I put ~Q~ for questionable and ~UI~ for undocumented individual in the name suffix (where Jr, Sr, III, MD etc go. it prints up in all charts, shows in index and etc. Patije At 07:47 AM 05/12/2001, Linda Scheimann wrote: >As I mentioned earlier, I have a database of European and other royal >lineages >One problem I haven't solved consistently is how to enter an "unproved" >lineage. >Linda > > > >On Sat, 12 May 2001, "Dick Wells" wrote: > > > > > For all those who desire FOW to be "more" than it is, consider using it > in different way. > > > > I maintain two additional databases to supplement my standard FOW > database used specifically for > > genealogy. By using the "User Defined Facts", I create specific topics. > > > > Here is an example. > > > > "General Information" database. > > Dick > > > >

I use one database for our family reunion picnics. I primarily use the scrapbook for the photos, but each years picnic and family is the Individual and the off-spring of the first picnic is the next years picnic, followed by the offspring of that preceding year. By doing this, I can put notes in for the picnic as individual notes and in the scrapbook, I can put the picture title and in the description, more notes, identifications, etc. Now by printing a scrapbook page, it has the heading for that years picnic, shows the pictures and lables, and descriptions. I've furnished the pages for the last several picnics and they have always been well received. I do put out the call after the picnics for the LOAN of the photos for scanning. I frequently have more than I really need, but because these are from attendees, they look for their photos and in return, I have photos that will supplement my genealogy/family history. I currently have 18 "generations" for the picnics. I usually try to pick one photo that either describes the picnic in content or is an honored person (two years ago, one attendee was 100) as the default picture. This way, I could use the Descendants book as the cover page with its notes and follow with thei scrapbook (individual). Keith Thompson Dick Wells wrote: > ==================snip========= > > Anyone else using FOW in a non-traditional way? If so, please share with the group. > > Dick > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ > Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/ > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp -- Keith Thompson, Worthington, OH Home Web Page: http://freepages.family.rootsweb.com/~kthompson/ Genealogy Web Page: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~kthompson Efax # (419) 818-1912 JFax & Voicemail (530) 484-3831

Alfred, I've been on this list for a couple of months (been using FO since release 2) and, as yet, I haven't seen any posting of guidelines or rules of etiquette. Do we have such a document? My personal opinion is that any subject which relates to how FO meets the needs of the user are fair game for this list BUT we have to agree to treat discussions in a rational, mature manner regardless of our personal views. In this last big discussion, I ventured a proposal for how FO might be configured to satisfy the needs of family researchers. The list treated my proposal in the sense I made it - no shouting, flaming, etc, - except for one personal flamemail. My point is that if we can be objective in these discussions and leave personal bias out of it, our favorite software can benefit. Thanks for listening. Jim Winfrey

As I mentioned earlier, I have a database of European and other royal lineages in addition to my regular family databases. One of the problems I encountered was the alphabetical index for people who do not ordinarily use, and in earlier times did not have, surnames. Since this royal database is just for my own hobby interest and probably won't be preserved, I adopted the convention "of England," "of Cracow," etc. so that I could do efficient searches. I make exceptions once I reach house surnames such as Hapsburg, Wittelsbach, Windsor, Tudor, etc. One problem I haven't solved consistently is how to enter an "unproved" lineage. Notes aren't obvious enough on the first interface. You can see a note exists, but not content. In this usage, it would be nice if I could add a user-defined symbol, something like as asterisk, to each unproved individual in a line. In a normal database, you might omit unproven links, but before the year 1200 or so, that would eliminate too many connections that are likely but not fully verified. Linda On Sat, 12 May 2001, "Dick Wells" wrote: > > For all those who desire FOW to be "more" than it is, consider using it in different way. > > I maintain two additional databases to supplement my standard FOW database used specifically for > genealogy. By using the "User Defined Facts", I create specific topics. > > Here is an example. > > "General Information" database. The Root Person is named "General Info" in the surname filed. > Children are named in a similar fashion. Some of the children are Dates & Calendars, Relationships, > Naturalization, Immegration, Nobility, Occupations, Medical, etc. > > Each child has one of more topics created using the User Defined Facts. Take the example of > Relationships. The topics are Cousins, Kissing Cousins, and Marriage Banns. For each topic, the > Notes are used to contain the information, and the Sources is used to document the information > sources. > > When a topic is too large for the Notes, I break it up into sections and identify the sections in > the fact description field. Example of this is Feudal Terms (in my Terminology child). It is in 2 > parts, A to M, and N to Z. > > Basically, the structure of this database is an Outline. When viewed in the Family View, it > presents itself in an outline type of format. Nothing prevents adding another level of children > (grandchildren) to the organization. > > Why do this at all? Well, it makes it easy to share with others, regardless of FOW, or PAF (4+), or > other similar programs usage, a convienient place to gather genealogy related information that > supplements research, and does not require the interested party to purchase or learn another piece > of software. > > A second database contains maps collected over the years from a variety of sources. Each map is > "linked" into the MultiMedia catalog. The maps are organized geographically as noted above. > > With these supplemental databases, I can pull them up while working in my main database and work > with the information side by side. > > I know of others that use FOW for animal breeding records. This particular usage has deen well > discussed already. > > Anyone else using FOW in a non-traditional way? If so, please share with the group. > > Dick > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ > Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/ > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp _________________________________________________________________ iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web http://www.ivillage.com

For all those who desire FOW to be "more" than it is, consider using it in different way. I maintain two additional databases to supplement my standard FOW database used specifically for genealogy. By using the "User Defined Facts", I create specific topics. Here is an example. "General Information" database. The Root Person is named "General Info" in the surname filed. Children are named in a similar fashion. Some of the children are Dates & Calendars, Relationships, Naturalization, Immegration, Nobility, Occupations, Medical, etc. Each child has one of more topics created using the User Defined Facts. Take the example of Relationships. The topics are Cousins, Kissing Cousins, and Marriage Banns. For each topic, the Notes are used to contain the information, and the Sources is used to document the information sources. When a topic is too large for the Notes, I break it up into sections and identify the sections in the fact description field. Example of this is Feudal Terms (in my Terminology child). It is in 2 parts, A to M, and N to Z. Basically, the structure of this database is an Outline. When viewed in the Family View, it presents itself in an outline type of format. Nothing prevents adding another level of children (grandchildren) to the organization. Why do this at all? Well, it makes it easy to share with others, regardless of FOW, or PAF (4+), or other similar programs usage, a convienient place to gather genealogy related information that supplements research, and does not require the interested party to purchase or learn another piece of software. A second database contains maps collected over the years from a variety of sources. Each map is "linked" into the MultiMedia catalog. The maps are organized geographically as noted above. With these supplemental databases, I can pull them up while working in my main database and work with the information side by side. I know of others that use FOW for animal breeding records. This particular usage has deen well discussed already. Anyone else using FOW in a non-traditional way? If so, please share with the group. Dick

Family history programmes should enable us to record FACTS not prejudices! Despite being a respectable, church-going, gentleman myself, I come from a long line of prostitutes who had children as occupational hazards from "clients". I don't like it, the Archbishop doesn't like it and (from the conservative attitudes expressed on this list) most of you don't like it! But it is a factual part of my family history, which has to be recorded as fact despite my own, and your, moral prejudices. The same is true of same sex relationships, sex change operations, surrogate babies etc., we may not like them, we can campaign against them, but they are still a fact of family history for thousands of people. The next update of FO should enable these facts to be recorded. All the best Alwyn

I hope Alfred will not take me off the list. For those who want so many things added to FO, you might try this. With Family Origins you can do most anuything you want. You really don't need Bruce to change the program. Why don't you pretend your subject matter is a person. With Family Origins open, click on add new person. The new person will be _______________(whatever subject you want) Then while that "person" is highlighted,,press return and go to "Edit Individual" Click on "Add Fact" Click on "New type" Click on "Family" Fill in "Abbreviation of Fact Name" (I tried Lifestyles") Fill in "Fact Name" (I tried "Gay") Click "OK" You will now find that Family Origins has "Gay" listed under "Select Fact Type" Whatever title you give it will show up in the Index (The flashllight Explorer" I don't have any gay people in my ancestry or live family that I know of, but I use Family Origins in this manner for other things: My Journal, The History of certain lineages. It can be used this way for many things - as many as your imagination can allow you. I think using something like this is far better than having Bruce change the program. I hope I have not offended anyone. That is certainly not my intention. Virginia

> << This was in Tues, 8 May, Springfield MO News Leader, p. 5B: > Discovery of cemetery halts roadwork--Associated Press-Kansas City-- > Construction of a new highway in south Kansas City has been halted by > the discovery of a small cemetery dating back to the Civil War era. > State officials are anxious to find any descendants of the Holloway > family who are bured in the cemetery. If the heirs can't be found, the > state will have to get court permission to move the nine graves in the > plot, in order to finish a new Missouri 150. > Construction workers recently unearthed a marble headstone, dating > from 1858, while moving a large section of water pipe. > Archaeologists later found another headstone and evidence of seven > other graves. > The site has not been disturbed further. > -------- > Please pass this on to other lists. > > Betty White > Santa Barbara, CA

In a message dated 5/11/2001 8:49:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dwells@chisp.net writes: > System Restore will not restore all files. See the System Restore help > files for a detailed > description of how it works. > Your right. I did what you suggested. Sorry, I was wrong. I just assumed (you know what that means), because my family tree was intact, that it did resore it. Darold "Doc" M. Blanchard SFC, US Army, Retired

I have lost 7 subscribers in the last day and a half, can anyone guess why? I think I can, They are sick and tired of this bickering. I am going to loose the next person who sends anything to the list about this subject. He or she. will not be able to re-subscribe for at least a week. It has been more than two days ago that I first asked you nicely to find another subject, so I don't think this is too harsh. Family-Origins-Users-Mailing list administrator Alfred Eller

In Mr. Newman's message, he mentioned something that might be close to the Witness (as used in The Master Genealogist) feature. A way to connect the folks who witnessed wills, worked on roads, were listed as living near (neighbor) or in some manner had a connection to our elusive ancestors. I have made an attempt to add an "event" using the person's name in Family Origins, but then all the different connections to folks in the community aren't listed for that person. The person who performed marriages would identify a community. Folks who attended an estate sale (as listed in probate papers) might or might not be related. I'm sure most of you have similar experiences with trying to identify WHICH John Jones your ancestor might be and which family his wife belongs to or where he lived before he moved to where we found him. Betty

If that is the ONLY way to bring this off topic nonsense to a merciful end, then I say goodbye as well! *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 05/11/2001, at 3:37 PM, Harold R. Williams wrote: >Goodbye > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Linda Scheimann <linda514@ivillage.com> >To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:15 AM >Subject: Re: [FO] Significant other > > MSgt David E. Cann, USMC (Ret'd) Phone: 540-372-7868 Fax: 540-372-7707 E-mail: decann@infi.net Family home page: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann

I think there is an obvious reason for terminating the discussion on whether to provide for "live-in honeys" in FO now. I assure you there can be no consensus on a matter which is so inflammatory. Sooner or later someone will say exactly what he thinks and it's too late then. We have certain recognized guidelines for genealogy and I think sticking with those on user groups, other than World Wide Wrestling and socialengineering.com is advisable. Hugh

In a message dated 5/9/2001 5:52:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mmguehob@bright.net writes: > Windows ME has a "go back" if a problem arises. I have Windows ME but have > not installed it. I wonder if this would work with FO problems? Does > anyone have this installed, and have they used this feature? > Yes, I Have ME installed and have used the "restore" utility. It will retore everything from a previous date. You'll have to update what was added into FO after the restore date. Darold "Doc" M. Blanchard SFC, US Army, Retired

One *TRUE* measure of the mind's evolution...is it's acceptance of the unacceptable ! -=Kevin=- In a message dated Fri, 11 May 2001 6:51:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Harold R. Williams" <willhn@flash.net> writes: << Goodbye >> ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Scheimann <linda514@ivillage.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Significant other > If this post bounces as off-topic, as Lane did to me a long time back, that's double nonsense, and I will be out of here permanently. > > Linda >

Continuing the discussion of how to model Family and Local History relationships, as opposed to strictly Genealogical relationships within FOW, I'd like to add this item to the wish list for FOW v.20. It is my hope that these ideas can contribute to making FOW a more useful and general tool for the recording and study of all types of History, not strictly Genealogy. FOW presently has user definable facts. However, all the relationships between people are predefined. I've had many occasions in my experience studying Genealogy and Family History where I would like to create new types of relationships and groups. For instance, I've seen cases where there seemed to be a lot of intermarriage between various families but couldn't figure out why until I realized that all the men were members of the same Masonic lodge. I think it would be a great feature to be able to create an object (e.g. "Beau Gest Lodge F.&.A.O.M") along with the rules and characteristics for that class of object (Fraternal Lodge) that would allow me to attach individuals to that object as "members". Under this schema, the present FOW object classes, Person, Family, etc. would become some of the pre-defined classes supplied with FOW, just as Birth, Death, Marriage are some of the predefined fact types supplied with the program. However, the user would be able to define new object classes according to the dictates of his research. I understand that this may not be a feature that everyone would be able to use (or even understand), however, I think it would be a great boon to historical research. Donald R. Newcomb DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

WRONG !!!!!!!! System Restore will not restore all files. See the System Restore help files for a detailed description of how it works. It restores system files, ie Windows files, System Registery, etc. Specific file types and folders are totally excluded from consideration and checkpointing. Basically, all registered file types belonging to applications are excluded. Don't take the word of another. Check it out for yourself. Make a test database, create a Checkpoint, make some changes, then do a Restore. See your own results. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: <DaroldDoc@aol.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [FO] Undo > In a message dated 5/9/2001 5:52:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > mmguehob@bright.net writes: > > > > Windows ME has a "go back" if a problem arises. I have Windows ME but have > > not installed it. I wonder if this would work with FO problems? Does > > anyone have this installed, and have they used this feature? > > > > Yes, I Have ME installed and have used the "restore" utility. It will retore > everything from a previous date. You'll have to update what was added into FO > after the restore date. > > Darold "Doc" M. Blanchard > SFC, US Army, Retired > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > GETTING THE MOST OUT OF FAMILY ORIGINS by Bruce Buzbee - FO DEMO > http://formalsoft.com NO WEB ACCESS? Write to FormalSoft@aol.com for ordering information. > > ============================== > Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 > Source for Family History Online. Go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB

> after watching a show on Human sexuality on Discovery Health Channel , > you are about right. > it is estimated that if you did actual DNA testing , that about 60-80 > percent of all children do not know who their biological father is. > Actually, as far as FO goes, that chance of error doesn't bother me much. Since I personally use it to track family history, the biological father isn't as important to me as the father who raised the child. Of course, if I know a child was adopted, I'll definitely note that fact (and I'd include the birth parents, too, if known). And any known "problems" with the biological lineage would no doubt be an important part of family history! :-) Bill

Goodbye ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Scheimann <linda514@ivillage.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [FO] Significant other > For the 100th time, briefly. You are arguing biology versus sociology as the proper subject matter for genealogy. Please allow that reasonable minds can differ. It's not only same sex relationships you exclude, but all childless relationships. In royal genealogy, for example, you would exclude marriages which were important political alliances from your record just because a man was too young to father children (Arthur of England, older brother of Henry VIII, whose original marriage to Catherine of Aragon was the source of the later split with Rome), or because the woman was past menopause at the time of the marriage. This will give you excellent breeding charts, but not necessarily history. If that's what you mean by genealogy, fine. But we normally record these marriages and relationships unless they are same sex. The standard isn't ability to conceive, it's exclusion of same sex relationships. > > If this post bounces as off-topic, as Lane did to me a long time back, that's double nonsense, and I will be out of here permanently. > > Linda > > > > On Wed, 09 May 2001, "Dick Wells" wrote: > > > > > This topic has been beat to death several times. > > > > Same sex arrangements cannot produce offspring, therefore the relationship is meaningless for > > genealogy. Use the Notes capabilities if this "needs" to be recorded as family history. > > > > For children in this type of arrangement, use the Adoption fact. > > > > Dick > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joyce Mortenson Wilson" <jwilson@commspeed.net> > > To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:40 PM > > Subject: [FO] Significant other > > > > > > > I am using 9.0. I have been given an assignment by my genealogy SIG to > > > include a significant other (of the same sex) and I can't find any way to do > > > that. Is there a way that I've missed? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Joyce Wilson > > > > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > > The Genealogical Companion http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2399/tgc.htm > > > Browsable Archives: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/family-origins-users/ > > > > > > ============================== > > > Shop Ancestry - Everything you need to Discover, Preserve & Celebrate > > > your heritage! > > > http://shop.myfamily.com/ancestrycatalog > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > > Searchable ARCHIVES - (might wrap so you have to type in part of the name, or copy and paste) > > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=FAMILY-ORIGI NS-USERS > > > > ============================== > > Create a FREE family website at MyFamily.com! > > http://www.myfamily.com/banner.asp?ID=RWLIST2 > > _________________________________________________________________ > iVillage.com: Solutions for Your Life > Check out the most exciting women's community on the Web > http://www.ivillage.com > > ______________________________

"C. and/or W. Scouler" <wcscouler@rcn.com> wrote: >I am a new user of Family Origins and I have a problem. Somewhere >along the way, I entered a child twice and he appears twice under the >parents. I tried to merge duplicates but the program does not >recognize them as duplicates. On the 'Select Person" list, he only >appears once. When doing a report, "Books", he appears twice. My >question is If I delete one will the other stay? No. They are both the same person (with the same record number) and deleting one will delete all instances of this person completely from the database. So don't do that! To remedy this situation, while the person is highlighted, in the edit menu, choose unlink from -> parents. This will unlink both instances of this person from the family, so you will then have to relink him back into the family (only once this time). You can use either the +p button with the child highlighted or the +c button with one of the parents highlighted to do that. Knowing the child's record number will help you find him again when you go to relink him back into the family. Having the program options set to display the record number of the highlighted person will help you see that both appearances in the same family are both actually the same person. Wayne League