MikeFry wrote:
> On 09 Feb 2014 17:23, Judy Weber wrote:
>> When printing a report how do I get the individual’s marriages to print in
>> time
>> order? I entered the second marriage before the first one so the report
>> prints
>> all information for the second marriage before the first one. Ca
Judy,
In Family View click on the spouse icon (usually on the left) and use the
arrows on the bottom right of the new screen to correct the order.
Ron Ferguson
http://www.fergys.co.uk/
Judy Weber wrote:
>When printing a report how do I get the individual's marriages to print in
>time order?
On 09 Feb 2014 17:23, Judy Weber wrote:
> When printing a report how do I get the individual’s marriages to print in
> time
> order? I entered the second marriage before the first one so the report
> prints
> all information for the second marriage before the first one. Can I change the
> MRIN
When printing a report how do I get the individual's marriages to print in
time order? I entered the second marriage before the first one so the
report prints all information for the second marriage before the first one.
Can I change the MRIN for these two marriages to reflect the first one
follow
any
other options about the spouse list.
Al
-Original Message-
From: singhals [mailto:singh...@erols.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 10:03 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Marriages
Ray Butler wrote:
> I have an individual who has been married multiple
Ray Butler wrote:
> I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I
> know the marriage dates for some but not all of the marriages.
>
> How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I
> have used 01, 02, etc. but that only works for viewing
> within Legacy Family Tree. Whe
ing of the marriages so that
you place them in the correct order even when you don't have the actual date of
marriage.
Cathy-0
From: Ray Butler [mailto:rbutl...@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:17 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Marriag
On 2013/09/29 13:17, Ray Butler wrote:
> I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I know the marriage
> dates for some but not all of the marriages.
>
> How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I have used 01, 02,
> etc. but that only works for viewing within Lega
I have an individual who has been married multiple times. I know the
marriage dates for some but not all of the marriages.
How can you sort the marriages to appear in proper order ? I have used 01,
02, etc. but that only works for viewing within Legacy Family Tree. When I
try to create a report in
I agree, and we all have things we would like for the Legacy software to do,
but when we buy/build a house or buy a car we have that option to look for what
we like, but most of the time there is something lacking, and it's time we
should realize that this Legacy software is not going to fit all
ng made because research kept researching.
CE
From: geoffbr...@juno.com
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:40:07 +
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
To me genealogy is all about connecting people. The software is just a tool to
make it easier. Most people have one
d to
> move on.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: Ronald Bernier
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:00:01 +
>
> But it does seem to be a huge deal to you.
>
> Sent from my iPho
says “This couple did not marry.” To me that is
just an indication to not look for a marriage record and to move on.
-- Original Message --
From: Ronald Bernier
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:00:01 +
But it does
-- Original Message --
From: Ronald Bernier
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:00:01 +
But it does seem to be a huge deal to you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, "Pat Hickin" wrote:
But it does seem to be a huge deal to you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 24, 2013, at 10:13 PM, "Pat Hickin"
mailto:pph...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Shingals wrote "We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. What
makes this one require special treatment?"
I realize that most facts are not abso
Shingals wrote "We none of us can ever *absolutely prove* any fact. What
makes this one require special treatment?"
I realize that most facts are not absolutely 100% provable, but we all know
that zillions of people have had children out of wedlock. That men may not
necessarily even *know* whethe
On 24/06/2013 23:07, Don Hendershot wrote:
> omg! Please stop!
The subject may not be of interest to some of us, but it *is* on topic
for this mailing list and obviously is of interest to *some*. I don't
think any of us have a right to ask others not to discuss something
which falls within the re
marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to
> mark " no children" if this is the case.
>
> Tony S.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com
> <mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com>]
> Sent: Sa
e age to be declared as to “never have married”
> because records cannot be found does not make sense.
>
> Ron Ferguson
> http://www.fergys.co.uk/
>
>
> From: Pat Hickin
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:15 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Subject: Re: [Lega
: Pat Hickin
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:15 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
But if there is no known relationship that resulted in a marriage or in any
known children, you don't have a marriage screen. All I am asking for is the
ability to say (o
mark "did not marry" if this is the case.
>
> If a marriage occurred the marriage screen allows you to mark " no
> children" if this is the case.
>
> Tony S.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com]
> Sent: Satur
; no children" if
this is the case.
Tony S.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Rolfe [mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:27 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages
Jay
I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional pro
Will somebody please put a stop to this? (I hope everything is spelled
correctly)
Bobby
From: Pat Hickin [mailto:pph...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 9:01 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Ron Taylor wrote:
"The point of the mar
Pat,
I agree with you.
Larry Lee
ldlee...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Pat Hickin wrote:
> Ron Taylor wrote:
> "The point of the marriage record box is to state that no offspring
> resulted from the union."
>
> It seems to me that the point of the marriage record box (in the
>
Ron Taylor wrote:
"The point of the marriage record box is to state that no offspring
resulted from the union."
It seems to me that the point of the marriage record box (in the individual
window) should be to say that the person was never married.
The whole matter of whether there were children
intable in
reports.)
Ward
-Original Message-
From: Mike Fry
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:09 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
On 2013/06/23 17:40, mvmc...@aol.com wrote:
> That's basically what I've been asking for since I started
ssage-
> From: Don Hendershot
> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:33 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Cc: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
>
> Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take
> it off-line
Thanks Ward and all for understanding!
-Don
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.mai
From: Don Hendershot
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:33 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Cc: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take
it off-line! It was already old last week.
~Don
On Jun 23,
r
>To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
>Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2013, 21:02
>Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages (misspellings)
>
>
>The length of time that this subject has continued is ridiculous. Now we have
>the spelling/grammar experts jumping in to correct people
>
>Sent
The length of time that this subject has continued is ridiculous. Now we have
the spelling/grammar experts jumping in to correct people
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 23, 2013, at 3:01 PM, "Bob Bashford" wrote:
>
> My favorite is an amazed "Viola!"
>
>
>
> On 6/23/2013 1:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote:
or seeing mizspelt misspelled
On 6/23/2013 12:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote:
> Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up.
>
> "Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take
> it off-line! It was already old last week."
>
>
>
>
>
> Legacy User Group
My favorite is an amazed "Viola!"
On 6/23/2013 1:43 PM, Ron Walter wrote:
> Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up.
>
> "Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take
> it off-line! It was already old last week."
>
>
>
>
>
> Legacy User
Ward,
The optional check boxes are opitonal. If you don't want to designate a person
as having no "marriage" records linked (and therefore no offspring linked) then
don't check the optional box in the individual record. If there are marriage
records linked and those unions produced no childre
Seeing ad nauseam mizspelt may make some people want to throw up.
"Why does this thread continue ad mausium? Please exchange E-Mails and take it
off-line! It was already old last week."
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages after Nov.
On 2013/06/23 17:40, mvmc...@aol.com wrote:
> That's basically what I've been asking for since I started to use Legacy, a
> very
> short while after Virtual Roots was sold. Just to split the day, month and
> year
> into separate fields. I'm not a programmer but if Howard Nurse could do it
> wi
That's basically what I've been asking for since I started to use Legacy,
a very short while after Virtual Roots was sold. Just to split the day,
month and year into separate fields. I'm not a programmer but if Howard Nurse
could do it with the old Roots programs why can't it be done now?
All
g records for an official marriage that is somehow already known not
> to exist. But notes can do that too.
>
> Ward
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Tony Rolfe
> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:27 AM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages
&
n official marriage that is somehow already known not
to exist. But notes can do that too.
Ward
-Original Message-
From: Tony Rolfe
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:27 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages
Jay
I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a p
Jay
I wrote my first program in 1967 and was a professional programmer and
database designer from 1972 until I retired in 2004. I have designed
and implemented databases far more complex than that used by Legacy -
which is in no way meant to belittle the Legacy programmers. No
database should be
I do not see how any of this is relevant to my desire to say that an
individual never married without having to *also* say what I have no way of
knowing, i.e., that an individual had no children.
That seems so simple and obvious to me. I am *not* talking about
relationships and children.
Pat
O
that the parents of the child never
married; the individual's page is not the place to do that.
CE
> From: geneal...@gillandtony.com
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages
> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 10:42:14 +1000
>
> I have a lady in my tree. I h
individual page is for information about a person only not
about relationships.
-- Original Message --
From: "Tony Rolfe"
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
Sent: 23/06/2013 10:42:14
Subject: [LegacyUG] marriages
>I have a lady in my tree. I have her baptism certificate, all
Tony,
I suggest you either learn how to write the programming code yourself, and
volunteer to help Legacy with implementing a change
or else join the rest of us patiently waiting quietly.
The software cannot be all things to all people and by comparison "overall"
Legacy by far comes closest.
I have a lady in my tree. I have her baptism certificate, all censuses
for which she was alive and her death certificate. All censuses show
her under her maiden name and, when she is an adult, as head of the
household. Her death certificate was issued under her maiden name. Two
years before her
Amen...exactly what I was trying to say, but didn't say nearly as well.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Ron Taylor wrote:
> Pat (and others),
>
> It is quite obvious that you have not carefully read my postings on this
> topic. Please re-read them. The database operates with 2 main tables.
>
Yes
~Don
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:32 AM, Duane Baker wrote:
> Much ado about nothing.
>
> From: Mike Fry
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
>
> On 2013/06/22 07:11, Lee Bruch wrote:
Much ado about nothing.
From: Mike Fry
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
On 2013/06/22 07:11, Lee Bruch wrote:
> I can live with it, realizing that what Legacy calls a "
On 2013/06/22 07:11, Lee Bruch wrote:
> I can live with it, realizing that what Legacy calls a "marriage" really
> isn't what is usually called a marriage. Legacy's use of the word "marriage"
> appears to just mean the linking of people, and it may or may not signify a
> formal marriage.
At las
June 21, 2013 9:40 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
>
> Pat (and others),
>
> It is quite obvious that you have not carefully read my postings on
> this topic. Please re-read them. The database operates with 2 main
> tables. On
Pat (and others),
It is quite obvious that you have not carefully read my postings on this topic.
Please re-read them. The database operates with 2 main tables. One for
individuals and another for marriages. There are many other tables that also
come into play to store various things. If a
; screen (not sure how this would look in
> reports/charts).
>
> In short, I like the seperation of the two "facts" (guess that wasn't so
> short after all).
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ward Walker"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013
t, you could put it in the "Title Suffix" box maybe on
the "Individual Information" screen (not sure how this would look in
reports/charts).
In short, I like the seperation of the two "facts" (guess that wasn't so
short after all).
- Original Message -
Fro
rent checkbox once you add the adopted child. It would
probably get too fancy for Legacy to detect the adopted status and enable
the checkbox. I would just use Notes.
Ward
-Original Message-
From: mbstx
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:18 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [
On 2013/06/21 16:24, David Abernathy wrote:
> Along this line, IF you have a person with multi "marriages" and only one of
> these "marriages" produce a child, can these "Not married and NO children",
> be used with the non child producing "marriages"?
Semantics, schmantics :-)
--
Regards,
Mike
: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Yes, indeed.
We're not required to use that box or any other; if you want to use it, use it;
if you don't, don't.
And, yes, there are situations where you can state with absolute certainly that
someone died unmarried an
Yes, indeed.
We're not required to use that box or any other; if you want
to use it, use it; if you don't, don't.
And, yes, there are situations where you can state with
absolute certainly that someone died unmarried and without
issue: what about my great-aunt who died of pneumonia at
the age of
rot Antivirus ==
-Original Message-
From: Boyd Miller [mailto:bo...@vodafone.net.nz]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:05 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the "fact"
separate
This cuts to the heart of the matter, and I agree with the request.
-Original Message-
>From: Boyd Miller
>Sent: Jun 21, 2013 5:05 AM
>To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
>Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
>
> This highlights the need to be able to source these two p
The ability in Legacy to indicate "no children" is already there for both
single and those with marrige records.
A single person with the "This individual never married and had no children"
checked cannot have a marriage record linked and when that individual is
displayed in the child position
This highlights the need to be able to source these two parts of the
"fact" separately.
Boyd
On 21/06/2013 1:17 p.m., Tony Rolfe wrote:
> Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the
> extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because
> Legacy must create a "m
: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] marriages
Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as fact
something that we can not possiby know!!
Pat
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe
mailto:geneal...@gillandtony.com>> wrote:
Can we go back
Finally have to jump in here. While I agree that there are a myriad of
ways to describe what constitutes a "family", all I expect from a software
program is to be able to chart the relationships and link them together.
In my opinion Legacy already offers all of the options we need to label
these r
Are you looking for something other than the marriage box where you can say
that the couple never married and separately you can say that they never had
children? We already have that on the upper left corner of the marriage
editing box. Or is there something else that you are referring to?
G
Perhaps a compromise is in order -- if Legacy can't bring itself to split
the two statements, at least it could say, " never married and had no
known children."
Pat
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Pat Hickin wrote:
> Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state
Amen!! It seems ridiculous to me that Legacy almost forces us to state as
fact something that we can not *possiby* know!!
Pat
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Tony Rolfe wrote:
> Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the
> extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subj
Can we go back to the original request and forget about all the
extraneous waffle which has appeared on this subject. Just because
Legacy must create a "marriage" record whenever a child is added to a
parent, it doesn't mean that a real-world marriage actually occurred.
It is frequently easy to t
.
http://www.SchmeckAbernathy.com
== All outgoing and incoming mail is scanned by F-Prot Antivirus ==
From: Michele Lewis [mailto:ancestor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:05 AM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG
Y'all are making such a fuss. Do the other database programs have options
to have the relationship as domestic partner, lover, live-in boyfriend,
wife-wife, husband-husband etc? If so, then switch to one of those if it
serves your purposes. I have had no problem with Legacy in this regard. I
a
I have to correct myself even if you aren't the original poster you
see the mails twice.
So I don't understand why you don't see a sent mail twice in gmail.
Evert
2009/12/10 :
> You weren't the original poster.
> You only see the mails twice if you sent a new mail to the list.
> I allways sent pl
You weren't the original poster.
You only see the mails twice if you sent a new mail to the list.
I allways sent plain text in gmail to the LUG.
Evert
2009/12/9 :
> I saw that for me once too - when I accidently sent it in HTML.
>
> I don't see double from you...
> I suspect that if you send
In gmail before, we would only see the one - so it has to be because
of the change in the server. However, it is a minor annoyance, and
not worth worrying about. (In fact, with gmail, on most mail lists,
including legacy until now, you didn't see your own message at all
until someone replied to i
Since you are using gmail to send the message you may be seeing your
sent message, from the sent folder, and the email from the list, from
the in box, in the same "conversation" as gmail terms it.
Brian
Customer Support
Millennia Corporation
br...@legacyfamilytree.com
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.c
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:06:57 -0600, hstov...@gmail.com wrote:
>I suspect
>still that for some reason, Gmail is seeing it as a different message
>than the one originally sent.
I wonder if it has something to do with the problem I reported on 12/5
("Message Threading on new Mail Server/Mailing List"
hm - well, it isn't from sending it in HTML, as I made complete sure I
sent this in plain text - and I'm seeing the two again. I suspect
still that for some reason, Gmail is seeing it as a different message
than the one originally sent. I wouldn't worry about it.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:00 PM,
I saw that for me once too - when I accidently sent it in HTML.
I don't see double from you...
I suspect that if you send it in html, the new server may convert it
to plain text, which gets sent to you as a message - and gmail sees it
as a different message (as it is different) and so you see
I'm seeing this as well.
Gmail is showing the sent mail in the thread and after a few seconds
the same mail from the group will arrive in the thread.
This didn't happen on the old server, but I don't know if this is a
feature from gmail or from the new legacy mailserver.
Evert
2009/12/9 :
> Denni
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:26:08 -0800, rfvanwasshn...@gmail.com wrote:
>By the way am I double posting? My Gmail shows my 2 previous posts on
>the thread doubled (One with my name and one with my email). This is
>something new.
I am not seeing a double post. You can always check the archives to make
Dennis,
I have personally have 1 wife and 1 child, a daughter. I added a new
unlinked Richard and gave him a new wife and new son. (3 new RINs and
1 new MRIN). I merged the new Richard to myself and then my 2 wives. I
expected to vave 2 MRIN with just a daughter in one and just a son in
the other b
Do your 2 files merge with Intellimerge? I'm not sure if it makes a
difference but there are definite advantages to synchronizing the
Universal ID, (UID) where 2 or more people collaborate with many
shared names. I or someone could check as to whether intellimerging
leaves behind an extra MRIN.
--
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:02:10 -0800, rfvanwasshn...@gmail.com wrote:
>I've had this too after merging duplicate husbands and wives. The 2
>extra RINs are deleted but the extra MRIN remains after the merge.
I can't replicate this. Can you try doing this again and document the
steps which result in d
Richard,
Thank you for the response! My son has been going through birth and
marriage certificates, building the families or adding to ones we
already know about, and then sending me either small gedcoms or small
Legacy files to add to my master database. Maybe that is why I am
getting these dupli
I've had this too after merging duplicate husbands and wives. The 2
extra RINs are deleted but the extra MRIN remains after the merge.
--
Richard Van Wasshnova
http://www.gencircles.com/users/vanwasshnova
http://gw.geneanet.org/vanwasshnova
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, wrote:
> I have had th
I have had this problem before, but don't recall why. My Legacy 7 file
began to have two and three instances of the marriages of couples. I
can remove the second and third instance by using the "unlink" button
- not the "delete." So I am cleaning it up. But it is annoying and
time-consuming to do s
84 matches
Mail list logo
