I agree with Otto. Install the CD if you want, but check on-line for the latest update (There was probably at least one while the CD was in the mail). The CD is good for the videos and manual. Jack, SW Ohio Merry Christmas to all On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 20:44:18 -0500, "Gilles de C. Paquette" > <paquette.gdec@videotron.ca> wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>Since you have the CD, might as well install from it instead of >>downloading.  It will cut some time.  But both options are valid. >> > > If bad line to server, download the program to you PC and save it > there and from your PC do the installation. > > The CD can be out of date. (to old) > -- > Otto Jørgensen > http://www.bkwin.info/ > All email is checked by NORTON > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

In message <4EF52E72.4040005@videotron.ca>, Gilles de C. Paquette <paquette.gdec@videotron.ca> writes: >Hi, > >Since you have the CD, might as well install from it instead of >downloading. It will cut some time. But both options are valid. > >Gilles Paquette > >Le 2011-12-23 19:15, Charles Dobie a écrit : >> Hello, >> >> I've just purchased the CD containing BK version 6.5. >> >> I notice that I'm currently running version 6.4.9 from sometime this >> summer. Should I update version 6.4 on-line before I install version >> 6.5 from the CD or does it matter? [] My understanding is that any (6.x, anyway) version can be upgraded to any later 6.x version - i. e. you don't have to upgrade to each increment. So you should be able to go direct from 6.4.9 to 6.5.x. As for whether to use the CD or a BKupdate.exe from the website, I don't think it makes any difference (other than that the one from the website will have the latest fixes/additions). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:15:51 -0500, Charles Dobie <cdobie@superaje.com> wrote: >Hello, > >I've just purchased the CD containing BK version 6.5. > >I notice that I'm currently running version 6.4.9 from sometime this >summer. Should I update version 6.4 on-line before I install version >6.5 from the CD or does it matter? > you can download 6.5 from the page of John or rather buy the CD as it also have some new video for use of the program -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

To Betty Young Bray Go to the Ancestor chart. Pick Options from the top Set the option for "3 generations with pictures" Then click File, Print. John Steed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betty Young Bray" <bybray@frontiernet.net> To: <bk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 9:53 PM Subject: [BK] PRINTING PICTURES > Sent with wrong subject, sorry. Try again. > > Registered user with XP. > I am unable to print any of the reports, ie ancestor chart, with > pictures. I set the print option with primary option. but nothing > happens. I would like to print the options showing on the BK web page > with color. Any help appreciated. > Thanks, Betty > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message >

Thanks Otto -- I've updated from the website and will use the CD for the instruction videos. Chas. Dobie. At 07:41 PM 12/23/2011, you wrote: >On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 19:15:51 -0500, Charles Dobie ><cdobie@superaje.com> wrote: > > >Hello, > > > >I've just purchased the CD containing BK version 6.5. > > > >I notice that I'm currently running version 6.4.9 from sometime this > >summer. Should I update version 6.4 on-line before I install version > >6.5 from the CD or does it matter? > > > > you can download 6.5 from the page of John or rather buy the CD as it >also have some new video for use of the program >-- >Otto Jørgensen >http://www.bkwin.info/ >All email is checked by NORTON > > > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an >email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word >'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4699 - Release Date: 12/23/11 Charles Dobie, cdobie@superaje.com

Sent with wrong subject, sorry. Try again. Registered user with XP. I am unable to print any of the reports, ie ancestor chart, with pictures. I set the print option with primary option. but nothing happens. I would like to print the options showing on the BK web page with color. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Betty

Hi, Since you have the CD, might as well install from it instead of downloading. It will cut some time. But both options are valid. Gilles Paquette Le 2011-12-23 19:15, Charles Dobie a écrit : > Hello, > > I've just purchased the CD containing BK version 6.5. > > I notice that I'm currently running version 6.4.9 from sometime this > summer. Should I update version 6.4 on-line before I install version > 6.5 from the CD or does it matter? > > Thanks, > > Charles Dobie, > cdobie@superaje.com > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Registered user with XP. I am unable to print any of the reports, ie ancestor chart, with pictures. I set the print option with primary option. but nothing happens. I would like to print the options showing on the BK web page with color. Any help appreciated. Thanks, Betty

Hello, I've just purchased the CD containing BK version 6.5. I notice that I'm currently running version 6.4.9 from sometime this summer. Should I update version 6.4 on-line before I install version 6.5 from the CD or does it matter? Thanks, Charles Dobie, cdobie@superaje.com

In message <h94ue7pjasnitfr8ojefjekm4ei5u7cbrk@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> writes: >On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:08:02 -0000, "Jim \(Pipex\)" ><jim.thomson@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > >>John, >> >>You can always work through the language side of BK and edit the US English >>to make a UK version. I started doing that a decade back but got fed up >>after a while :-) >> >>John S might be able to add an edited version at a future date. >> >>I've often considered doing a Scots version too. Maybe when I retire and >>have a bit of free time <grin> Oh, and a Geordie version ... there's probably someone here who could do a Klingon version, of course ... >> >>I've never found the "U.S." version to be an issue. >> Me neither: in fact I can't actually think of anything that _is_ specifically U. S. in BK, though I'm sure there must be. It's just that the list offers "French", "German" ... but "U. S. English", rather than "English" (-: > >the program and explanation and Helpfile should be in basic English. >That because people outside US learn Internation version of English >and that will also be more easy to understand and to translate even >for "Google Translator" :) I don't think there's really a problem - it was really just a light-hearted suggestion that the "U. S. " be dropped! A low-priority thing, of course, I just thought it would be trivial to do. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test." - David Bedno

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:08:02 -0000, "Jim \(Pipex\)" <jim.thomson@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: >John, > >You can always work through the language side of BK and edit the US English >to make a UK version. I started doing that a decade back but got fed up >after a while :-) > >John S might be able to add an edited version at a future date. > >I've often considered doing a Scots version too. Maybe when I retire and >have a bit of free time <grin> > >I've never found the "U.S." version to be an issue. > the program and explanation and Helpfile should be in basic English. That because people outside US learn Internation version of English and that will also be more easy to understand and to translate even for "Google Translator" :) -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

John, You can always work through the language side of BK and edit the US English to make a UK version. I started doing that a decade back but got fed up after a while :-) John S might be able to add an edited version at a future date. I've often considered doing a Scots version too. Maybe when I retire and have a bit of free time <grin> I've never found the "U.S." version to be an issue. Regards Jim (GM4CXF) -----Original Message----- From: J. P. Gilliver (John) [mailto:G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk] Sent: 17 December 2011 12:09 To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: [BK] "U. S. English" Whenever I install an upgrade, it asks me to select language, with "U. S. English" at the top of the list. I always scroll down in the hope that "U. K. English" has been added (-: (While it isn't, perhaps the "U. S. " could be omitted?) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Ask not for whom the bell tolls; let the machine get it

In message <SNT128-W4324841C2294F4370CB219C5A60@phx.gbl>, joyce wilson <momajo54@hotmail.com> writes: [] >Chilred may be entered as >Mary Anne(1842Mo) Johnson >Unknown Male Child One Jim Johnson >Unknown Female Child One(1846Mo) Jim Johnson >Unknown Female Child Two Jim Johnson >Unknown Infant Jim Johnson > >An unknown infant has a record or grave, no sex, no date but Jims and (_Can_ a record in BK have no sex?) [] >I like to keep a paper book. Old and Old fashioned but I have lost much >to electronics and paid storage places can be lost is say, I have a >stroke, >or can't make a payment etc. >When I prepare my group page for printing, I go over it carefully for >corrections and proper time sequences. Then I print a sheet. Scan it >and place >the digital copy in a folder or appropietly named subfolder and when >requested to send to someone I can e-mail or dropbox it out. [] one slight improvement to that could be to install a .pdf "printer" (I use pdf995, but there are plenty of them about), and "print" to that rather than scanning a real print; as well as making a smaller file, it will also be better quality, and the text will be retrievable without needing OCR by anyone you email or dropbox it to. I email PDFd material to lots of people - ancestor and descendant trees, group sheets, fan charts, ... (Not that you don't want to print paper copies as well, if that's been your practice. [I just keep a copy of the database at my brother's, some distance away.]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf once described by Eccentrica Golumbits as the best bang since the big one ... (first series, fit the second)

In message <B5E45DD4A43B4E319523EE09C7E996CE@JimRamaleyPC>, Jim Ramaley <jramaley@comcast.net> writes: [] >have. A major "error" that I may have is that I may not know the name >of a spouse and if a correspondent reviews a report that completely >ignores a spouse, he/she may not realize that the name is missing. That is a good point, that unknowns draw more attention to missing data than blank lines; as another poster has said, "___ ___" cries out to be filled in. [] >Another example, suppose I know that the name of Jim's wife is Mary >(maybe from a census record). I would enter the name of the wife as >"Mary unknown Ramaley". This helps when I am looking for additional >information about her because newspaper articles, etc., would usually >refer to her married name "Mary Ramaley." [] There's a slight difference in conventions there between UK and US: I don't know if it is legal or just what people do, but the practice of giving a woman (or is it only a widow?) both surnames is not common in UK, to the extent that most UK folk encountering the practice would assume it is American. (Obviously, it's actually useful for genealogical purposes, provided one realises that the last two names are both surnames.) -- J. P. Gilliver

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:36:15 -0600, "Paul J. Lareau" <paul@lareau.org> wrote: >There has been a problem with NOT ENTERED spouses for a long time. >Although I haven't encountered the specific result described below, I have >had to use a workaround for as long as I can remember to avoid problems >later appearing on Register Reports. > >Whenever a person has children by multiple spouses, the name of at least one >of which is unknown/not entered, I always create the NOT ENTERED spouse as a >dummy entry (e.g., I use "_____ _____" ). That way the children will >actually be listed in the correct coupling on the printed listings. > >Actually, that was the way I always did all spouses with unknown names even >at the beginning (back in the BK5 years), long before I found out that you >could add children to an individual without designating a spouse. Even >after I learned you could do that, it seemed a bit illogical to me (kids >don't result from individuals, only couples), and was a very late adaptor to >that method, and still prefer specifying a dummy name if multiple spouses >are indicated. It's easier to keep my head straight especially with the >increasing number of his-hers-ours families, even though it is a bit more >work. If your don't know the partnerpart of parents to a child, you go to the child tab and then you have the father/mother and miss the other part. But when you select add child, this works perfect and the father/mother is added as the correct partner and given the name (not entrered) and there is not generated any nbew BK_number. If you use "N N" or similar each "unknown is given a new BK_number in the database and you will have a lot of "N N" persons. -- Otto Jørgensen http://www.bkwin.info/ All email is checked by NORTON

My database is just that. It is my personal worksheet. It needs to be simple enough for people to figure out but clear enough for me to comeback to it a couple of years later and know what it is really saying. I may enter a new person or a son of some one already researched as James "Jim" R(1824Tn)Kit#20943 Johnson That tells me from the surname or first name index that James R Johnson, possibly called Jim was born about 1824 in Tenn and the Kit # is what YDNA kit that he directly associated with (direct male lines only) When you are working with multi kits and groups of lines you may have many groups that your are trying to find links to fit together. This gives me lots of information to sort people just in the index. I hate sorting through 16 James Johnsons to find my currant interest. If Jim was married to Betsy(1821Ky) Collins then that is her entry. The next wife may be Mavis(1838) Unknown, or Unknown Unknown. And so on.I do this for all couple relationships. If there is an actual marriage then I enter the dates and proofs as indicated. But especially if there are children, I enter everything that I can so that it will show up on group sheets for research. I have never had trouble with anyone understanding it yet, especially if I caution that a legal marriage exists with legal proofs only, otherwise it is word of mouth or specutlation-but this was a couple for this period of time. Yes I have yards of Unknown Unknowns but then I do not look for unknowns by name--but by who they are associated with and that BK# makes them real and holds a place for all information, whether I discover the unknown was born in North Carolina or is buried as just wife in a shared grave in Arkansas. Chilred may be entered as Mary Anne(1842Mo) Johnson Unknown Male Child One Jim Johnson Unknown Female Child One(1846Mo) Jim Johnson Unknown Female Child Two Jim Johnson Unknown Infant Jim Johnson An unknown infant has a record or grave, no sex, no date but Jims and hopefully I can figure out which partner. If I need to add clarification notes, I do that. It is as I say just a worksheet. I like to keep a paper book. Old and Old fashioned but I have lost much to electronics and paid storage places can be lost is say, I have a stroke, or can't make a payment etc. When I prepare my group page for printing, I go over it carefully for corrections and proper time sequences. Then I print a sheet. Scan it and place the digital copy in a folder or appropietly named subfolder and when requested to send to someone I can e-mail or dropbox it out. It may not be "correct" but it is informative and saves me much time when I come back to an entry after a long period of no involment. Where there is a series of wives ( my great grandfather had at least 5 that I have found) There will be a group sheet for him, and individual sheets for each of his wives with as much information on it as I choose to use. I like this program very much, because it is very adaptable to my work methods, very good base for information and sources and it is clear and concise. Thank you Jim Eleven years with BK Joyce

Jim, Id pretty much as you do, but in your example I would use "Mary Ramaley??", Then in the register report, which I usually send people, I have a MS Word macro which changes the "??" to red bold, kind of stands out then that something is amiss with her name. On the date, I would enter ?/?/19??, BK complains but I accept it anyway, and the macro also colors those "?" red. Leaving it blank, like you have indicated also, does not tell the reviewer anything is missing or incomplete. Jim -----Original Message----- From: bk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:bk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jim Ramaley Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 4:49 PM To: bk@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [BK] NOT ENTERED Spouses The big problem with "Not Entered" Spouses is that the reports don't show anything at all for the spouse. For example, the ancestor trees simply leave a bare limb and the descendant reports don't even refer to a possible spouse. I send printed versions of charts to as many people as I can so that they can (a) learn their own ancestry and (b) correct errors I may have. A major "error" that I may have is that I may not know the name of a spouse and if a correspondent reviews a report that completely ignores a spouse, he/she may not realize that the name is missing. What I always try to do is enter something. The idea is that "something" is always better than "nothing" -- even if the "something" is a bit wrong. Here are a couple of examples. Suppose I know that Jim Ramaley is married, but I have no other information about the possible wife or partner. I would enter in "Jim Ramaley" as the husband (actually I would presume the name to be James -- although that is occasionally wrong) and "unknown" for the wife. If I knew Jim's birth date, say 1940, I would also usually enter the unknown wife's birth date as "cir 1942" While "May-December" marriages have always existed, they are the exception and so it usually does not hurt to indicate an unknown wife as being about 2 years younger than her husband. Often it has helped. Another example, suppose I know that the name of Jim's wife is Mary (maybe from a census record). I would enter the name of the wife as "Mary unknown Ramaley". This helps when I am looking for additional information about her because newspaper articles, etc., would usually refer to her married name "Mary Ramaley." The same is true of unknown husbands. Often you can deduce that a person you are tracking is or was married, but you do not know the husband's given name. If the wife's married name is Jane Doe I would simply enter the name "unknown Doe" for the husband. If the wife's maiden name is Jane Doe, I would simply enter unknown, or unknown husband for the spouse. Jim Ramaley Gettysburg, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: Gilles de C. Paquette To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [BK] NOT ENTERED Spouses For as long as I can remember (BK for DOS), I have always used "N..." for an unknown person, either male (yes it happens) or female. Even if the known person has only one child. Just my small bit of experience. Happy holidays all. Gilles Paquette Le 2011-12-17 09:36, Paul J. Lareau a ecrit : > There has been a problem with NOT ENTERED spouses for a long time. > Although I haven't encountered the specific result described below, I have > had to use a workaround for as long as I can remember to avoid problems > later appearing on Register Reports. > > Whenever a person has children by multiple spouses, the name of at least one > of which is unknown/not entered, I always create the NOT ENTERED spouse as a > dummy entry (e.g., I use "_____ _____" ). That way the children will > actually be listed in the correct coupling on the printed listings. > > Actually, that was the way I always did all spouses with unknown names even > at the beginning (back in the BK5 years), long before I found out that you > could add children to an individual without designating a spouse. Even > after I learned you could do that, it seemed a bit illogical to me (kids > don't result from individuals, only couples), and was a very late adaptor to > that method, and still prefer specifying a dummy name if multiple spouses > are indicated. It's easier to keep my head straight especially with the > increasing number of his-hers-ours families, even though it is a bit more > work. > > -- > Paul J. Lareau > Freedom for Imprisoned Books! > Don't Chain them to a Dusty Bookshelf. > Visit: http://www.bookcrossing.com and my bookshelf > at: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/pjlareau > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 135 E. Viking Dr. #301, Little Canada MN 55117 USA > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Slatter"<haslatter@ntlworld.com> > To:<bk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] Compare two databases possible problem > > >> On possibly a related problem which I have recently encountered (BK >> 6.5.3): >> >> A woman has a child by a "not entered" partner, then later marries a >> husband and has more children with him. All well and good so far. I >> then discover a second child from her and the first partner. If I try >> to add that child to her while the "not entered" partner is showing on >> the edit screen, then BK in fact adds him to the other family (i.e. >> gives him the wrong father). There's an easy workaround, which is to >> add him as a sibling of the first child, but it's annoying that the >> obvious method fails. >> >> Howard >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The big problem with "Not Entered" Spouses is that the reports don't show anything at all for the spouse. For example, the ancestor trees simply leave a bare limb and the descendant reports don't even refer to a possible spouse. I send printed versions of charts to as many people as I can so that they can (a) learn their own ancestry and (b) correct errors I may have. A major "error" that I may have is that I may not know the name of a spouse and if a correspondent reviews a report that completely ignores a spouse, he/she may not realize that the name is missing. What I always try to do is enter something. The idea is that "something" is always better than "nothing" -- even if the "something" is a bit wrong. Here are a couple of examples. Suppose I know that Jim Ramaley is married, but I have no other information about the possible wife or partner. I would enter in "Jim Ramaley" as the husband (actually I would presume the name to be James -- although that is occasionally wrong) and "unknown" for the wife. If I knew Jim's birth date, say 1940, I would also usually enter the unknown wife's birth date as "cir 1942" While "May-December" marriages have always existed, they are the exception and so it usually does not hurt to indicate an unknown wife as being about 2 years younger than her husband. Often it has helped. Another example, suppose I know that the name of Jim's wife is Mary (maybe from a census record). I would enter the name of the wife as "Mary unknown Ramaley". This helps when I am looking for additional information about her because newspaper articles, etc., would usually refer to her married name "Mary Ramaley." The same is true of unknown husbands. Often you can deduce that a person you are tracking is or was married, but you do not know the husband's given name. If the wife's married name is Jane Doe I would simply enter the name "unknown Doe" for the husband. If the wife's maiden name is Jane Doe, I would simply enter unknown, or unknown husband for the spouse. Jim Ramaley Gettysburg, PA ----- Original Message ----- From: Gilles de C. Paquette To: bk@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [BK] NOT ENTERED Spouses For as long as I can remember (BK for DOS), I have always used "N..." for an unknown person, either male (yes it happens) or female. Even if the known person has only one child. Just my small bit of experience. Happy holidays all. Gilles Paquette Le 2011-12-17 09:36, Paul J. Lareau a ecrit : > There has been a problem with NOT ENTERED spouses for a long time. > Although I haven't encountered the specific result described below, I have > had to use a workaround for as long as I can remember to avoid problems > later appearing on Register Reports. > > Whenever a person has children by multiple spouses, the name of at least one > of which is unknown/not entered, I always create the NOT ENTERED spouse as a > dummy entry (e.g., I use "_____ _____" ). That way the children will > actually be listed in the correct coupling on the printed listings. > > Actually, that was the way I always did all spouses with unknown names even > at the beginning (back in the BK5 years), long before I found out that you > could add children to an individual without designating a spouse. Even > after I learned you could do that, it seemed a bit illogical to me (kids > don't result from individuals, only couples), and was a very late adaptor to > that method, and still prefer specifying a dummy name if multiple spouses > are indicated. It's easier to keep my head straight especially with the > increasing number of his-hers-ours families, even though it is a bit more > work. > > -- > Paul J. Lareau > Freedom for Imprisoned Books! > Don't Chain them to a Dusty Bookshelf. > Visit: http://www.bookcrossing.com and my bookshelf > at: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/pjlareau > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 135 E. Viking Dr. #301, Little Canada MN 55117 USA > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Slatter"<haslatter@ntlworld.com> > To:<bk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] Compare two databases possible problem > > >> On possibly a related problem which I have recently encountered (BK >> 6.5.3): >> >> A woman has a child by a "not entered" partner, then later marries a >> husband and has more children with him. All well and good so far. I >> then discover a second child from her and the first partner. If I try >> to add that child to her while the "not entered" partner is showing on >> the edit screen, then BK in fact adds him to the other family (i.e. >> gives him the wrong father). There's an easy workaround, which is to >> add him as a sibling of the first child, but it's annoying that the >> obvious method fails. >> >> Howard >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Paul, I do the same as you. I like _____ _____ being printed on reports because it is obvious to the reader I am missing the name and it just "begs" for someone to fill in the blank. On 12/17/2011 6:36 AM, Paul J. Lareau wrote: > There has been a problem with NOT ENTERED spouses for a long time. > Although I haven't encountered the specific result described below, I have > had to use a workaround for as long as I can remember to avoid problems > later appearing on Register Reports. > > Whenever a person has children by multiple spouses, the name of at least one > of which is unknown/not entered, I always create the NOT ENTERED spouse as a > dummy entry (e.g., I use "_____ _____" ). That way the children will > actually be listed in the correct coupling on the printed listings. > > Actually, that was the way I always did all spouses with unknown names even > at the beginning (back in the BK5 years), long before I found out that you > could add children to an individual without designating a spouse. Even > after I learned you could do that, it seemed a bit illogical to me (kids > don't result from individuals, only couples), and was a very late adaptor to > that method, and still prefer specifying a dummy name if multiple spouses > are indicated. It's easier to keep my head straight especially with the > increasing number of his-hers-ours families, even though it is a bit more > work. > > -- > Paul J. Lareau > Freedom for Imprisoned Books! > Don't Chain them to a Dusty Bookshelf. > Visit: http://www.bookcrossing.com and my bookshelf > at: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/pjlareau > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 135 E. Viking Dr. #301, Little Canada MN 55117 USA > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Slatter"<haslatter@ntlworld.com> > To:<bk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] Compare two databases possible problem > > >> On possibly a related problem which I have recently encountered (BK >> 6.5.3): >> >> A woman has a child by a "not entered" partner, then later marries a >> husband and has more children with him. All well and good so far. I >> then discover a second child from her and the first partner. If I try >> to add that child to her while the "not entered" partner is showing on >> the edit screen, then BK in fact adds him to the other family (i.e. >> gives him the wrong father). There's an easy workaround, which is to >> add him as a sibling of the first child, but it's annoying that the >> obvious method fails. >> >> Howard > >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

For as long as I can remember (BK for DOS), I have always used "N..." for an unknown person, either male (yes it happens) or female. Even if the known person has only one child. Just my small bit of experience. Happy holidays all. Gilles Paquette Le 2011-12-17 09:36, Paul J. Lareau a ecrit : > There has been a problem with NOT ENTERED spouses for a long time. > Although I haven't encountered the specific result described below, I have > had to use a workaround for as long as I can remember to avoid problems > later appearing on Register Reports. > > Whenever a person has children by multiple spouses, the name of at least one > of which is unknown/not entered, I always create the NOT ENTERED spouse as a > dummy entry (e.g., I use "_____ _____" ). That way the children will > actually be listed in the correct coupling on the printed listings. > > Actually, that was the way I always did all spouses with unknown names even > at the beginning (back in the BK5 years), long before I found out that you > could add children to an individual without designating a spouse. Even > after I learned you could do that, it seemed a bit illogical to me (kids > don't result from individuals, only couples), and was a very late adaptor to > that method, and still prefer specifying a dummy name if multiple spouses > are indicated. It's easier to keep my head straight especially with the > increasing number of his-hers-ours families, even though it is a bit more > work. > > -- > Paul J. Lareau > Freedom for Imprisoned Books! > Don't Chain them to a Dusty Bookshelf. > Visit: http://www.bookcrossing.com and my bookshelf > at: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/pjlareau > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > 135 E. Viking Dr. #301, Little Canada MN 55117 USA > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Slatter"<haslatter@ntlworld.com> > To:<bk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BK] Compare two databases possible problem > > >> On possibly a related problem which I have recently encountered (BK >> 6.5.3): >> >> A woman has a child by a "not entered" partner, then later marries a >> husband and has more children with him. All well and good so far. I >> then discover a second child from her and the first partner. If I try >> to add that child to her while the "not entered" partner is showing on >> the edit screen, then BK in fact adds him to the other family (i.e. >> gives him the wrong father). There's an easy workaround, which is to >> add him as a sibling of the first child, but it's annoying that the >> obvious method fails. >> >> Howard >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >