Hi David, As dave has implied, we haven't ignored the discussion. In fact, quite the opposite. As long as the database can handle the change (and that is a serious matter) then we will look seriously at saying the period is optional. It would be silly of us to give the answer tho before we have checked things out. As you might imagine, things have been fairly fraught recently with the Ancestry announcement and that has taken our focus a bit. We are dealing with it and will give an answer as soon as we can... Cheers Graham David Gray wrote: > > In a (probably) vain attempt to help you to understand, > > > 4) If you believe that any discussion that ultimately ends up not > coming to a conclusion > > that you agree with is a waste of time, then I really can't help. > > The reason for my earlier posting was not to continue to try to persuade you > (you cannot persuade people who are not open to persuasion) but to point out > that you had allowed the discussion to continue, knowing that you had no > intention of even considering any change. > > David Gray > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Mayall" <[email protected]> > To: "David Gray" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 10:32 AM > Subject: Re: Period Drama > > > David Gray wrote: > > > > > > On 21st September, Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > > > >FWIW, I am at present somewhat persuaded of the > > > >merits of this argument, and I'm going to spend a > > > >couple of days looking at some images. > > > > > > >This is despite the fact that life would be > > > >easier for me if I stuck to the present line, and > > > >told those who were advised to omit the periods > > > >to complain to those who gave them the advice :-) > > > > > > On 30th September Graham Hart wrote: > > > > > > >We had people awayfor the past few weeks .. we should be back > toa > > > full > > > >complement this week and so we willtry to get this sorted out > > > >definiteively and let you know. > > > > > > On 21st October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > > > >We are busy evaluating how many files have been affected by the > > > >confusion caused by unofficial policies being developed. Once > we > > > have > > > >worked out how best to fix the problem caused, we will offer > > > further > > > >advice. > > > > > > On 22nd October Dave Mayall wrote: > > > > > > >The position is that failing to include a period that is in the > > > index > > > >is WRONG. We are looking into how we can deal with the large > number > > > of > > > >incorrect files that already exist. It isn't something that you > can > > > >choose. > > > > > > It seems from this last message that all the previous correspondence on > the > > > subject has been a complete waste of time. > > > > There are times when I think that I should give up on actually providing > > informative responses to queries. I could just as easily say "We are > looking into > > this and will say nothing until we have decided! > > > > In a (probably vain) attempt to explain the position, I will try and set > it out. > > > > 1) Omitting to transcribe the period is not typing what you see, so it is > in a > > strict sense WRONG. > > > > > -- > > Dave Mayall > > > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp