasmily Tree went down.
-Original Message-
From: Ron Bernier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Re: Legacy: Family
Just one quibble with the first sentence... blood relationships do
*not* include step; that is a social relationship having nothing to do
with blood.
-Original Message-
From: Alice Hawrilenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 9:32 pm
Exactly- as in one state they ARE legally recognized spouses
-Original Message-
From: TH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 9:13 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Homosexual Entries
Legacy ought to get with it, as should other genealogy
Change the links added to each message from:
Legacy User Group guidelines can be found at:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
For online technical
Just how do you filter out non-english messages??
-Original Message-
From: John S. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:01 pm
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Multimedia Backup (was Keeping two databases
... )
i only receive messages in
Hmmm sounds like TMG in drag!
*Grin*
-Original Message-
From: Geoff Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 5:34 pm
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Legacy v7 - Sources based on _Evidence_ by Mills
Without giving away too much, the
51 matches
Mail list logo
