In message <f075881liium7tjn7fk00a3scgk8j4m3al@4ax.com>, Otto Jørgensen <otjoerge@online.no> writes: >On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:38:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: [] >>So could we have a third category in the "Date range" box - something >>like "event may have extended beyond the range" (or "beyond these >>dates")? [] >Many information are only fact at a certain date and not in a >daterange. I am not suggesting that you should use the date range for every event. But for things like occupation or residence, it is useful. Heiko understood what I was asking for. > >Many of what are noticed under Edit in the tab are given as >Event/facts and you must use this carefully and not always use >daterange. I am not suggesting you should use the date range for every event. > >The result in the report is important, e.g. we do not use daterange >for birth marriage death etc I am not suggesting you should use the date range for every event. > >For Resided we might use it. That depends on the information from the >sources. Is the information in a waythat daterange is normal use that. >If a centure tells each time that he was a miner you are more sure to >use daterange, but if the information in a centure are diffent each >time, you only knew the fact at the specific moment. If he was a miner in two or more censuses, it is wrong to say that that "event" occurred between the two dates. It is also not completely correct to say that they were the start and end date of him being a miner. Hence the need for a third type of range. It seems that whenever I make a suggestion or request, I get a counter-post from Otto; is there a reason? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Why do they always start off the evening news with "Good evening" when all they do is tell you why it isn't ?