The only reasons for putting the fullstops as far as I know are: 1. Something to do with consistancy in transcribing and the software at FreeBMD and double keying. 2. A promise to transcribe the data as is. If the software is based an the accurate transcription of every fullstop, comma, etc, then there is the need to transcribe as is, though I am told that double keying would involve different source, which may not even carry the full stop, though I may have that wrong (David, refresh my memory) Other than the two reasons stated above, there is no reason at all to transcribe full stops. The original handwritten scans didn't carry them; they were put there in later versions. So: perhaps the software can be "rewired" so that full stops have no significance? Then it wouldn't matter if they were transcribed or not. As for the second reason, I doubt if whoever the promise was made to would care in the slightest about full stops. Perhaps they should be approached? We have already broken from the promise to reproduce as is by the insertion of surnames where duplicate surnames are indicated by a line. Perhaps also the software can be "rewired" so that full stops have no significance? Then it wouldn't matter if they were transcribed or not. It would also stop these discussions popping up every six month or so. Steve Gaunt