I've
> been using the program for nearly two years.
>
> Tom
>
> - Original Message - From: "Dave Mellors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Problem Report Just Submitted to Legacy
>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Problem Report Just Submitted to Legacy
Tom,
I presume from your recent posts that you have experience in IT. I haven't
been on this list for a year or two so I look forward benefiting from your
exper
Tom,
I presume from your recent posts that you have experience in IT. I
haven't been on this list for a year or two so I look forward benefiting
from your expertise on this list and you are right there are problems in
Legacy that might be found by having more experienced Beta testers so if
Mil
through the beta testers and the Millenia tech people?
>
> Tom Herson
> Ithaca, NY
>
> - Original Message - From: "Bruce Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Problem Report Just Subm
8 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Problem Report Just Submitted to Legacy
Tom,
Following your steps I see the same results; i.e.,
a. Last page has source numbers but no footnotes
b. Bibliography does not appear in the TOC or at the end.
c. 4 extraneous footnotes on a separate Source Citations page (num
Tom,
Following your steps I see the same results; i.e.,
a. Last page has source numbers but no footnotes
b. Bibliography does not appear in the TOC or at the end.
c. 4 extraneous footnotes on a separate Source Citations page (numbered
1,2,3,4)
(Note: I have both SourceWriter and non SourceWriter s
Tom,
We always respond to problem reports. The problem right now is that we're
horridly swamped, even with three support people, and are not able to
respond as quickly as we used to.
I believe I did notice an email from you in the queue and we will test and
respond as soon as we can.
Thanks for
y, 12 February 2008 8:44 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Problem Report
Cathy wrote
>You may want to edit the dates to be "after 1892" instead of "1892 - "
I would read those two dates as meaning quite different things. The
first suggests
Cathy wrote
You may want to edit the dates to be "after 1892" instead of "1892 - "
I would read those two dates as meaning quite different things. The
first suggests an event which occurred at a particular time no earlier
than 1892. The second suggests an on-going event which began in 1892.
Hi Ian,
For situations like this, there is no need to change anything at all.
You know the situation. If you can't think of a clearer way of
putting it then the way you have it is fine - eg you've used the
Editorial comment square brackets in the names because of the
uncertainty. You don't wa
10 matches
Mail list logo
