I recently left AOL for a new email address. Initially received this newsgroup digest OK, although there was a lot of clutter at the beginning of each one. Then switched to Outlook Express. With the same email address, still receiving the daily digest. But there's no text, just a bunch of attached files. The first usually contails a list of the posts and administrative info. Then each posting is a separate attachment. It's awkward, each attachment takes multiple clicks, etc, to view. What am I, or Outlook, doing wrong? What's the simple fix? BTW, I've been using FO for a number of years, bought a lot of programs from Parsons. Now up to v9, figure I'll wait for RootsMate. Toyed with some other genealogy programs, but appreciate FO's documentation capabilitiy. My wish for FO/Rootsmate is better/easier filter/display. I have a large db with many unconnected entries, culled from different sources. A George here with a birthdate, another who served in the Civil War, a marriage there. But how to put together this jigsaw puzzle? Thom Richardson

In a message dated 07/27/2002 7:34:58 AM Central Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: > > I have one key on my keyboard programmed to send this message with every > > GEDCOM file I send: > Alfred, please tell me how you programmed that key. Thanks. Jane Lindsey Tift, <A HREF="http://www.familyorigins.com/users/t/i/f/Jane-L-Tift/">Family Origins Genealogy Site: User Home Pages: Searching for the Descendants o</A>f My Ancestors

Dick, you make some excellent points, particularly about the need to get acquainted with gedcom transfers. I routinely move files into and out of FO and my experience is that FO has the best gedcom import on the market in that almost anything from another program's gedcom output can be mapped to FO (if the user will experiment and practice). I suspect we can rely on Bruce to meet this same high level of compatibility with Rootsmate. Jim 7/27/2002 9:15:51 AM, "Dick Wells" <[email protected]> wrote: ,snip> >A word of advice to those not really up to speed on GEDCOM's - learn everything you can and practice importing and exporting. Learn about the LST (error) file and it's messages too. Remember, a GEDCOM will only export the data you explicitly set up for export. If an option is not turned on, that data will be excluded. Two places control what is exported, the GEDCOM dialog and the Fact Types dialog. Each fact has it's own setup.

Hoping that more people will share their image file naming systems and plans for family books. Started a new FO 10 file this week using a GEDCOM and planning a Journal for the first time. Using an Outline plus multiple scrapbooks for each of Richard's children like a chapter. Considering an ancestor chart with photos for the oldest child in each household to show where each new "chapter" starts. More source documents are expected shortly, 1901 Canadian census images are available free on the Internet so the book-in-progress cannot be updated in a word processor without a lot of extra work. The goal is to have a single PDF file that could be printed at an office copy service. Cover and Table of Contents might have to be copied separately and added before binding. Many of the scanned images have names like 1901censusSurnameRich&Jane.jpg but file name alone doesn't tell which branch because descendants of brothers George and Richard are normally kept in two databases with pictures in multiple Windows folders by household. Book about George's line already has 150 pages, and Richard's family has more pictures available so I don't want to combine them into a single book or file. Previous FO 10 book was a single descendant report for a branch with only 17 images. GEDCOM to two other genealogy programs kept links to *individual* pictures but spacing of notes was best in FO because it had been planned during editing. Can't recall if multiple individual pictures or family scrapbook pictures were kept in the transfer but they didn't show in descendant reports. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Wise" > In hindsight I should have used a more portable naming system but at the > time the Bruce/FO situation seemed very stable. I have no close relatives > who are 'into' genealogy so I didn't have to concern myself with > portablility to any other software. I will try to make my next naming > system ironclad. :-)

Hi Thom Actually I think you are at a better advantage than I I was using Outlook and I think it was updated one day and I got the same blank thing except for when I opened it there was a band across the top that said the attachment had been removed for my safety or some such thing. And on one of the lists I was on somebody said that while the letter with the little paperclip(meaning an attachment) was highlighted just hit <ctrl> <F3> and you will see everything at once Mostly first you will see numbered list of the attachments...Then you can choose to go to that number, if you desire. And you can do a copy and paste on any part of the message that interests you so that you can then send it to yourself for saving or sharing See in my signature below what I did after I started not getting my attachments SANDRA TYLER DUNCAN Sacramento,CA http://www.gencircles.com/users/purplevw1/1/ http://www.progenealogists.com/genealogysleuthb.htm all my mail scanned by Norton Below is the only place that will accept attachments [email protected] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Richardson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 8:25 AM Subject: [FO] Newsgroup format? > I recently left AOL for a new email address. Initially received this newsgroup digest OK, although there was a lot of clutter at the beginning of each one. > > Then switched to Outlook Express. With the same email address, still receiving the daily digest. But there's no text, just a bunch of attached files. The first usually contails a list of the posts and administrative info. Then each posting is a separate attachment. It's awkward, each attachment takes multiple clicks, etc, to view. > > What am I, or Outlook, doing wrong? What's the simple fix? > > BTW, I've been using FO for a number of years, bought a lot of programs from Parsons. Now up to v9, figure I'll wait for RootsMate. Toyed with some other genealogy programs, but appreciate FO's documentation capabilitiy. > > My wish for FO/Rootsmate is better/easier filter/display. I have a large db with many unconnected entries, culled from different sources. A George here with a birthdate, another who served in the Civil War, a marriage there. But how to put together this jigsaw puzzle? > > Thom Richardson > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE send personal replies and "THANK YOU" message privately. All messages on this list are archived and archiving takes up valuable space. >

At 11:59 PM 7/26/2002 -0400, you wrote: >1. Continuing your present system is TOTALLY dependent upon Bruce >maintaining the SAME record number system and database format within >RootsMate...for all SUBSEQUENT new additions. True. >2. Secondarily, as mentioned, it seems too constraining to depend upon NEVER >deleting an individual, or merging two individuals, or packing the database, >or experiencing corruption without an up-to-date backup. I have done all of these things with no problems, i.e. the records numbers have not changed after any of these events. >3. Another consideration would be the lack of portability. Should you later >desire to split your database or move/copy individuals to another database >via Gedcom (or DragNDrop) or even restoring a full backup to a new database >and then "pruning" will result in the dreaded record number changes that >will no longer correllate to your photo-naming convention. Same goes for any >intention of sharing a "portion" of your database/photos with others. If any of these situations would ever come up I had planned to restore a full backup and then prune as necessary. This will not affect any remaining record numbers, even after packing. Having done numerous tests I am convinced this is true with FO. The portability problem would show up in going to another genealogy application. Then one would have to accept the meaningless filenames or change them. (Granted, even in FO, moving individuals into another established database would also render the filenames meaningless if pictures were shared too.) In hindsight I should have used a more portable naming system but at the time the Bruce/FO situation seemed very stable. I have no close relatives who are 'into' genealogy so I didn't have to concern myself with portablility to any other software. I will try to make my next naming system ironclad. :-) Thanks for the response. Jim Wise

Many casual readers may not be paying close attention to this tread. Some incorrect information has been posted as gospel, but is flat wrong. Here is a quick summary about record numbers. 1. Record numbers are assigned sequentially as individual records are added. This can be by entering the data yourself, importing a GEDCOM, and Drag and Drop between databases. 2. Record numbers are never reused within a specific database. 3. Record numbers are different from Reference Numbers, which is a user controlled fact. 4. Record numbers (within a database) can only be changed during a merge of records. During a merge, only the To record survives and the From record is deleted. Thus the "new" record number is the To record number. 5. Packing does not change record numbers. Packing removes the space occupied by deleted records and rebuilds the Index files. 6. Some other genealogy software provides the ability to "reuse" record numbers, but not FOW. One piece of information about RootsMate stated that it will not read FOW data files. Transferring of the data will need to be done by a GEDCOM. This means the record numbers will be reassigned. Futher details has not been released. A word of advice to those not really up to speed on GEDCOM's - learn everything you can and practice importing and exporting. Learn about the LST (error) file and it's messages too. Remember, a GEDCOM will only export the data you explicitly set up for export. If an option is not turned on, that data will be excluded. Two places control what is exported, the GEDCOM dialog and the Fact Types dialog. Each fact has it's own setup.

Sorry for bringing up the subject. I have not been on this distribution for long, never in any previous discussions. Guess I better get off of here.

The "nearly sequential" nature of your naming convention would seem to defeat much of the the economy of using Global Search and Replace. Fortunately, Keith has presented a viable solution to your problem, that seems to defeat that nightmare. However... I believe you should consider an alternate naming convention for several reasons: 1. Continuing your present system is TOTALLY dependent upon Bruce maintaining the SAME record number system and database format within RootsMate...for all SUBSEQUENT new additions. 2. Secondarily, as mentioned, it seems too constraining to depend upon NEVER deleting an individual, or merging two individuals, or packing the database, or experiencing corruption without an up-to-date backup. 3. Another consideration would be the lack of portability. Should you later desire to split your database or move/copy individuals to another database via Gedcom (or DragNDrop) or even restoring a full backup to a new database and then "pruning" will result in the dreaded record number changes that will no longer correllate to your photo-naming convention. Same goes for any intention of sharing a "portion" of your database/photos with others. -=Kevin=- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Thompson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [FO] Potential problem in switching from FO to Rootsmate At one time, Alfred (I think that it was him or Wayne) gave a method of creating a reference number from the record number. I do believe that it would require a gedcom export, but then you can fix the record number. I realize in your case, that this would be a humongous job to correct the photos, but keep this in mind, if you ever have to pack the database, then the record numbers will change as well. If you have never packed and have removed individuals, you are somewhat playing with fire in that you have holes throughout your database. These can become corrupt in rare cases. (having done a small amount of database work, it can happen). Keith Thompson ps. I just found my copy of Waynes email of some time ago..... Quote: Would you like to assign everyone in your database a unique reference number which is equal to their present record number? Here is how you can do that using MSWord97. Export a gedcom file of your entire database and check all boxes for items to go into the gedcom file. Be sure all fact types are marked to go into a gedcom file. Open the gedcom file in MSWord97 and use the following global search and replace criteria (using wildcards) and run it through the entire gedcom file. (Put spaces where they occur in the criteria below). Find what: 0 \@(I*)\@ INDI Replace with: 0 @\[email protected] INDI^p1 REFN \1 Now resave the gedcom file and import it into a new database in FO and check it out. Everyone in the database will now have a reference number fact which will be equal to their record number in the original database with the letter "I" in front. (Note that the reference numbers may or may not be the same as the record numbers in the new database. Record numbers can change and that's why it is not good to use them in your permanent records. These new reference numbers, however, will never change unless YOU change them.) Wayne League ================end message from archive=================== Unquote K Jim Wise wrote: > > I have a potential problem arising if I attempt to switch to Rootsmate from > FO. I have been using FO for five years (and six versions) and have linked > over a thousand pictures to my database. In order to circumvent the > daunting task of creating descriptive filenames for all these pictures, > such that I could identify one James Miller from another for instance, I > thought it best to use a systematic naming system, one that would > positively identify an individual in the picture. > > Since I had no intention of ever leaving FO for any other genealogy program > I named my files using FO's record number of the (an) individual in the > picture. This system has worked great for me (and for at least one other > person who came up with it). However I understand that the only way to > transport our databases to Rootsmate is by Gedcom effectively rendering my > filenames meaningless for the most part since a lot of record numbers will > change. If I had never deleted an individual or performed a merge of two > individuals the record numbers would possibly make it through intact but as > you might imagine that is not the case. > > I imagine global search/replace would reduce my workload by at least half > if I decide to rename them but then I would probably have to revert to > creating descriptive names for the files or use the new record numbers to > set myself up for a similar situation on a future move. I know I could > assign reference numbers to each individual to whom I have attached a > picture but the reference number would not be readily visible until you go > to a person's Edit screen. I guess what I am saying is, "It sure would be > nice to hang on to those record numbers." > > Can anyone think of a workaround for this problem short of renaming a > thousand+ graphics files or keeping the existing, soon-to-be meaningless, > filenames? Will there possibly be any other way to transport our databases > to Rootsmate other than a Gedcom? > > I really like FO 10. I guess I could just stay with it until it no longer > works with a future incarnation of Windows. :-( > > Jim Wise

I have read enough on the subject of same sex marriages! If anyone persists with it. PRO or CON, I WILL withdraw his posting privileges for a length of time determined by me. No one is going to change anyone else's opinions on the subject by hurling insults anyway. Alfred D. Eller RootsMate-Users mail list administrator. ============================

At one time, Alfred (I think that it was him or Wayne) gave a method of creating a reference number from the record number. I do believe that it would require a gedcom export, but then you can fix the record number. I realize in your case, that this would be a humongous job to correct the photos, but keep this in mind, if you ever have to pack the database, then the record numbers will change as well. If you have never packed and have removed individuals, you are somewhat playing with fire in that you have holes throughout your database. These can become corrupt in rare cases. (having done a small amount of database work, it can happen). Keith Thompson ps. I just found my copy of Waynes email of some time ago..... Quote: Would you like to assign everyone in your database a unique reference number which is equal to their present record number? Here is how you can do that using MSWord97. Export a gedcom file of your entire database and check all boxes for items to go into the gedcom file. Be sure all fact types are marked to go into a gedcom file. Open the gedcom file in MSWord97 and use the following global search and replace criteria (using wildcards) and run it through the entire gedcom file. (Put spaces where they occur in the criteria below). Find what: 0 \@(I*)\@ INDI Replace with: 0 @\[email protected] INDI^p1 REFN \1 Now resave the gedcom file and import it into a new database in FO and check it out. Everyone in the database will now have a reference number fact which will be equal to their record number in the original database with the letter "I" in front. (Note that the reference numbers may or may not be the same as the record numbers in the new database. Record numbers can change and that's why it is not good to use them in your permanent records. These new reference numbers, however, will never change unless YOU change them.) Wayne League ================end message from archive=================== Unquote K Jim Wise wrote: > > I have a potential problem arising if I attempt to switch to Rootsmate from > FO. I have been using FO for five years (and six versions) and have linked > over a thousand pictures to my database. In order to circumvent the > daunting task of creating descriptive filenames for all these pictures, > such that I could identify one James Miller from another for instance, I > thought it best to use a systematic naming system, one that would > positively identify an individual in the picture. > > Since I had no intention of ever leaving FO for any other genealogy program > I named my files using FO's record number of the (an) individual in the > picture. This system has worked great for me (and for at least one other > person who came up with it). However I understand that the only way to > transport our databases to Rootsmate is by Gedcom effectively rendering my > filenames meaningless for the most part since a lot of record numbers will > change. If I had never deleted an individual or performed a merge of two > individuals the record numbers would possibly make it through intact but as > you might imagine that is not the case. > > I imagine global search/replace would reduce my workload by at least half > if I decide to rename them but then I would probably have to revert to > creating descriptive names for the files or use the new record numbers to > set myself up for a similar situation on a future move. I know I could > assign reference numbers to each individual to whom I have attached a > picture but the reference number would not be readily visible until you go > to a person's Edit screen. I guess what I am saying is, "It sure would be > nice to hang on to those record numbers." > > Can anyone think of a workaround for this problem short of renaming a > thousand+ graphics files or keeping the existing, soon-to-be meaningless, > filenames? Will there possibly be any other way to transport our databases > to Rootsmate other than a Gedcom? > > I really like FO 10. I guess I could just stay with it until it no longer > works with a future incarnation of Windows. :-( > > Jim Wise > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > UNSUBSCRIBE? Send the word: UNSUBSCRIBE(inside the message) and no additional text to: [email protected] or [email protected] for DIGEST -- Keith Thompson, Worthington, OH Home Web Page: http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~kthompson/ Genealogy Web Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~kthompson If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

In a message dated 7/26/2002 4:43:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: > In a message dated 7/26/2002 12:56:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > [email protected] writes: > > > > I am not interested in hearing religious or legal opinions, but a means > of > > presenting facts. > > > Fact: a same sex marriage cannot produce a child, therefore there are no > "genes" passed on from the lesbian who acts in place of the biological > father > in society. Thus, That person has no place in a genealogy chart. Using that > > premise, there can be no family tree, so you may as well dispose of your > genealogy program. > > Earl B. Akers, Sr. > Puyallup WA > <A HREF="http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~banyantree">The Banyan Tree</A> > Sorry, Earl, I cannot accept your premise. You would say that adoptions do not deserve a place in genealogy files, either, if the biological parents are not known. Certainly you would agree that the descendants of every living person can belong in genealogy files, and every person's ancestry stops (starts?) somewhere with unknowns. I am sure your ancestry ends with many unknowns, as does everyone else's ancestry. Bill Case

I have a potential problem arising if I attempt to switch to Rootsmate from FO. I have been using FO for five years (and six versions) and have linked over a thousand pictures to my database. In order to circumvent the daunting task of creating descriptive filenames for all these pictures, such that I could identify one James Miller from another for instance, I thought it best to use a systematic naming system, one that would positively identify an individual in the picture. Since I had no intention of ever leaving FO for any other genealogy program I named my files using FO's record number of the (an) individual in the picture. This system has worked great for me (and for at least one other person who came up with it). However I understand that the only way to transport our databases to Rootsmate is by Gedcom effectively rendering my filenames meaningless for the most part since a lot of record numbers will change. If I had never deleted an individual or performed a merge of two individuals the record numbers would possibly make it through intact but as you might imagine that is not the case. I imagine global search/replace would reduce my workload by at least half if I decide to rename them but then I would probably have to revert to creating descriptive names for the files or use the new record numbers to set myself up for a similar situation on a future move. I know I could assign reference numbers to each individual to whom I have attached a picture but the reference number would not be readily visible until you go to a person's Edit screen. I guess what I am saying is, "It sure would be nice to hang on to those record numbers." Can anyone think of a workaround for this problem short of renaming a thousand+ graphics files or keeping the existing, soon-to-be meaningless, filenames? Will there possibly be any other way to transport our databases to Rootsmate other than a Gedcom? I really like FO 10. I guess I could just stay with it until it no longer works with a future incarnation of Windows. :-( Jim Wise

> > Hi Dick > > "Same Sex unions cannot produce offspring" > > Sorry but that is UTTER TRIPE At this point, you are coming on a little too strong. > > Using IVF (In Vitro fertilisation or Test Tube babies), both mixed sex and > same sex couples can produce a baby. > > Without going into legal, moral or religious arguments, surely a > genealogical (study of genes?) or Family History program has to hold FACTS? > > Whether a child had 2, 3 or 4 parents is surely somewhat irrelevant? > > I am English and born in Leeds, Yorkshire, England, I can only quote what I > see as the English law situation. I cannot quote any US or other law. > > If I had a lesbian or homosexual sibling (I do not in fact!) I would want > any self respecting Genealogical or FH program to reflect facts and life. > Pun intended <grin> If that sibling (pseudo) had a same sex partner and > produced a child by, say, IVF using the egg of one of the partners or from > both even, and that egg(s) was/were fertilised by a donor, what would you > want your favourite program to reflect those FACTS? > > Questions for you: > > 1) Is Family Origins vers. 10 a Genealogical program or a Family History > program? It is a genealogy program that meets the GEDCOM standards. These standards provide for facts not specifically related to genealogy. They do not provide all the additional facts for family history. > > 2) How would you in a few words distinguish the two types of programs? Family history would have many various types of facts dealing with neighbors, neighborhoods, close friendships, and activities. > > 3) Should Family Origins and its successor program reflect life as it is? It does and future programs will, but as related to blood lines and supplemental facts as defined by the genealogy standards via the GEDCOM specification. > > 4) Life is hard. Discuss! > > I know I jest in places here, but it is a serious subject and FO 10 should > allow me to input same sex partnerships and any offspring. > > My niece has had twin sons by IVF. In this case her husband is almost > certainly the father biological and legal. HE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN. How > would you want Family Origins to reflect the possible doubt here? > > Family tree programs MUST not be allowed to moralise. They NEED IMHO to > reflect facts and possibly my perception of the percentage probability that > X is the father of Z. > > In the case of IVF (British inventions rule OK, dyslexia rules KO) only the > consultant and his staff MIGHT know the father's name. In the case of AID > the actual parents and the child might NEVER know the father's name. Same sex unions cannot produce offspring. It takes a male and female to create life regardless of the method. Take the example of a female plus an unidentified male donor. She is the mother and he is the father. No exceptions. That he is unidentified is not diminishing the fact he is the father. The method of impregnation is only a note to the birth fact. Add the female's other partner as a second "mother" or "father" as gender dictates. Use the notes to explain or clarify as necessary. > > Such is life. > > I want my fave program to reflect actuality, not throw up its hands and > crash or fail to obey my wishes. > > Kind regards > > Phil. Warn

That is a great idea! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred Eller" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [FO] sending information by email > Wayne thought you wanted to send a report. He told you how to do this. > > I think that you want to send some of the data for them to use in their > own genealogy database. To do this, you send a GEDCOM file as an > attachment to your email message. > > I have one key on my keyboard programmed to send this message with every > GEDCOM file I send: > ----------------- > Create a new database to import this GEDCOM into. Once you have reviewed > it you can export and copy to your main database what information you > are sure you want. Never import an unknown GEDCOM into an existing > database without having a couple of good backups first. > ----------------- > > > To create a GEDCOM of a small portion of your database: > Open Family Origins and your database, > Go to the File menu and select GEDCOM, > Export GEDCOM, > Give the file a name and a place to live. > On the next dialogue window, "GEDCOM Export", make sure you choose > "Select people to export", the Destination should be "General" and at > the bottom of the window, choose which kinds of items you want to share. > (I choose to preserve wordwrapping in notes because some notes are such > that they need it) > When you click on [OK] you are taken to the Family Origins Explorer > window where you select the people you want to export. > > You can select Uncle Charley and all of his descendants, and/or Aunt > Harriet and all of her ancestors and their children or you can select > everyone in the database except certain individuals. This is quite a > powerful little selection tool. > Be warned, if you select descendants or ancestors and "Entire line" you > are liable to get the whole database. That is because many people are > related in more than one way and that way, your ancestors might be > related to your descendants, so everyone is part of the "entire line". > > Alfred D. Eller > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adelr/ > > ========================== > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rick & Helen Leino" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 5:56 PM > Subject: [FO] sending information by email > > > > Is there a way to copy a small part of my family information from the > FO > > data base to send to someone via email? > > Thanks for your help. > > > > Helen Leino > > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE remove as much of the Original Message as possible when replying to a List Posting. Include only that part of the original message important to your reply. > >

OK, apologies. That wasn't what Sally wanted, but I'd still like an answer if there is one please. Jim Fisher in Luton, Beds., UK. http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/geneal.htm - Fam hist pages I use CDs produced by Archive CD Books to assist fellow researchers http://www.archivecdbooks.org

On 26 Jul 2002, at 9:12, Sally Thoreson wrote: > Hello List: > I am using FO 10. I "believe" that with earlier versions we could > print a list of sources with names or the other way around. Have > tried to do this under the source manager and reports/lists and > only the person highlighted comes up rather than all in the > database. Any suggestions? Sally Thoreson I would also like to see an answer to this question if there is one. I have been trying to achieve it isnce version 6 without success. I have seen three proposed solutions so far, but, so far as I am concerned and I suspect Sally also from the wording of her question, they all miss the point. What I want to be able to do is to print a simple list of all sources showing primarily just two fields (other fields and citations are optional extras). The two fields I want to see are source name and source description. Source name is clearly designed as the main, unique, reference to each source. It is used in this way in source manager on screen, and I certainly use it as such - it even tells me where, in appropriate cases, I have stored my copy of the prime document, yet I have found no way of getting FO to print it at all, on any report or list. I have had to resort reluctantly to reading the file direct using MS Access to get round the problem. Does anyone have a solution, please? If not, I would certainly like to see it on a later version, or in Rootsmate. Jim Fisher in Luton, Beds., UK. http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/geneal.htm - Fam hist pages I use CDs produced by Archive CD Books to assist fellow researchers http://www.archivecdbooks.org

Same sex unions regardless of what you call it cannot produce offspring. Genealogy programs are for tracing "blood lines" plus a few fringe benefits. They are not family histories, even though closely related in appearance. One of the benefits is the adoption fact for including alternate "parents". The other "same sex" individual can be ID'ed there with appropiate notes. This very emotional topic has been beaten to death and all varying viewpoints can be reviewed in the archives. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 1:56 PM Subject: [RM-U] Wish list > I have a current problem, and I believe we will be seeing much more of this > kind of problem in the future. > > The problem is same sex unions (which may in some cases be recognized as same > sex marriages). > > I would like suggestions: > > 1) How to handle these situations in FO 10, and > 2) Provisions to be made in the new RootsMate. > > I am not interested in hearing religious or legal opinions, but a means of > presenting facts. > > For example, if a lesbian relationship produces a child, via artificial > insemination, how can the companion's relationship be shown. > A similar situation may develop with gays and surrogate mothers. Adoptions > may also be involved. > > Bill Case > > > ==== ROOTSMATE-USERS Mailing List ==== > A very little help for the extreme computer challenged: > http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~adelr/index.htm > basic HTML: http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~pasher/ > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Wayne thought you wanted to send a report. He told you how to do this. I think that you want to send some of the data for them to use in their own genealogy database. To do this, you send a GEDCOM file as an attachment to your email message. I have one key on my keyboard programmed to send this message with every GEDCOM file I send: ----------------- Create a new database to import this GEDCOM into. Once you have reviewed it you can export and copy to your main database what information you are sure you want. Never import an unknown GEDCOM into an existing database without having a couple of good backups first. ----------------- To create a GEDCOM of a small portion of your database: Open Family Origins and your database, Go to the File menu and select GEDCOM, Export GEDCOM, Give the file a name and a place to live. On the next dialogue window, "GEDCOM Export", make sure you choose "Select people to export", the Destination should be "General" and at the bottom of the window, choose which kinds of items you want to share. (I choose to preserve wordwrapping in notes because some notes are such that they need it) When you click on [OK] you are taken to the Family Origins Explorer window where you select the people you want to export. You can select Uncle Charley and all of his descendants, and/or Aunt Harriet and all of her ancestors and their children or you can select everyone in the database except certain individuals. This is quite a powerful little selection tool. Be warned, if you select descendants or ancestors and "Entire line" you are liable to get the whole database. That is because many people are related in more than one way and that way, your ancestors might be related to your descendants, so everyone is part of the "entire line". Alfred D. Eller http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adelr/ ========================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick & Helen Leino" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 5:56 PM Subject: [FO] sending information by email > Is there a way to copy a small part of my family information from the FO > data base to send to someone via email? > Thanks for your help. > > Helen Leino >

Rick & Helen Leino <[email protected]> wrote: >Is there a way to copy a small part of my family information from the FO >data base to send to someone via email? Many of the FO reports can be sent to a text file which can be attached to an email or, if they are short, can even be copied and pasted into the main body of an email. In FO10 most reports, including pedigree and box charts and reports containing photos, can be sent to an Acrobat PDF file which can also be attached to an email. Anyone who has downloaded the free Acrobat Reader can view and print out these charts and reports. Wayne League