In message <[email protected]>, Max van Dam <[email protected]> writes: >Dear John, > >Maybe that you means something else, but if I put a note to somebody via the >edit screen than after I have clicked "click here to save changes", you see >the line >Text file name (internal textfile) >Indiv/family > >At indiv/family is standard Individual. >You can change Individual in Family and than the note appears to husband and >wife. [] No, I didn't mean something else - thank you! For some reason I hadn't noticed that column. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf All that glitters has a high refractive index.

In message <[email protected]>, John Steed <[email protected]> writes: >To J P Gilliver > >There is a way to add the same source two times to the same event. > >Do you have BK 7.0.48 or what version? Click Options on the source 7.0.15. >grid to have it show all previous sources on the 10 most recent >sources, even if the event already has that source. Thanks. I can't see "Options" on the source grid - maybe it'll be there if I upgrade to 7.0.48. > >John Steed > (Any thoughts on my suggestion of the quality digit appearing in the list of sources?) > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" ><[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:00 AM >Subject: [BK] same source, different pages? Also,freeze button for >source/page? (Quality on source list?) > > >>I have the source for a father's occupation and/or father and mother's >> place of residence, on a given date, as "register of baptisms", since >> one or both of those pieces of information are present in the baptism >> record of one of their children. So, I enter it, including the page >> reference. >> >> I subsequently find the baptism record for another child; I find that >> the father's occupation and/or parents' place of residence is the same, >> so I amend the father's record to show now a _range_ of dates. I tab >> along to the Source square, but find I can't add the new source for this >> information; since "register of baptisms" is already there, the "add >> previous source" and "add previous source and page" buttons are absent. >> >> I thought I'd ask it as a more general question: when you find a second >> source for the same piece of information (possibly with a different date >> as in this case, possibly not), but it is on another page/film/whatever >> in a source you already have for that piece of information, what do you >> do? >> >> (In my case, I could only see two options: either edit the existing >> entry to add both to the "page" box [although it isn't a very big box >> and the string length does have a fairly small limit], or not record the >> second page. I chose the latter, as I didn't want to corrupt the BK >> "memory" of the page, as there might have been other data in the entry I >> wanted to use the "same source and page" button for.) >> >> John, any chance of a "freeze" button for the "last source" and "last >> source and page" facilities? Quite often, I'm entering lots of data from >> a given source, and I find those two buttons most useful; however, >> sometimes (especially if the data conflicts!) I want to go into and look >> at one of the existing sources (say, to see what quality level I'd >> ascribed, or if I'd added any notes that might help explain the >> discrepancy) - but going into the earlier source then corrupts the >> "memory". >> >> It's just occurred to me that it'd be useful if the quality rating - >> just the figure (blank, 0, 1, 2, or 3) - could be visible in the _list_ >> of sources. (Wouldn't completely eliminate the above, but might help - >> and I think it'd be a useful thing, anyway.) >> -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 >>MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf >> >> The middle classes have no real value in television terms, apart from as a >> spawning ground for TV-drama serial murderers. Spot a man in glasses >>reading a >> book and you can guarantee his hobby is showing dismembered >>prostitutes down >> drains as Mahler's Symphony No 5 plays on the stereo. Killers just love >> classical music. - Alison Graham, RT 2014/12/6-12 >> Remember - Use the Archives at >>http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>the subject and the body of the message >> > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf All that glitters has a high refractive index.

In message <[email protected]>, Roy Marriott via <[email protected]> writes: >"not uncommon"??? Really? I would think it would actually be _rare_ for >a marriage to be performed without the two participants/betrothed being >together. It seems like that would be good reason for a note in your >database explaining the situation. >Regards, >Roy Marriott > > >On 5/4/2015 5:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >> I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed >> over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were >> sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was >> much rarer. [] OK, I was guilty of using a colloquialism; obviously it is still very much the exception. What I meant was, it's now known, and commoner (since the advent of Skype and similar) than it once was (I have vague memories of hearing of it done by radio, or similar, when one party is on something like an Antarctic base or something). Someone in soc.genealogy.britain where I also asked (I would have crossposted but I don't think you can with a mailing list) says "No jurisdiction in the UK allows proxy marriages but will recognise a foreign one if it was valid in the jurisdiction(s) in which it occurred and the parties were not otherwise disqualified under ENG, SCT or NIR law." I've seen it done in USA, but only in TV drama, which may not be correct. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf All that glitters has a high refractive index.

To J P Gilliver I will consider your suggestion of having the Quality show for existing sources on the grid. Currently that grid only shows the top 4 fields and does not show the 4 text fields or page number or quality or repository or call number. But I will consider it. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:30 PM Subject: Re: [BK] same source, different pages? Also,freeze button for source/page? (Quality on source list?) > In message <[email protected]>, John Steed > <[email protected]> writes: >>To J P Gilliver >> >>There is a way to add the same source two times to the same event. >> >>Do you have BK 7.0.48 or what version? Click Options on the source > > 7.0.15. > >>grid to have it show all previous sources on the 10 most recent >>sources, even if the event already has that source. > > Thanks. I can't see "Options" on the source grid - maybe it'll be there > if I upgrade to 7.0.48. >> >>John Steed >> > (Any thoughts on my suggestion of the quality digit appearing in the > list of sources?) >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" >><[email protected]> >>To: <[email protected]> >>Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:00 AM >>Subject: [BK] same source, different pages? Also,freeze button for >>source/page? (Quality on source list?) >> >> >>>I have the source for a father's occupation and/or father and mother's >>> place of residence, on a given date, as "register of baptisms", since >>> one or both of those pieces of information are present in the baptism >>> record of one of their children. So, I enter it, including the page >>> reference. >>> >>> I subsequently find the baptism record for another child; I find that >>> the father's occupation and/or parents' place of residence is the same, >>> so I amend the father's record to show now a _range_ of dates. I tab >>> along to the Source square, but find I can't add the new source for this >>> information; since "register of baptisms" is already there, the "add >>> previous source" and "add previous source and page" buttons are absent. >>> >>> I thought I'd ask it as a more general question: when you find a second >>> source for the same piece of information (possibly with a different date >>> as in this case, possibly not), but it is on another page/film/whatever >>> in a source you already have for that piece of information, what do you >>> do? >>> >>> (In my case, I could only see two options: either edit the existing >>> entry to add both to the "page" box [although it isn't a very big box >>> and the string length does have a fairly small limit], or not record the >>> second page. I chose the latter, as I didn't want to corrupt the BK >>> "memory" of the page, as there might have been other data in the entry I >>> wanted to use the "same source and page" button for.) >>> >>> John, any chance of a "freeze" button for the "last source" and "last >>> source and page" facilities? Quite often, I'm entering lots of data from >>> a given source, and I find those two buttons most useful; however, >>> sometimes (especially if the data conflicts!) I want to go into and look >>> at one of the existing sources (say, to see what quality level I'd >>> ascribed, or if I'd added any notes that might help explain the >>> discrepancy) - but going into the earlier source then corrupts the >>> "memory". >>> >>> It's just occurred to me that it'd be useful if the quality rating - >>> just the figure (blank, 0, 1, 2, or 3) - could be visible in the _list_ >>> of sources. (Wouldn't completely eliminate the above, but might help - >>> and I think it'd be a useful thing, anyway.) >>> -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 >>>MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf >>> >>> The middle classes have no real value in television terms, apart from as >>> a >>> spawning ground for TV-drama serial murderers. Spot a man in glasses >>>reading a >>> book and you can guarantee his hobby is showing dismembered >>>prostitutes down >>> drains as Mahler's Symphony No 5 plays on the stereo. Killers just love >>> classical music. - Alison Graham, RT 2014/12/6-12 >>> Remember - Use the Archives at >>>http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>>the subject and the body of the message >>> >> > > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > All that glitters has a high refractive index. > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Didn't know there's still people using Microsoft Windows ;-) Andreas > On 5 May 2015, at 17:49, Jim T via <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi John and group. > > > > Just wondering how BK7 is checking out against Win10. I'm making the rash > assumption that you'll have been running the pre-release versions to check > compatibility. > > > > I'm keen to upgrade from Win7 once MS have released the final version later > in the summer > > > > Thanks > > > > Jim T > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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

Maybe a search on marriage via the internet, then? Jared > In message <[email protected]>, Jared > Handspicker <[email protected]> writes: >>For Proxy marriage laws in the US: >> >>Double Proxy Marriages - Montana is the only state where Double Proxy > [] >>Single Proxy Marriages - In a proxy marriage ceremony, one member of the >>couple attends while a proxy stands in for the absent party. >> >>There are only a handful of US states where proxy ceremonies can be > [] >>Only four states allow for proxy marriages - California, Colorado, Texas, >>and Montana. The majority of them are either military marriages (while >> one > [] > I didn't mean a proxy where someone "stands in" for one (or both! that > hadn't occurred to me!) party/ies; I meant one where the remote party is > in audio - and, these days, video - contact, so there is no need for a > proxy to say the "I do" for them; and where both ends are in a room > (rooms) where there are sufficient local dignitaries present that any > reasonable suspicion of either subterfuge or coercion can be discounted. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > All that glitters has a high refractive index. > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------ Jared "Jed" Handspicker Usque Saeculis Vigilem

For Proxy marriage laws in the US: Double Proxy Marriages - Montana is the only state where Double Proxy Marriages can be performed, and while there are no residency requirements, Montana law demands that one member of the couple must be active in the military. Two designated proxies attend the ceremony to stand in for the bride and groom and the official marriage certificates are then mailed to the married couple. Single Proxy Marriages - In a proxy marriage ceremony, one member of the couple attends while a proxy stands in for the absent party. There are only a handful of US states where proxy ceremonies can be legally performed – though once obtained, the marriage certificate will be honored in all states. While there are no residency requirements, one member of the couple must travel to the state to appear in front of a civil authority. Only four states allow for proxy marriages - California, Colorado, Texas, and Montana. The majority of them are either military marriages (while one of the couple is deployed or stationed overseas) or "foreign" marriages (where a US Citizen marries someone from another country - given that the country doesn't ban such marriages). As a "for instance", Israeli couples who marry by proxy are marrying through mail-in marriages in Paraguay! Whodathunkit?!?!?! Because not all states allow Same-sex marriages, the only alternative is Single Proxy, performed in a state where such marriages are legal. One partner must attend in a state where such marriages are allowed. >From a quick googling... Jared > In message <[email protected]>, Roy Marriott via > <[email protected]> writes: >>"not uncommon"??? Really? I would think it would actually be _rare_ for >>a marriage to be performed without the two participants/betrothed being >>together. It seems like that would be good reason for a note in your >>database explaining the situation. >>Regards, >>Roy Marriott >> >> >>On 5/4/2015 5:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >>> I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed >>> over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were >>> sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was >>> much rarer. > [] > OK, I was guilty of using a colloquialism; obviously it is still very > much the exception. What I meant was, it's now known, and commoner > (since the advent of Skype and similar) than it once was (I have vague > memories of hearing of it done by radio, or similar, when one party is > on something like an Antarctic base or something). > > Someone in soc.genealogy.britain where I also asked (I would have > crossposted but I don't think you can with a mailing list) says "No > jurisdiction in the UK allows proxy marriages but will recognise a > foreign one if it was valid in the jurisdiction(s) in which it occurred > and the parties were not otherwise disqualified under ENG, SCT or NIR > law." > > I've seen it done in USA, but only in TV drama, which may not be > correct. > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > All that glitters has a high refractive index. > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------ Jared "Jed" Handspicker Usque Saeculis Vigilem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_marriage On 5/05/2015 11:54 am, Roy Marriott via wrote: > "not uncommon"??? Really? I would think it would actually be _rare_ for > a marriage to be performed without the two participants/betrothed being > together. It seems like that would be good reason for a note in your > database explaining the situation. > Regards, > Roy Marriott > > > On 5/4/2015 5:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >> I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed >> over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were >> sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was >> much rarer. >> >> I don't have any such in my tree (that I know of), but I was just >> entering an 18xx one into BK, which helpfully adds the record to the >> database for both parties (I presume most other such softwares do the >> same), and it occurred to me to wonder what the situation is where the >> two parties are at different locations - in particular, what location is >> to be entered! >> >> Is there a ruling that one place is the definitive location? Could this >> even _be_ enforced, if the parties are in different countries (or states >> if those have differing laws)? >> >> Not important to me (yet!), but I thought an interesting point to ponder >> (-:! > > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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 >

To J P Gilliver There is a way to add the same source two times to the same event. Do you have BK 7.0.48 or what version? Click Options on the source grid to have it show all previous sources on the 10 most recent sources, even if the event already has that source. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. P. Gilliver (John) via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:00 AM Subject: [BK] same source, different pages? Also,freeze button for source/page? (Quality on source list?) >I have the source for a father's occupation and/or father and mother's > place of residence, on a given date, as "register of baptisms", since > one or both of those pieces of information are present in the baptism > record of one of their children. So, I enter it, including the page > reference. > > I subsequently find the baptism record for another child; I find that > the father's occupation and/or parents' place of residence is the same, > so I amend the father's record to show now a _range_ of dates. I tab > along to the Source square, but find I can't add the new source for this > information; since "register of baptisms" is already there, the "add > previous source" and "add previous source and page" buttons are absent. > > I thought I'd ask it as a more general question: when you find a second > source for the same piece of information (possibly with a different date > as in this case, possibly not), but it is on another page/film/whatever > in a source you already have for that piece of information, what do you > do? > > (In my case, I could only see two options: either edit the existing > entry to add both to the "page" box [although it isn't a very big box > and the string length does have a fairly small limit], or not record the > second page. I chose the latter, as I didn't want to corrupt the BK > "memory" of the page, as there might have been other data in the entry I > wanted to use the "same source and page" button for.) > > John, any chance of a "freeze" button for the "last source" and "last > source and page" facilities? Quite often, I'm entering lots of data from > a given source, and I find those two buttons most useful; however, > sometimes (especially if the data conflicts!) I want to go into and look > at one of the existing sources (say, to see what quality level I'd > ascribed, or if I'd added any notes that might help explain the > discrepancy) - but going into the earlier source then corrupts the > "memory". > > It's just occurred to me that it'd be useful if the quality rating - > just the figure (blank, 0, 1, 2, or 3) - could be visible in the _list_ > of sources. (Wouldn't completely eliminate the above, but might help - > and I think it'd be a useful thing, anyway.) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > > The middle classes have no real value in television terms, apart from as a > spawning ground for TV-drama serial murderers. Spot a man in glasses > reading a > book and you can guarantee his hobby is showing dismembered prostitutes > down > drains as Mahler's Symphony No 5 plays on the stereo. Killers just love > classical music. - Alison Graham, RT 2014/12/6-12 > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Hi John and group. Just wondering how BK7 is checking out against Win10. I'm making the rash assumption that you'll have been running the pre-release versions to check compatibility. I'm keen to upgrade from Win7 once MS have released the final version later in the summer Thanks Jim T

Dear John, Maybe that you means something else, but if I put a note to somebody via the edit screen than after I have clicked "click here to save changes", you see the line Text file name (internal textfile) Indiv/family At indiv/family is standard Individual. You can change Individual in Family and than the note appears to husband and wife. With my best regards, Max van Dam Rechovoth Israel http://www.maxvandam.info/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John) via Sent: 04 May 2015 13:35 To: [email protected] Subject: [BK] Couple ("family") notes? Is there any way to add notes to both of a couple (so that they're visible whether you're looking at husband or wife)? For example, if there's doubt about the order of children. I can't see any. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The middle classes have no real value in television terms, apart from as a spawning ground for TV-drama serial murderers. Spot a man in glasses reading a book and you can guarantee his hobby is showing dismembered prostitutes down drains as Mahler's Symphony No 5 plays on the stereo. Killers just love classical music. - Alison Graham, RT 2014/12/6-12 Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- 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 have done limited testing with preview 10041 & 10047. Seems ok. Jim -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim T via Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [BK] Windows 10 Hi John and group. Just wondering how BK7 is checking out against Win10. I'm making the rash assumption that you'll have been running the pre-release versions to check compatibility. I'm keen to upgrade from Win7 once MS have released the final version later in the summer Thanks Jim T Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- 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

BK7 is working great on my Windows 10 pre-release version of windows. Dan Huston Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jim T via" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: [BK] Windows 10 Date: Tue, May 5, 2015 5:49 AM Hi John and group. Just wondering how BK7 is checking out against Win10. I'm making the rash assumption that you'll have been running the pre-release versions to check compatibility. I'm keen to upgrade from Win7 once MS have released the final version later in the summer Thanks Jim T Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- 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

"not uncommon"??? Really? I would think it would actually be _rare_ for a marriage to be performed without the two participants/betrothed being together. It seems like that would be good reason for a note in your database explaining the situation. Regards, Roy Marriott On 5/4/2015 5:42 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: > I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed > over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were > sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was > much rarer. > > I don't have any such in my tree (that I know of), but I was just > entering an 18xx one into BK, which helpfully adds the record to the > database for both parties (I presume most other such softwares do the > same), and it occurred to me to wonder what the situation is where the > two parties are at different locations - in particular, what location is > to be entered! > > Is there a ruling that one place is the definitive location? Could this > even _be_ enforced, if the parties are in different countries (or states > if those have differing laws)? > > Not important to me (yet!), but I thought an interesting point to ponder > (-:!

Is there any way to add notes to both of a couple (so that they're visible whether you're looking at husband or wife)? For example, if there's doubt about the order of children. I can't see any. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The middle classes have no real value in television terms, apart from as a spawning ground for TV-drama serial murderers. Spot a man in glasses reading a book and you can guarantee his hobby is showing dismembered prostitutes down drains as Mahler's Symphony No 5 plays on the stereo. Killers just love classical music. - Alison Graham, RT 2014/12/6-12

I have the source for a father's occupation and/or father and mother's place of residence, on a given date, as "register of baptisms", since one or both of those pieces of information are present in the baptism record of one of their children. So, I enter it, including the page reference. I subsequently find the baptism record for another child; I find that the father's occupation and/or parents' place of residence is the same, so I amend the father's record to show now a _range_ of dates. I tab along to the Source square, but find I can't add the new source for this information; since "register of baptisms" is already there, the "add previous source" and "add previous source and page" buttons are absent. I thought I'd ask it as a more general question: when you find a second source for the same piece of information (possibly with a different date as in this case, possibly not), but it is on another page/film/whatever in a source you already have for that piece of information, what do you do? (In my case, I could only see two options: either edit the existing entry to add both to the "page" box [although it isn't a very big box and the string length does have a fairly small limit], or not record the second page. I chose the latter, as I didn't want to corrupt the BK "memory" of the page, as there might have been other data in the entry I wanted to use the "same source and page" button for.) John, any chance of a "freeze" button for the "last source" and "last source and page" facilities? Quite often, I'm entering lots of data from a given source, and I find those two buttons most useful; however, sometimes (especially if the data conflicts!) I want to go into and look at one of the existing sources (say, to see what quality level I'd ascribed, or if I'd added any notes that might help explain the discrepancy) - but going into the earlier source then corrupts the "memory". It's just occurred to me that it'd be useful if the quality rating - just the figure (blank, 0, 1, 2, or 3) - could be visible in the _list_ of sources. (Wouldn't completely eliminate the above, but might help - and I think it'd be a useful thing, anyway.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The middle classes have no real value in television terms, apart from as a spawning ground for TV-drama serial murderers. Spot a man in glasses reading a book and you can guarantee his hobby is showing dismembered prostitutes down drains as Mahler's Symphony No 5 plays on the stereo. Killers just love classical music. - Alison Graham, RT 2014/12/6-12

I gather it is not uncommon these days for marriages to be performed over the internet; even before the internet, I believe they were sometimes carried out over the telephone or similar, though that was much rarer. I don't have any such in my tree (that I know of), but I was just entering an 18xx one into BK, which helpfully adds the record to the database for both parties (I presume most other such softwares do the same), and it occurred to me to wonder what the situation is where the two parties are at different locations - in particular, what location is to be entered! Is there a ruling that one place is the definitive location? Could this even _be_ enforced, if the parties are in different countries (or states if those have differing laws)? Not important to me (yet!), but I thought an interesting point to ponder (-:! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

To Carole Caruso You can set the file attributes of the .DT6 or .DT7 files to "read only" and then BK will not allow changes. John Steed > Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 07:49:54 -0400 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [BK] Locking a Database > From: [email protected] > > Is there a way to lock a BK database which would allow viewing it but > not changing it? And if locked, would it still allow searching? > > I am thinking of installing a large database on a computer in an > historical library so I am open to any ideas and thoughts about this. > > Thanks. > > Carole > Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > 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

Is there a way to lock a BK database which would allow viewing it but not changing it? And if locked, would it still allow searching? I am thinking of installing a large database on a computer in an historical library so I am open to any ideas and thoughts about this. Thanks. Carole

In message <[email protected]>, John Steed via <[email protected]> writes: >To Daniel Huston > >In BK, when you click the Print button, it prints to the "current" printer. > >If you do not want to print to your default printer, pick File, Printer >Setup and change the printer there. > >Then click the Print button to print to that printer. > >John Steed [] I think that what is catching people out is that Windows conventions for software have changed: nowadays, people expect "print" to go via a printer selection page (albeit with the default printer still selected as, well, the default). The only other thing I can think of where selecting "print" prints immediately, where the only way to change where it prints being to use a setup section beforehand, is the original Notepad. (I'm not even sure if even that still prints immediately when you select print, from Windows 7 on, though it does in XP for those still using the default Notepad rather than an improved substitute such as Notepad+.) BK's way is not of course wrong! It's just highly unusual these days. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)