Haines Brown wrote: > Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > > >>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" >><dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. >> >>The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >>excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >>genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. >> >>Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >>are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. > > > Hugh, it is even more than just a hobby for it is an important tool used > in historiography. From the historian's viewpoint, it is what is > referred to as an "auxiliary science". > > Your comment about the importance of limiting genealogy to bloodlines > struck me as interesting. You seem to imply that some people > (improperly) use the term "family" more broadly than for just blood > relations. Is that what you meant, and why is bloodline the litmus test? > Allow me to some examples that may muddy the waters. Blood lines are the litmus test because non-blood lines such as foster parents and godparents aren't generally responsible for the genetic makeup (or defects) of you or your siblings. Even before DNA, "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" and it was called "in the blood". Genealogy, IOW. Family History is a term that was in the not-yet-forgotten-past used to mean one included tidbits of the "She won 27 blue ribbons at the county fair in 1978" or "he won the greased-pig-catching contest at the Sunday School picnic in 1954" sort. Color tidbits, in other words, which are nice to have but unimportant in providing provenance for one's existance. And, in a broader sense, we're all the "family of man." Cheryl

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" <dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Genealogy is a popular pastime. It is natural to be curious about >one's roots and family history, and genealogy allows all of the >information to be compiled and passed along to future generations. >The internet has proved to be a powerful tool for genealogists, >allowing easier searches of records as well as the sharing of >information between genealogists who share a common line. This article >will discuss some of the common questions surrounding genealogy and >family history that may help you find your ancestors. >What is genealogy? >Genealogy can be defined as the study and recording of one's family >history. The information is recorded in a document known as a family >tree. Information that may be documented in the written record >includes birth, death and marriage dates, names of spouse(s) and >children, and perhaps pertinent historical or medical data. >Why is genealogy important? >We are ultimately the product of those who have gone before us. In >order to understand ourselves better, it is important to understand >where we came from. Additionally, genealogy may be used to find lost >relatives or trace a line of descendants from a well-known >ancestor.... > >http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. Hugh

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:07:03 GMT, Haines Brown <brownh@teufel.hartford-hwp.com> wrote: >Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes: > >> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:18 -0800 (PST), "dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com" >> <dogqruomlrsa@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Genealogy has become a hobby - lots more than just a pasttime. >> >> The term Family History is an abused term - many people use it as an >> excuse to depart from bloodlines and that is not acceptable in >> genealogy. We need to keep the distinction in my opinion. >> >> Genealogy is also full of DNA surprises. I find that my closest MRCAs >> are three different surnames, none Sullivan so far. > >Hugh, it is even more than just a hobby for it is an important tool used >in historiography. From the historian's viewpoint, it is what is >referred to as an "auxiliary science". > >Your comment about the importance of limiting genealogy to bloodlines >struck me as interesting. You seem to imply that some people >(improperly) use the term "family" more broadly than for just blood >relations. Is that what you meant, and why is bloodline the litmus test? >Allow me to some examples that may muddy the waters. > >In the culture in which I happen to live, the term "family" is sometimes >not restricted to blood lines, but can also include god-children, >ex-wives, step-children, spiritual brothers, etc. That is, the word >"family" can refer to any close social affinity and is not limited to >blood relationships. For example, a mature neighboring woman was >expected to be in loco parentis for your children (to monitor, assist, >advise, punish, etc.). Such a relation was apparently common when my >acquaintances were children living in an urban environment. It >suggests that a narrow definition of family might deprive the family of >some of its social significance. > >Another example. In early Medieval Europe, poor children would be >transferred to the household of a better-off family, where they would be >raised and cared for until they reached maturity, and a close >relationship even after that would persist. The term "uncle" could be >used to refer to a non-blood-related older male. To some extent this has >carried over into modern times. I know of a person (19th century U.S.) >whose mother died, and because his father lacked work and had to travel >to find it, the child was dumped upon a farming household for a period >of indenture until his maturity. The lad was part of the farmer's >household/family. When he did reach maturity and acquired his own >household, the census listed two non-related members in it. > >Another example. Early African "slavery" is distinguished from the >proper anthropological definition of slavery in that the war captive was >incorporated into the victor's household and became a real, albeit >lower-status, member of that household. Properly a slave is in principle >not a member of any social community such as a household. As in the >early Medieval Europe example, the more powerful are able to increase >their economic power by artificially enlarging their households (not to >mention doing it through the multiplication of wives). > >In other words, the bloodline restriction for the notion of family seems >more prescriptive than descriptive. What is there about bloodline that >privileges it as a kind of social relation? > >I can think of some reasons why, which have to do with social class. The >early Medieval elite family had charisma that passed along though the >bloodline and was attached to their name, so lineage was important. The >Germanic naming system combined the charismatic names of the two >families in marriage, so that it consisted of two elements. On the other >hand, non-elite had a much looser sense of family, only acquiring a >family name, say, in the 16th century. Even up to quite modern times >there were individuals without family identity (no last name). In >societies in which ruling class power (title or property) had to be kept >concentrated rather than diffused, rules of inheritance were imposed, >such as primogeniture or blood-line succession. So I wonder if a >bloodline prescription may not have a certain social class implication >to it. Interesting comments, but in my view, Genealogy has to do with Genes, ie genetics, hence the attachment to "bloodlines". If you want a term to describe the study of your family unit(s), use something other than "genealogy".... that term is already taken. -- Charlie Hoffpauir http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

Peter J Seymour wrote: > I'm trying to use a gedcom file that has a lot of occurrences of an > unrecognised tag "FREE" at the 1 level under INDI (one per INDI). It > typically occurs in association with BIRT and DEAT. Problem is I can't > figure out what it means and the rest of the data doesn't help either. > The main data seems to be a date. Can anyone shed light on this tag. > Thanks > Peter Suggested possibilities were to do with slavery or with "freedom to marry". As I understand it, a letter of freedom to marry is a letter normally passing between members of the clergy confirming that someone from a different parish is a confirmed church member. It is therefore unlikely to appear as documentation in family history. The suggestion about slavery seemed maybe plausible but didn't seem to make sense in the context of other data. I couldn't find any Gedcom reference to a FREE tag, so I decided to cast the net wider and found the following which fits with the individuals moving from Europe to the USA in the 1600's: Many immigrants did not have the money to pay their passage and they would contract to work for it. They would be indentured for a period and afterwards got a legal document saying they had paid off their debt. They were then "freemen". Also apparently a freeman could be a church member in good standing who had taken a civil oath called a "Freeman's Oath" and was thus allowed to vote and hold public office. (See places such as wiki answers) This seems to be what the tag refers to. Old news to some people I suppose, but you live and learn. Regards Peter

Jack: In reply to the first question, if you mean that you now have two databases, one in BK5 and one in BK6, the only problem will be in entering any new data in both databases all the time. If you mean that you have combined them such that you have the same person in your one database twice, you will have trouble. If you post a new piece of info to John Smith, which one to post it to? If you link the John Smith (BK5) to Mary Smith, his wife (BK6) you will have created a monster because you are cross linking families. For the second question, BK allows you to place the pictures and text files anywhere you like. Go to File, Options and set the paths for these files. It is just where BK will place pictures and text files you add to the program. I keep mine in the Pictures and Text directories so I can easily move/backup the entire BK database. If you change, you will need to change the path on every picture and text file so BK can find them. Don Glenn On Feb 12, 8:02 am, jplasa...@NOSPAMjuno.com (Jack) wrote: > I started my research using BK 5.2 and then acquired BK 6.1.  In the > process of converting from 5.2 to 6.1 I got confused and ended up with > both the 5.2 and 6.1 data in the same file.  Both seem to work ok but > I am wondering if this is a good thing or will I have problems over > time.   > > Another question.   The pictures I use are located in the My Pictures > folder and the Text files are located under My Documents.  I noticed > that when I set up BK 6.1 and converted my data from 5.2, it set up a > Text and Picture folder under the data file folder.  There is nothing > in these two folders and I am wondering why they were set up by the > program.  Is this just a suggestion to put the Text and Picture files > under these folders?

Genealogy is a popular pastime. It is natural to be curious about one's roots and family history, and genealogy allows all of the information to be compiled and passed along to future generations. The internet has proved to be a powerful tool for genealogists, allowing easier searches of records as well as the sharing of information between genealogists who share a common line. This article will discuss some of the common questions surrounding genealogy and family history that may help you find your ancestors. What is genealogy? Genealogy can be defined as the study and recording of one's family history. The information is recorded in a document known as a family tree. Information that may be documented in the written record includes birth, death and marriage dates, names of spouse(s) and children, and perhaps pertinent historical or medical data. Why is genealogy important? We are ultimately the product of those who have gone before us. In order to understand ourselves better, it is important to understand where we came from. Additionally, genealogy may be used to find lost relatives or trace a line of descendants from a well-known ancestor.... http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs

On 2008-02-12, Jack <jplasater@NOSPAMjuno.com> wrote: > Another question. The pictures I use are located in the My Pictures > folder and the Text files are located under My Documents. I noticed > that when I set up BK 6.1 and converted my data from 5.2, it set up a > Text and Picture folder under the data file folder. There is nothing > in these two folders and I am wondering why they were set up by the > program. Is this just a suggestion to put the Text and Picture files > under these folders? The author might prefer those paths to the Windows ones. It's generally a better practice *not* to use the "My ..." folders. Their names are longer, contain spaces, are used by any number of programs as default, and Windows will keep resetting their rights if you change them. Even Microsoft caught on and has started to simplify the directory structure. For instance, they changed the "Documents & Settings" directory to "users" in Vista. Clean, short, ... better. Should have been "home", but hey... :-) -- There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Douglas Adams

In message of 12 Feb, "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote: > "Jack" <jplasater@NOSPAMjuno.com> wrote in message > news:47b1a4d2.175292329@news.so.centurytel.net... > > I am using both BK 5.2 and BK 6.1. Actually I did most of my work in > > 5.2 and then got 6.1. All of my data is on one large file. Recently > > I acquired a GEDCOM file from a relative that has information that I > > don't have. We have 3-4 of the same people on our files but most of > > the new file are people that I do not have. Is there some way I can > > combine these two files without having to retype all of the data from > > one of them into the other? Any help will be appreciated. > > Please don't ask the same question to multiple groups without crossposting > the question. I am against cross-posting. Most newsgroup discussions wander. Even if the original article was relevant to two groups, it soon becomes non-relevant to one or even both groups and clogs up one newsgroup where it can be very foreign matter. Further because there are two groups put together by this technique, you get people on one group exposed to styles, opinion and facts that they are not used to. So they get upset and sometimes create enormous abuse. By far the best technique is to ask raise the point on one group, wait until all responses have died down and if they are not adequate then raise it on the second group. I have even noticed that some people deliberately cross-post when they are trying to create a mare's nest. Cross-posting is almost always bad news and is best avoided. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:02:32 GMT, jplasater@NOSPAMjuno.com (Jack) wrote: >I started my research using BK 5.2 and then acquired BK 6.1. In the >process of converting from 5.2 to 6.1 I got confused and ended up with >both the 5.2 and 6.1 data in the same file. Both seem to work ok but >I am wondering if this is a good thing or will I have problems over >time. > >Another question. The pictures I use are located in the My Pictures >folder and the Text files are located under My Documents. I noticed >that when I set up BK 6.1 and converted my data from 5.2, it set up a >Text and Picture folder under the data file folder. There is nothing >in these two folders and I am wondering why they were set up by the >program. Is this just a suggestion to put the Text and Picture files >under these folders? I would suggest you will be best served by directing your questions directly to John Steed at: Brothers_Keeper@msn.com -- Peter Thomas Researching: Hone - Oxfordshire & Glamorgan; Samuel(s) - Swansea & Llanelli & Gower; Thomas - Morriston & Clydach; Harris - Aberdare & Gloucester, Pope - Shropshire; Parker, Shropshire; Broome - Shropshire. "Reply to address is a spam trap - replies to the group please

I started my research using BK 5.2 and then acquired BK 6.1. In the process of converting from 5.2 to 6.1 I got confused and ended up with both the 5.2 and 6.1 data in the same file. Both seem to work ok but I am wondering if this is a good thing or will I have problems over time. Another question. The pictures I use are located in the My Pictures folder and the Text files are located under My Documents. I noticed that when I set up BK 6.1 and converted my data from 5.2, it set up a Text and Picture folder under the data file folder. There is nothing in these two folders and I am wondering why they were set up by the program. Is this just a suggestion to put the Text and Picture files under these folders?

I am using both BK 5.2 and BK 6.1. Actually I did most of my work in 5.2 and then got 6.1. All of my data is on one large file. Recently I acquired a GEDCOM file from a relative that has information that I don't have. We have 3-4 of the same people on our files but most of the new file are people that I do not have. Is there some way I can combine these two files without having to retype all of the data from one of them into the other? Any help will be appreciated.

"Jack" <jplasater@NOSPAMjuno.com> wrote in message news:47b1a4d2.175292329@news.so.centurytel.net... > I am using both BK 5.2 and BK 6.1. Actually I did most of my work in > 5.2 and then got 6.1. All of my data is on one large file. Recently > I acquired a GEDCOM file from a relative that has information that I > don't have. We have 3-4 of the same people on our files but most of > the new file are people that I do not have. Is there some way I can > combine these two files without having to retype all of the data from > one of them into the other? Any help will be appreciated. Please don't ask the same question to multiple groups without crossposting the question.

salonowiec wrote: > I'm rather new to Genbox, my trouble is: > > 1 - can I make my tree diagram a HTML page? The only solution I see is > saving my tree as .jpg or .png > 2 - why my reports are "formatting resistant"? When creating a html > page no colours are available, there's merely a black-and-white text > or table (some small changes to font are possible). > > Thank you for any hint on Genbox-->html transition... http://www.genbox.com/ why not ask the locals? http://www.thoughtfulcreations.com/forum/ GENBOX-L Mailing List Join the GENBOX mailing list on RootsWeb to discuss Genbox Family History with other users. You can ask questions, suggest new features, and hear about upcoming releases. All messages are sent to everyone who has joined the list. To Join: send an email to GENBOX-L-request@rootsweb.com with the word "subscribe" as the subject line. To Post: after you have joined, send your messages to GENBOX-L@rootsweb.com and they will appear on the mailing list. (This posting address is different than the joining address.) Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

browsing from the top down http://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/rectype/vital/freebmd/bmd.aspx http://content.ancestry.co.uk/iexec/?htx=List&dbid=8964 http://content.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/list.aspx?dbid=8964&path=1951 England & Wales, Birth Index: 1837-1983 Original Images This database contains images of original records. Please choose a month in 1951: Q1-Jan-Feb-Mar Q2-Apr-May-Jun Q3-Jul-Aug-Sep Q4-Oct-Nov-Dec You are here: Search > England & Wales, Birth Index: 1837-1983 > 1951 > Q4-Oct-Nov-Dec England & Wales, Birth Index: 1837-1983 Original Images This database contains images of original records. http://content.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/list.aspx?dbid=8964&path=1951.Q4-Oct-Nov-Dec Please choose the first letter of a last name: A B C D E F G H I J K L http://content.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=8964&iid=ONS_B19514AZ-0694 viewsd big much beter than the fiche http://content.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=8964&path=1951.Q4-Oct-Nov-Dec.L.1&rc=&zp=100 and four baby LAPHAM for my one-name sstudy http://content.ancestry.co.uk/Browse/View.aspx?dbid=8964&path=1951.Q4-Oct-Nov-Dec.L.7 M N O P Q R S T U V W Y =============================== who is it you cannot find? Hugh W @harrisongenealogy.co.uk wrote: > seems OK to me ... > > Bill > > = >> >> For the last 3 evenings I have been trying to bring up on >> ancestry.co.uk the page for UK Births/1951/Quarter 3 without success. >> >> The other quarters in 1951 appear OK but not Q3. >> has anyone else had this problem? >> -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

Jack wrote: > I am using both BK 5.2 and BK 6.1. Actually I did most of my work in > 5.2 and then got 6.1. All of my data is on one large file. Recently > I acquired a GEDCOM file from a relative that has information that I > don't have. We have 3-4 of the same people on our files but most of > the new file are people that I do not have. Is there some way I can > combine these two files without having to retype all of the data from > one of them into the other? Any help will be appreciated. Yes, BUT! BUT FIRST: make a duplicate copy of your file and put it on removable media which you then remove to a different room in the house. We call this the "insurance" or "the self-defeating prophecy" stage. ;) The following is generic procedure for import to any/all programs. Someone familiar with BK's choices might want to fill those in for you. Now. Create a new file and import the GED. Decide which people cross-match with yours and whether you've got EVERYTHING in your file as well. Delete those people, but write down how YOUR people fit into it. (I.e., if your 3 or 4 are siblings, say of whom; if you've a sibling and an uncle and his kids, say that too -- on a scrap of paper). Create a new GED which you name GED2.ged; and import GED2.ged into your BK file, linking things up according to your notes. If you screw it up, delete your BK file, plod into the other room, retrieve the insurance copy, copy it onto your HD, return the insurance to the other room, and repeat from "Now." until you get it right. (g) B'lieve 11x is the current record? Cheryl

Wes Groleau wrote: > Hugh Watkins wrote: >> Wes Groleau wrote: >>> "We don't care what the GEDCOM spec says. You do >>> it OUR way, or you don't do it." >>> >> better use PAF then > > You've got to be kidding! PAF has the _worst_ implementation > of GEDCOM I've ever seen! > I don't care in PAF-space and peer to peer it does not matter the secondary question was a freebie reader if people are too lazy or to mean to learn or inveat in better technology it is not my problem It is quite sensible to run one or even two or three years behind the innovators many WIn98 games are still good fun I expect to make my present set up last about 5 years or more Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

seems OK to me ... Bill ======================================================================== * This Mail was sent WITHOUT attachments* Bill Harrison's Genealogy Pages can be found online at http://www.harrisongenealogy.co.uk Also BMSGH Webmaster - URL = http://www.bmsgh.org The Staffordshire BMD can be found at http://www.staffordshirebmd.org.uk and the West Midlands BMD at http://www.westmidlandsbmd.org.uk ======================================================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "No Spam" <nospam@nospam.com> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.computing To: <gencmp@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:58 PM Subject: ancestry.com/UK Births/1951/Quareter 3 > Hi, > > For the last 3 evenings I have been trying to bring up on > ancestry.co.uk the page for UK Births/1951/Quarter 3 without success. > > The other quarters in 1951 appear OK but not Q3. > has anyone else had this problem? > > David > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GENCMP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

I'm trying to use a gedcom file that has a lot of occurrences of an unrecognised tag "FREE" at the 1 level under INDI (one per INDI). It typically occurs in association with BIRT and DEAT. Problem is I can't figure out what it means and the rest of the data doesn't help either. The main data seems to be a date. Can anyone shed light on this tag. Thanks Peter

I'm rather new to Genbox, my trouble is: 1 - can I make my tree diagram a HTML page? The only solution I see is saving my tree as .jpg or .png 2 - why my reports are "formatting resistant"? When creating a html page no colours are available, there's merely a black-and-white text or table (some small changes to font are possible). Thank you for any hint on Genbox-->html transition...

Hugh Watkins wrote: > Wes Groleau wrote: >> "We don't care what the GEDCOM spec says. You do >> it OUR way, or you don't do it." >> > better use PAF then You've got to be kidding! PAF has the _worst_ implementation of GEDCOM I've ever seen! -- Wes Groleau ------ "The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is they know that most men can see better than they can think." -- James Dobson