I had no trouble at all uploading a full, combined, six-generation GEDCOM to FTDNA on Friday, Feb. 17 - in anticipation of receiving Family Finder results soon, as the result of transmitting my 23andMe raw data earlier, as several people have done. However, this was the first time that I had uploaded any GEDCOM to FTDNA, having no need to replace previously-sent separate maternal and paternal GEDCOMs, which FTDNA said, in a note during the procedure, that it would eventually be eliminating in favor of combined versions. So, there may be some problem when one has to replace previously-sent GEDCOMs. Charles Acree ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:49:30 -0700 From: Karen Zander <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]om> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for letting me know. This is really frustrating. I wish > they'd at least put up a warning that the upload feature isn't > working, so not to delete your existing GEDCOMs. Hrmpf. > > Diana Diana, I heard back from FTDNA's Ashley, but to my dismay she did not address the gedcom situation at all. She only told me the most distant ancestors aren't sticking because there is a character limit. This is weird, because these two kits are for my sons, so I had previously put in the SAME information in for my husband and myself, with no problem. I could get the most distant ancestors for my sons to stick only by entering just name and birth year - adding the death year caused it to disappear. Of course I asked her again what's going on with the gedcoms, but I guess I'll have to wait until next Sunday for the answer. It seems they only answer emails on Sundays - at least that's been my experience. Maybe you'll get an answer from FTDNA on the gedcom problem before me. Karen

I uploaded my dad's combined GEDCOM in support of FF to replace his maternal that existed in support of his mtDNA. It worked. But it may be outside the timeframe of issue. It was posted the 12th, give or take.   Gregg >________________________________ >From: Charles Acree <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 7:05 AM >Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA > >I had no trouble at all uploading a full, combined, six-generation GEDCOM to FTDNA on Friday, Feb. 17 - in anticipation of receiving Family Finder results soon, as the result of transmitting my 23andMe raw data earlier, as several people have done.  However, this was the first time that I had uploaded any GEDCOM to FTDNA, having no need to replace previously-sent separate maternal and paternal GEDCOMs, which FTDNA said, in a note during the procedure, that it would eventually be eliminating in favor of combined versions.  So, there may be some problem when one has to replace previously-sent GEDCOMs. > >Charles Acree >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:49:30 -0700 >From: Karen Zander <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [AUTOSOMAL-DNA] trouble uploading GEDCOM to FTDNA >To: [email protected] >Message-ID: ><[email protected]om> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Thanks for letting me know.  This is really frustrating.  I wish >> they'd at least put up a warning that the upload feature isn't >> working, so not to delete your existing GEDCOMs.  Hrmpf. >> >> Diana > >Diana, > >I heard back from FTDNA's Ashley, but to my dismay she did not address the >gedcom situation at all. She only told me the most distant ancestors aren't >sticking because there is a character limit. This is weird, because these >two kits are for my sons, so I had previously put in the SAME information >in for my husband and myself, with no problem. I could get the most distant >ancestors for my sons to stick only by entering just name and birth year - >adding the death year caused it to disappear. > >Of course I asked her again what's going on with the gedcoms, but I guess >I'll have to wait until next Sunday for the answer. It seems they only >answer emails on Sundays - at least that's been my experience.  Maybe >you'll get an answer from FTDNA on the gedcom problem before me. > >Karen > > >______________________________ >For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: >http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >

I uploaded a GEDCOM of 220 Kb yesterday in support of my mom's Family Finder test results coming out.   It looked okay to me, except for one thing - any instances of double-dating in the birth date field caused the privatizing filter to not understand the date given, and the person was privatized, even though they were born hundreds of years ago. The name displayed in these cases was "Hidden", and the birth date given for them was something like "date input error".   I did not take any special precautions or measures at all. I simply brought my mom's page up in Family Tree Maker, then clicked on the pedigree button, then selected the number of generations to equal 9 (because that's the maximum FTDNA will show at once in visualization, and because that should be enough for FF). Then I exported the persons shown to a GEDCOM that was named after my mom's FTDNA kit# to the desktop. Then, at FTDNA, I went to their upload page, browsed to find the file, uploaded, and selected the root individual (my mom). It worked as far as *I* can tell, with the exception noted above.   And just to be sure, by double dating, I mean the term as defined by about.com thus:   Definition: A system of double dating used in England and British North America from 1582-1752 for dates falling between January 1 and March 25. This was common practice because the new Gregorian calendar, which went into effect in 1582, but was not officially adopted by the British and the American colonies until 1752, recognized January 1 as the first day of the year, while the old Julian calendar recognized March 25 as the first day. Thus, dates between those two days prior to the calendar change in 1752 were often written with both year numbers (i.e. 5 January 1712/13).   Cheers,   Gregg   >From: Diana Gale Matthiesen [email protected] >Maybe that's what's preventing my GEDCOM from uploading:  it's too >big.  I did enlarge it to more generations because I'm finding >connections beyond five generations back.  I just checked the size of >my GEDCOM.  It's 120K.  Has anyone had any success uploading a GEDCOM >of this size? > >Diana

Yes, I'd run into that, too. I'd forgotten. It used to be that, if you'd entered too much text in the earliest ancestor field, it just got truncated. Now, it won't upload, but without giving you any kind of error message to let you know what's wrong. Terrible web design, and very inconsiderate of users. Maybe that's what's preventing my GEDCOM from uploading: it's too big. I did enlarge it to more generations because I'm finding connections beyond five generations back. I just checked the size of my GEDCOM. It's 120K. Has anyone had any success uploading a GEDCOM of this size? Diana > From: Karen Zander > Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:50 PM > > I heard back from FTDNA's Ashley, but to my dismay she did not > address the > gedcom situation at all. She only told me the most distant ancestors > aren't > sticking because there is a character limit. This is weird, because > these > two kits are for my sons, so I had previously put in the SAME > information > in for my husband and myself, with no problem. I could get the most > distant > ancestors for my sons to stick only by entering just name and birth > year - > adding the death year caused it to disappear. > > Of course I asked her again what's going on with the gedcoms, but I > guess > I'll have to wait until next Sunday for the answer. It seems they > only > answer emails on Sundays - at least that's been my experience. > Maybe > you'll get an answer from FTDNA on the gedcom problem before me. > > Karen > >

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for letting me know. This is really frustrating. I wish > they'd at least put up a warning that the upload feature isn't > working, so not to delete your existing GEDCOMs. Hrmpf. > > Diana Diana, I heard back from FTDNA's Ashley, but to my dismay she did not address the gedcom situation at all. She only told me the most distant ancestors aren't sticking because there is a character limit. This is weird, because these two kits are for my sons, so I had previously put in the SAME information in for my husband and myself, with no problem. I could get the most distant ancestors for my sons to stick only by entering just name and birth year - adding the death year caused it to disappear. Of course I asked her again what's going on with the gedcoms, but I guess I'll have to wait until next Sunday for the answer. It seems they only answer emails on Sundays - at least that's been my experience. Maybe you'll get an answer from FTDNA on the gedcom problem before me. Karen

Thanks, Sam - I think we are getting close to finding enough data to really learn what really happens. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:32 PM, Sam Eaton <[email protected]> wrote: > Right now I am(and likely will be for days if not weeks) trying to understand about 3000 Rows of Raw Data from five sources that fit your category. At this time, I tend to agree with Jim Bartlett, > > > "That's why I keep asking about some atDNA that tends to stay in segments - because I'm coming to believe (in my impatient way) that some DNA may get chopped up more, finer, smaller (pick your term), until, for some lines it doesn't pass the FTDNA atDNA filter. As some have pointed out, the DNA of some ancestors just doesn't make it all the way to me (although I think it should at just 8 generations). In the case of the cousins from my surname, they report matching each other, and wonder where I am:>(" > > Note, I'm really shooting my mouth off before I really want to. > > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks for letting me know. This is really frustrating. I wish they'd at least put up a warning that the upload feature isn't working, so not to delete your existing GEDCOMs. Hrmpf. Diana > From: Karen Zander > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:59 PM > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, > > Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote: > > > > Has anyone else had trouble uploading a GEDCOM > > to their FTDNA account? <snip> > Diana, > > Yes. I've tried numerous times to upload gedcoms > (ancestors only and only BMD just like yours) > for my transfer kits. I also can not add most > distant ancestors. I enter the information, > click save, and when I check again, everything > is blank. I wrote to FTDNA support and was asked > to send them my gedcoms and most distant ancestors. > That was on the weekend, and I haven't heard back, > but I assume they are working on correcting the > problem. I'm almost glad there is a delay with > the transfer kits being processed, since I can't > upload genealogical information. > > Karen

P.S. I also tried a GEDCOM created by RootMagic4. Same thing, the upload doesn't complete. Is there a size limit? This file contains more generations than the ones I used before. > From: Diana Gale Matthiesen > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:29 PM <snip> > > P.S. The GEDCOM is version 5.5, created by FamilyTreeMaker 2010.

Has anyone else had trouble uploading a GEDCOM to their FTDNA account? I decided to replace the two GEDCOM I had uploaded earlier (the separate paternal and maternal ones) with a single, merged GEDCOM. I first deleted the existing ones, then tried to upload the new one, but the upload process doesn't complete. I tried three different times over the span of several hours, thinking maybe the server was just temporarily out of whack. The file obviously uploads, initially, because it presents me with a list of the people in the file. I'm not hiding my identity, and my name is at the top of the list. When I click my name as the test subject, there's a short delay (5-10 seconds), then it all disappears and I'm back to the Home page of my account - with no GEDCOM, at all, attached to my account. I logged in to one of my cousin's accounts, with whom I have a FamilyFinder match, and the GEDCOM icon is there under my name, but when I click on it, there's no genealogy there. It's empty. What could be wrong? I emailed the HelpDesk, yesterday, but I still haven't heard back. Diana P.S. The GEDCOM is version 5.5, created by FamilyTreeMaker 2010. The file is very "clean." It contains only names and "BMD" data (date and place of birth, marriage, and death) - no sources, no media, nothing else. I can't imagine there's anything in the file that would be tripping up software able to import a GEDCOM.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]> wrote: > Has anyone else had trouble uploading a GEDCOM to their FTDNA account? > > > The file obviously uploads, initially, because it presents me with a > list of the people in the file. I'm not hiding my identity, and my > name is at the top of the list. When I click my name as the test > subject, there's a short delay (5-10 seconds), then it all disappears > and I'm back to the Home page of my account - with no GEDCOM, at all, > attached to my account. > > Diana, Yes. I've tried numerous times to upload gedcoms (ancestors only and only BMD just like yours) for my transfer kits. I also can not add most distant ancestors. I enter the information, click save, and when I check again, everything is blank. I wrote to FTDNA support and was asked to send them my gedcoms and most distant ancestors. That was on the weekend, and I haven't heard back, but I assume they are working on correcting the problem. I'm almost glad there is a delay with the transfer kits being processed, since I can't upload genealogical information. Karen

Greetings Listmates! My dad's Family Finder test came in recently. I entered his chromosome browser data for 193 matches at GEDmatch. I put a graphic together which displays all 22 chromosomes (in no particular order) at once. The file is here: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gbonner/DNA/gedmatch_allatonce.jpg <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gbonner/DNA/gedmatch_allatonce.jpg> I invite interested parties to provide their observations to me on this list, or by private email message. I am particularly interested to know what folks observe vis-a-vis pattern recognition. Cheers, Gregg Bonner Bethany, Oklahoma, USA

Right now I am(and likely will be for days if not weeks) trying to understand about 3000 Rows of Raw Data from five sources that fit your category. At this time, I tend to agree with Jim Bartlett, "That's why I keep asking about some atDNA that tends to stay in segments - because I'm coming to believe (in my impatient way) that some DNA may get chopped up more, finer, smaller (pick your term), until, for some lines it doesn't pass the FTDNA atDNA filter. As some have pointed out, the DNA of some ancestors just doesn't make it all the way to me (although I think it should at just 8 generations). In the case of the cousins from my surname, they report matching each other, and wonder where I am:>(" Note, I'm really shooting my mouth off before I really want to.

Diana - Here are some numbers from my only qualifying case: Matches in common btw my 2nd cousin and me. As of 2/10/12 (with a new one just added) we now have 4 matches in common. (Plus my brother, but we'll leave him out of this for the moment) Note that these 4 shared matches represent 2.3% of my 171 matches and 5% of my 2nd cousin's 80 matches. Match #1 (2nd-4th cousin) I share with Match #1 47cM total, 20cM longest, and that 20cM longest segment is shared with my 2nd cousin My 2nd cousin shares with Match #1 50cM, and the same 20cM longest segment we share in common Match #2 (3rd-5th cousin) I share with Match #2 39cM total, 18cM longest, and the segment we share in common is 9cM My 2nd cousin shares with Match #2 27cM, 11cM longest, and the shared segment is 11cM in his case Note that my 2nd cousin's match with #2 is only (5th - Remote) Match #3 (5th - Remote) I share with Match #3 36cM total, 9cM longest, and that 9cM segment is shared in common My 2nd cousin shares with Match #3 37cM and 10cM longest, and that 10cM is on our shared segment Match #4 (5th-Remote) I share with Match #4 23cM total, 8cM longest My 2nd cousin shares 24cM and 9cM longest We don't have a shared-in-common segment at any level down to 1cM But note that at the >1cM level, my 2nd cousins shares common segments with Match #4 and #1 that *appear* to be identical (same stop/end points and 2.4cM) plus an overlapping segment in that same territory with Match #3 of 2.75cM. Note also that Match#2's sibling is also a match to me, but not to my 2nd cousin And on the subject of variability in amount of DNA shared: My brother shares 397cM total, 69cM longest with our 2nd cousin I share only 274cM total and 49cM longest with him. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]>wrote: > I haven't checked, but I wouldn't expect the mutual matches to have > the same segment. I mean, the probability of that would have to be > miniscule. > > Diana > > > > From: Jim Bartlett > > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:23 AM > > > > Do the matches have the same large segment on the same Chr? I was > > trying to triangulate for an adoptee, based on matching ancestors of > > of different atMatches - but it turned out the large segment was > > usually different, meaning they didn't really match on atDNA. > > > > > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I haven't checked, but I wouldn't expect the mutual matches to have the same segment. I mean, the probability of that would have to be miniscule. Diana > From: Jim Bartlett > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:23 AM > > Do the matches have the same large segment on the same Chr? I was > trying to triangulate for an adoptee, based on matching ancestors of > of different atMatches - but it turned out the large segment was > usually different, meaning they didn't really match on atDNA. >

> From: Jim Bartlett > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:09 AM > > Diana > > In reading over your table, you state the useful limit of FF is five > generations. I think FTDNA uses the term 5th cousins rather than > generations. Actually, they do say 5 generations: http://www.familytreedna.com/family-finder-compare.aspx > I personally feel that's a conservative statement to be > on the safe side of marketing "truth". I wouldn't discount matches > that turn out to be more distant on paper. I don't discount matches when I can find a paper connection. But I'm going in the reverse direction here. These are people I *know* I'm related to. > I have several 4th cousins who have taken FF, but don't match me. In > fact, despite many successful paper trails with FF matches, I have > no confirmations on my BARTLETT line (and a few others). Because > there are 9 of us with matching Y-DNA (and E1b at that) from > descendants of 4 different sons of our Patriarch 8 generations ago, > I know the blood line is true. That's the information I'm looking for. IOW, it isn't unusual to, by chance, not match someone who actually is related to you at the level of 4th cousin (6th generation). > That's why I keep asking about some atDNA that tends to stay in > segments - because I'm coming to believe (in my impatient way) that > some DNA may get chopped up more, finer, smaller (pick your term), > until, for some lines it doesn't pass the FTDNA atDNA filter. As > some have pointed out, the DNA of some ancestors just doesn't make > it all the way to me (although I think it should at just 8 > generations). In the case of the cousins from my surname, they > report matching each other, and wonder where I am:>( At eight generations, I'm not so certain size is as much a factor as mere probability. What are the odds, not that you both would have *some* DNA from that ancestor, but that you would have the *same* bits of DNA from that ancestor? Pretty slim. If my cousins are any example, it's dropping off rapidly right where FTDNA says it will, at 4th cousins. Diana

I'm just matching people. Diana > From: Jim Bartlett > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 7:40 AM > > Diana > > Are your "matches in common with" at the same Chr > and close to the same segment, or are they just > matched people?

Diana, The count is entirely dependent on the number of matches you have with primary segment share (the one over 7.5 cM) in location where you have share with the cousin, combined with the makeup of the database. For example, the results for someone with a highly admixed ancestry with a cousin related on their Colonial American side would be expected to have an entirely different count than a cousin on their more recent German size. Of course this become more complex if you're looking at persons with allot of ancestors from endogamous populations. With FF you at least have the raw data to get a sense of what this number should be. thks On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Diana Gale Matthiesen <[email protected]>wrote: > I think I didn't frame my question correctly. I'm not asking for a > yes/no answer to the question of whether or not these individuals are > related - I know it's not that easy. I'm asking what the probability > is or, rather, what everyone's empirical experience is. In other > words, for the confirmed cousins you have tested (ones with a known > paper connection), how many mutual matches did you get (matches "in > common with")? > > In my case (one each): > > 1st cousin = 30 > 3rd cousin (1R) = 7 > 3rd cousin (2R) = 11 > 4th cousin = 6 > 4th cousin (1R) = 2 > 7th cousin = 2 > > I'm wondering what others have experienced along this line. > > What's bugging me, I think, is that, after nearly eight years of > managing Y-DNA surname projects, I have a pretty good feel for what is > and is not reasonable in terms of matching someone in genealogical > time. In contrast, with FamilyFinder, I have far too little > experience to even have a sense of what is or is not plausible. I'm > just looking for ballpark figures here of the typical number of mutual > matches at each level of cousin, so I know when to ignore something > and when to take a closer look. > > Or has someone already compiled something along this line? > > Diana > > > > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Diana Do the matches have the same large segment on the same Chr? I was trying to triangulate for an adoptee, based on matching ancestors of of different atMatches - but it turned out the large segment was usually different, meaning they didn't really match on atDNA. Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Feb 15, 2012, at 2:58 AM, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > I just noticed something that has me perplexed. I have now FF tested > three cousins on my father's side of the family and one on my mother's > side. I just noticed that that there are two people in common with > the me and with a cousin on each side of my family. What has me > perplexed is that there is nothing in my parents' paper genealogies to > even suggest they have any recent ancestors in common. > > The relationships suggested here are 3rd and 4th cousin to 4th-remote > and 5th-remote. What is the probability that someone matching at > these levels is *not* actually related in genealogical time? And what > is the probability of two people matching the same two people at these > levels and still not be related? > > Diana > > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Diana In reading over your table, you state the useful limit of FF is five generations. I think FTDNA uses the term 5th cousins rather than generations. I personally feel that's a conservative statement to be on the safe side of marketing "truth". I wouldn't discount matches that turn out to be more distant on paper. I have several 4th cousins who have taken FF, but don't match me. In fact, despite many successful paper trails with FF matches, I have no confirmations on my BARTLETT line (and a few others). Because there are 9 of us with matching Y-DNA (and E1b at that) from descendants of 4 different sons of our Patriarch 8 generations ago, I know the blood line is true. That's why I keep asking about some atDNA that tends to stay in segments - because I'm coming to believe (in my impatient way) that some DNA may get chopped up more, finer, smaller (pick your term), until, for some lines it doesn't pass the FTDNA atDNA filter. As some have pointed out, the DNA of some ancestors just doesn't make it all the way to me (although I think it should at just 8 generations). In the case of the cousins from my surname, they report matching each other, and wonder where I am:>( Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Feb 16, 2012, at 1:46 AM, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Some years ago, I compiled a table of the number of individuals in > each generation of your ancestry: > http://dgmweb.net/Ancillary/OnE/NumberAncestors.html > > That was when I set my genealogical goal at getting all my lines back > ten generations. It's almost ridiculous to be proud of an ancestor 20 > or 30 generations back. At best, they've contributed a miniscule > amount to your genetic endowment - possibly even none. > > Nothing's impossible, but I'm going to be very surprised to find my > parents related within the reach of the FamilyFinder test. If these > mutual matches I'm getting from both sides of my family are IBS, > that's solves that problem, but then that raises the question as to > whether I should have accepted the DAVIS in this table as our cousin: > http://dgmweb.net/DNA/aDNA/FF-Descendants_Isaac_DAVIS.html#table > > Diana

Diana Are your "matches in common with" at the same Chr and close to the same segment, or are they just matched people? Jim - Sent from my iPhone - FaceTime! On Feb 16, 2012, at 1:31 AM, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <[email protected]> wrote: > I think I didn't frame my question correctly. I'm not asking for a > yes/no answer to the question of whether or not these individuals are > related - I know it's not that easy. I'm asking what the probability > is or, rather, what everyone's empirical experience is. In other > words, for the confirmed cousins you have tested (ones with a known > paper connection), how many mutual matches did you get (matches "in > common with")? > > In my case (one each): > > 1st cousin = 30 > 3rd cousin (1R) = 7 > 3rd cousin (2R) = 11 > 4th cousin = 6 > 4th cousin (1R) = 2 > 7th cousin = 2 > > I'm wondering what others have experienced along this line. > > What's bugging me, I think, is that, after nearly eight years of > managing Y-DNA surname projects, I have a pretty good feel for what is > and is not reasonable in terms of matching someone in genealogical > time. In contrast, with FamilyFinder, I have far too little > experience to even have a sense of what is or is not plausible. I'm > just looking for ballpark figures here of the typical number of mutual > matches at each level of cousin, so I know when to ignore something > and when to take a closer look. > > Or has someone already compiled something along this line? > > Diana > > > > > > ______________________________ > For answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mailing lists, please see: > http://dgmweb.net/MailingListFAQs.html > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message