: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
Not to mention where you'd hang something 1,921 feet wide. Do you live
on serious acreage?
JL
JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists
http://www3.telus.net/Jgen/jlog.html
Kathy Shiell-Stokes
Walter, where did you print it?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WALTER D.
CONNER
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 9:29 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Legacy Charting Pre-Release Edition Now Available
For Fre
My Family Chart is 1-1/2 ft. wide and 67 ft., yes, ft. long.
Walter, where did you print it?
I didn't, I am going by the box at the bottom of the report that tells the
size. I think I will have to devise some space saving method and go in
sections. Am just playing with the program now.
The longest chart we've printed (in another program obviously) was 64
feet long - but 67 feet should be no problem as we buy our banner
paper in 150 foot rolls. The paper has a printable depth (or width
for portrait oriented charts) of 41.4 cm (approx 16.25 inches).
Only just started experimen
Walter:
I just checked mine and it is 1921.00 feet by 22inches...that's about
a ream of paper per tree .Am seriously going to rethink printing it
out all in one chunk>I don't think that there are enough forests left
in Canada and the USA for me to print more than one copyand
that's just on
Not to mention where you'd hang something 1,921 feet wide. Do you live
on serious acreage?
JL
JLog - simple computer technology for genealogists
http://www3.telus.net/Jgen/jlog.html
Kathy Shiell-Stokes wrote:
Walter:
I just checked mine and it is 1921.00 feet by 22inches...that's about
a rea
JLB:
Actually I misspoke...my chart was 1921 INCHES...which still works
out to about 160 ftthat's about ten feet longer than the maximum
paper length that an OP mentionedand I live in a small two
bedroom apartment...I Could use it as wallpaperhmmm...
kathyAt 01:52 AM 3/13/2008, you
I think wallpaper is not a bad plan. I could go floor to ceiling on a
whole room here with 160 feet. However that would break up the natural
flow. I've considered wallpapering with a single favorite
g-g-grandmother. Well, not really. Seriously, what does one do with a
chart that long? I d
hart for
a grand niece and it was both readable & storable.
Cary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JLB
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:49 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot de
So if I may ask, how many generations would this be? There should be
several per page so I don't think I can cypher that
high
Kathy Shiell-Stokes wrote:
JLB:
Actually I misspoke...my chart was 1921 INCHES...which still works out
to about 160 ftthat's about ten f
My cousin and I created and printed out a descendent chart that was well
over 120 ft long last year for our family reunion (used a gedcom from my
Legacy file and Family Tree Maker charting.) We had it laminiated and
wrapped it around three sides of the picnic pavilion. It was a great hit.
In addi
I just broke the bank. the program is working, but my
family chart is only to the 34th generation, and I got
these numbers
Indviduals 31265
Pages 11316
Size 102.00" x 10373."
This person has many 65th and 70th ggrandparents, but
it is too late to play tonight.
Rich in LA CA
I know mine is not exce
foot descendant chart
I just broke the bank. the program is working, but my
family chart is only to the 34th generation, and I got
these numbers
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup
2008 4:03 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
I just broke the bank. the program is working, but my
family chart is only to the 34th generation, and I got
these numbers
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All the way to Noah??
No! Methuselah.
--
Regards,
Mike Fry
Johannesburg.
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support
All the way to Noah??
=
34th generation - gosh - what year does that take you back to?
No not Noah.
I know because we printed a tree for a customer a few weeks ago and
that was 67 generations. Noah was close to the top but God the father
was at the top. I kid you not.
The
Ronald O'Neill wrote:
All the way to Noah??
=
34th generation - gosh - what year does that take you back to?
No not Noah.
I know because we printed a tree for a customer a few weeks ago and that
was 67 generations. Noah was close to the top but God the father was at
the top.
> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:33:41 +
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
>
>> All the way to Noah??
>>
>>> =
>> 34th generation - gosh - what year does t
Quoting ronald ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In the UK we have a TV series called "Who do you think you are" and
they recently did an episode of the family history of one of our
Olympians (IIRC it was the rower James Cracknell) and it turns out
I'm in the UK Ron and we actually printed th
> Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:09:00 +
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
>
> Quoting ronald ferguson :
>
>> In the UK we have a TV series called "Who do you think you are"
ee.com
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:30:40 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All the way to Noah??
>
No! Methuselah.
--
Regards,
Mike Fry
Johannesburg.
__
married a descendant of
my maternal great great aunt).
- Original Message
From: Ronald O'Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 6:09:00 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
*snip*
My wife and I have bee
Ron:
<>
6,000 years back to Adam, 67 generations, = 90 years per generation. I get
about 80 generations back to 0 BC. If anyone is interested, look at the web
site below, select Interesting Things, and browse several lines back to
Adam, with approximate dates. Legacy handles BC well.
--
Actually, if you have roots in Israel, then you can trace all the way to
Adam and his dear wife, Eve. The Hebrews (Israelites) were very good at
keeping family history records. They taught their children to memorize
their history back to Adam of course through the father's side.
Mine
From my records and figures, it seems apparent that your customer
missed a few generations. The only way it could be accurate, and indeed
it could, is if his family were good at long lives.
In fact, I have found connections to all three sons of Noah Ham,
Shem, Japheth. Of course, th
Mike Fry wrote:
Ronald O'Neill wrote:
All the way to Noah??
=
34th generation - gosh - what year does that take you back to?
No not Noah.
I know because we printed a tree for a customer a few weeks ago and
that was 67 generations. Noah was close to the top but God the fath
o man with 900 years!"
*GRIN*
- Original Message
From: Mike Fry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:30:40 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All the way to Noah??
My ancestry is part Icelandic, and that ties in with the traditional
Norse genealogies from Snorri Sturluson. I get 60 generations back to
someone born estimated A.D. 30. But that's from the ancestor "book",
which in effect grabs a "least number of generations" path, and I
descend through ma
I think that we must consider that during many centuries, people didn't
live more than 30-40 years. I've discovered many people from
approximately year "0" didn't live beyond 30. There were plagues, wars,
and lots of other things that would cut those times down.
Take 70 years, which is th
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of RICHARD
> SCHULTHIES
> Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
>
>
> I
ULTHIES
> Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
>
>
> I just broke the bank. the program is working, but
> my
> family chart is only to the 34th generation, and I
> got
&
I did state in my original post that I was probably opening a can of
worms making comments about trees with dozens of generations and
judging from a few of the replies it would appear that I was right.
Anybodies family tree that goes back that many generations must
include trees that have a
--- June <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
34th generation - gosh - what year does that take
you back to?
Regards - June
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyf
; > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of RICHARD
> > SCHULTHIES
> > Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot
TECTED]> wrote:
34th generation - gosh - what year does that take
you back to?
Regards - June
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilyt
--Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of RICHARD
> SCHULTHIES
> Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
>
>
> I just broke the b
IL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot descendant chart
I just broke the bank. the program is working, but
my
family chart is only to the 34th generation, and I
got
these numbers
Could we please return to Legacy and its Add-Ons? This looks like turning
into one of those silly marathons. Just my personal thoughts gained from
experience!
Maureen
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-arc
When my daughter subscribed to Ancestry.com, she wanted to test their
on-line family tree making program. She set up a new family tree, put
in a few actual generations, and then started accepting the Ancestry.com
suggestions. Her tree soon included the Roman emperors and even went
back to BC
I think that we must consider that during many centuries, people didn't live more than
30-40 years. I've discovered many people from approximately year "0" didn't
live beyond 30. There were plagues, wars, and lots of other things that would cut those
times down.
Take 70 years, which is the [
> Regards - June
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of RICHARD
> > SCHULTHIES
> > Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> &
ards - June
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> On Behalf Of RICHARD
>>> SCHULTHIES
>>> Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:0
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of RICHARD
> > SCHULTHIES
> > Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> > Subject: Re: [Legac
I am the cause, but I was showing that I had a VERY
big database which the Legacy Chart handled very well,
and showing the numbers to prove it. When some people
imply that big equals not documented properly, it
bothers me. I need a thicker skin, sorry to anyone who
was disturbed by my ranting on.
R
34th generation - gosh - what year does that take
you back to?
Regards - June
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of RICHARD
SCHULTHIES
Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] 67 foot desc
I don't use much of anything that I don't trust in other words, I "tend"
to trust the Latter Day Saints Baptism of the dead records. Why? I know some Mormons
and they want to know that an individual lived before they waste their time baptizing an
air pocket.
One I got back into Biblic
I too have Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, Malcolm of Scots,... My final line
came through the Finley's form the Douglas' and Arbuthnot's And I found
them all by accident. Then I wrote to the Arbuthnot Historian, Sir William
Arbuthnot, and explained the lineage I'd found and he affirm
I think that we must consider that during many centuries, people didn't live more than
30-40 years. I've discovered many people from approximately year "0" didn't
live beyond 30. There were plagues, wars, and lots of other things that would cut those
times down.
Take 70 years, which is the
>>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Behalf Of RICHARD
> >> SCHULTHIES
> >> Sent: Saturday, 15 March 2008 4:03 PM
> >> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
49 matches
Mail list logo
