John writes from the unmarried citation thread: "Cheryl, I certainly agree that it is your database. However some people will take the attitude that they should not share this information with others. It is, of course, anyones right to keep their data to themselves. But most people are anxious to share their data with others. I am grateful for all those who share their data with the world. I have been helped greatly by those who share. It makes my work easier. I check the validity of the data I use from others. Checking the validity is much easier than "re-inventing the wheel". I am playing middle-role here, by no means hog whats personally found out by you. BUT be cautious about where your info goes, make sure its someone who reinvestigates it before passing on. I came up, after much difficulty, with some christening dates from pre 1800, dates for two brothers being identical. Census details for 1851 (this in UK) gave a gap of 3 years for birth dates, confirmed as 2/3 years difference for the brothers on a later census. However the very genuine person to whom I passed christening dates on, gave quite legitimately to someone else, and report was written and distributed to family about the "twins". Then the publisher's site went down, so do not know if it was seen and copied by any others, who may now be the proud descendant from a so-called twin. Then of course there are bods who quote an age for a lady as being under whatever the age of her husband, and until shown a copy of the marriage certificate will not accept that at times, and quite frequently, it is the bride to be who is the senior rather than the perspective spouse. Jo. Shropshire UK.

That is certainly not the case, as you can have multiple PAF files open at the same time. It is difficult to diagnose the problem without having the FULL file names, but my guess is that it is an association problem, or the file being clicked is not what she thinks it is. Gary Templeman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeannie" <westfieldfleck-jhf@comcast.net> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:00 AM Subject: [PAF-5] Re: Sharing Info > > It could be that you need to <close> your file in PAF > before you can <open> your friend's file. ... > J.H.Fleck > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <HRETNUH@aol.com> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:03 PM > Subject: Sharing Info > > | Hi, I got great help from everyone on making copies of my paf files to > CD's. > | I was able to do that , get it on another computer. Now I just recieved > a > | CD from a relative of her paf files. The Problem is when it comes up it > says > | familysearch. I click on that and it says paf5, If I click on that it > gives > | me many choices but as a click on those nothing seems to work. The paf5 > | icon just takes me to my paf5. Is there something I'm doing wrong or is > that > | not usable. It seems to maybe her whole paf program. Thanks Becky > | > | ______________________________ > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ >

Half Cousins is a recognized legal term in many state laws. If fact, there are certain states that prohibit the marriage of first cousins but allow marriage of half cousins. Half cousins are defined as those sharing on one set, rather than two sets of the same grandparents. Regarding the "once removed" designation, it is my understanding that this indicates that two individuals are separated by one generation (one a generation older than the other) and would not have any relevance here. Jerry

As I understand it, they were brother and sister, half or otherwise. I had a similar dillema when the children of my first marriage met the children of my second marriage. At first I said they were half brothers/sisters until one of them, smarter than me, pointed out they had the same blood in them and so are brother and sister etc. I don't beleive that adding 'half' changes anything but will be interested to see the flood of ideas on this one. Regards, Rollei (in Australia) Researching: LITTLE, Hibbard, Labies, Harmegnies, Gilbert, Bickford http://www.rolleilittle.com/ >From: "Marie Young" <heartseas@bigpond.com> >To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [PAF-5] What relation? >Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:27:56 +1000 > >Dear Rollie, >Wouldn't we be 1/2 second cousins? or isn't there such a thing? You see, as >I said in my last email, his grandfather was my grandmother's 1/2 brother. >Marie > > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >FreeBMD - Free Access to England and Wales Civil Registration Index >Volunteer as a Transcriber Today! >http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ >

If I'm not mistaken, you are second cousins. Rollei (in Australia) Researching: LITTLE, Hibbard, Labies, Harmegnies, Gilbert, Bickford http://www.rolleilittle.com/ >From: "Marie Young" <heartseas@bigpond.com> >To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [PAF-5] What relation? >Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:30:52 +1000 > >Does anyone know what relation my grandmother's 1/2 brother's grandson and >I >be to each other? >Marie > > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >PAF-5-USERS Mailing List >http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php >

I haven't ever heard of a half-cousin, but why not? There are half-brothers and half sisters, so why not half-cousins. I don't think that a half-cousin would be the same as a cousin once-removed. Tom Sevy in Salt Lake

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Millar" <sm999@tiscali.co.uk> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: RE: [PAF-5] unmarried citation <snip> > The PAF recognised marriage date of "Not Married" can be used when there > is > an absolute certainty of that fact (which I find hard to know when or how > that might be) regarding the parents of any children. <snip> How about when a living relative tells you they know that a certain person had children but never married? An aunt of mine's first husband was Roman Catholic & would not divorce her, so she "lived in sin" with another man for forty years and had six children by him. Terry

When I saw this discussion start I knew it would raise a lot of comment - it certainly has in the past. My view is that PAF like many software packages is most often used by the greater number of users who have not fully explored, learnt or understand the imbedded techniques and features. The result is a number of ad hoc manipulations that ultimately require more maintenance than they are worth. On this particular topic --- If there is no entered marriage details - it mean that you have not found any data related to a marriage or parenthood. Startlingly simple. Whether or not you have looked for any or the extent to which you have looked is a button click away in the recorded notes - and not necessarily "buried" in the notes - the use of note tags greatly simplifies the access to relevant notes - a note tag of "research" or "marriage" would describe in greater detail the extent of research - time spans - locations - records etc. than any cryptic comment in a field not intended for that purpose. Even if you have not found any data on a marriage I always advocate that an approximate date is entered with the recognised prefix of "About"/"Abt" based on ages of parents and children as this give a focus to any research. I am afraid that anyone who rushes off into research on the basis of a pedigree chart or family group sheet or screen shot of PAF without checking what research has previously been done is likely to waste a lot of time and effort. The PAF recognised marriage date of "Not Married" can be used when there is an absolute certainty of that fact (which I find hard to know when or how that might be) regarding the parents of any children. The PAF feature of allowing the selection of an "Unknown" spouse to a marriage or parent partner is once again a startlingly simple choice that sums up the precise situation. It also has the advantage of not creating a PAF individual record which any other entered cryptic name would do - and allows for any subsequently discovered name to be substituted at a later time. But - as has been said before - what ever works for you! Good luck, Stewart -----Original Message----- From: JJasper381@aol.com [mailto:JJasper381@aol.com] Sent: 19 July 2005 17:38 To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] unmarried citation Cheryl, Re your partial msg:<But, I disagree anyway. (g) Putting a flag into the marriage date field where it shows up on the pedigree screen and on the individual screens at least tells you that you've looked and not found. I've wasted a whole bunch of time I couldn't really afford to waste looking for things I've already hunted for twice and didn't find.> I agree completely. Tried to say it earlier but you present my point in a much clearer way. Jerry ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php

Diane, You probably didn't give us enough information to help you yet. Such as do you get an error message and what does it say? In the mean time check to see if the "print to file" box or the "use list" box is checked on those reports that you can not print. On the Print Reports and Lists menu, is there information listed for the starting person? Lynn > > I am unable to print some Reports such as Pedigree Charts and > Family Group Sheets. It is weid, because I can print some families > and others I can not. Is there a reason for this problem???? If > anyone one has an answer PLEASE Help Me. Thanks in advance. Diane > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF @ FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service > http://www.familysearch.org/eng/paf/

Richard Rands wrote: > Firstly, it has happened to me countless times that some vital detail > has appeared on line after many efforts to find it. Saying that > something has been hunted for twice and not found reminds me of many > items I have found after searching many more times than twice. With the > exponential increase in data becoming available digitally, I cannot > imagine a single case where we should stop looking at twice. I am > constantly reminded that we are working in a veritable > hurricane-strength blast of new info that should be constantly mined. I rather resent your implications there. I do my research in original documents or the microfilms thereof. Whether it's on-line is a secondary issue that has little to nothing to do with whether the record exists. > Secondly, many of the comments on this list strike me as being very > possessive of one's database. We hear the comment that this is the way > I want to do it, or I find this method the best for me. It is very true > that there is no official way to handle many situations, and we are > often forced to be creative about recording awkward relationships. But > I worry that we sometimes take a highly myopic view of our work and > forget that our family history doesn't belong to the person recording Again, I disagree. It *is* mine; I'm doing it for my personal amusement and education, not for the (dubious) benefit of mankind. > it. It is my hope that we will approach our work as if we could see it > through the eyes of someone 100 years from now, or as if we are telling > the story of someone long since dead who would really like their life to > come alive to those of us still living. In other words, I believe we > should step back from the details of our family history and take the > "me" out of it, and try to make it universal. > > It is this philosophy that causes me to be reluctant to enter "never > married" anywhere but the notes. There you go: that's the way you want to do it; go for it. I prefer MY way. Cheryl

People tell lies! I know it is shocking. They even lie on documents. And there is the issue that you do not have to go through a ceremony to be considered married. Most places call it common law marriage, you live together for so long and bingo you are married in the eyes of the law. Alan > From: "Terry Steer" <terry.steer@btinternet.com> > Date: 2005/07/19 Tue PM 03:09:25 EDT > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stewart Millar" <sm999@tiscali.co.uk> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 6:32 PM > Subject: RE: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > > <snip> > > > The PAF recognised marriage date of "Not Married" can be used when there > > is > > an absolute certainty of that fact (which I find hard to know when or how > > that might be) regarding the parents of any children. > > <snip> > > How about when a living relative tells you they know that a certain person > had children but never married? An aunt of mine's first husband was Roman > Catholic & would not divorce her, so she "lived in sin" with another man for > forty years and had six children by him. > > Terry > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/ > >

I think most of us are just trying to find ways of recording the truth of relationships to the best of our ability. I agree that when you are researching more than a generation or two ago, you must not make any assumptions about someone having "never married", but if you have a great uncle who told you he never married, I think it is fine to enter "Never Married" in the spouse box or marriage box. However, "Never" is very difinitive, and can't be used carelessly. I only use the term "Not Married" for two people who live (or lived) together, usually when they had children together, but also couples in long-term relationships with no children, although it would be nice to have a "Common-Law" designation in that case. Because marriage is not as popular/traditional as it was just a generation ago, I have the more difficulty in trying to keep the current family relationships documented correctly than the historical ones. For example, I have a nephew who has lived with three different women with whom he had children (no moral judgements, please, I just want to record the truth). The first two relationships ended just before the birth of the children, so I entered the mother of the child in the spouse box and the term "Not Married" in the marriage box. He is now in a more committed relationship with two children which may eventually turn into a marriage, in which case I will easily replace "Not Married" with a marriage date. I see no reason to keep track of any short-term relationships that did not produce children. All I care about is being able to document my families as correctly as possible, but there isn't enough "standardized" terminology or procedure to cover it all, YET . . . Sherrie

Well said, Richard. Thanks! Grace in Georgia, USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Rands" <rrands@cfmc.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > Everyone agrees that something that will avoid wasted time is useful. It > was pointed out that there is no right way to do things. But I have two > additional comments that I'd like to share regarding this issue. > > Firstly, it has happened to me countless times that some vital detail has > appeared on line after many efforts to find it. Saying that something has > been hunted for twice and not found reminds me of many items I have found > after searching many more times than twice. With the exponential increase > in data becoming available digitally, I cannot imagine a single case where > we should stop looking at twice. I am constantly reminded that we are > working in a veritable hurricane-strength blast of new info that should be > constantly mined. > > Secondly, many of the comments on this list strike me as being very > possessive of one's database. We hear the comment that this is the way I > want to do it, or I find this method the best for me. It is very true that > there is no official way to handle many situations, and we are often forced > to be creative about recording awkward relationships. But I worry that we > sometimes take a highly myopic view of our work and forget that our family > history doesn't belong to the person recording it. It is my hope that we > will approach our work as if we could see it through the eyes of someone > 100 years from now, or as if we are telling the story of someone long since > dead who would really like their life to come alive to those of us still > living. In other words, I believe we should step back from the details of > our family history and take the "me" out of it, and try to make it universal. > > It is this philosophy that causes me to be reluctant to enter "never > married" anywhere but the notes. > > Respectfully, > > Richard Rands > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > >

Hi, I got great help from everyone on making copies of my paf files to CD's. I was able to do that , get it on another computer. Now I just recieved a CD from a relative of her paf files. The Problem is when it comes up it says familysearch. I click on that and it says paf5, If I click on that it gives me many choices but as a click on those nothing seems to work. The paf5 icon just takes me to my paf5. Is there something I'm doing wrong or is that not usable. It seems to maybe her whole paf program. Thanks Becky

I am unable to print some Reports such as Pedigree Charts and Family Group Sheets. It is weid, because I can print some families and others I can not. Is there a reason for this problem???? If anyone one has an answer PLEASE Help Me. Thanks in advance. Diane

Cheryl, Re your partial msg:<But, I disagree anyway. (g) Putting a flag into the marriage date field where it shows up on the pedigree screen and on the individual screens at least tells you that you've looked and not found. I've wasted a whole bunch of time I couldn't really afford to waste looking for things I've already hunted for twice and didn't find.> I agree completely. Tried to say it earlier but you present my point in a much clearer way. Jerry

I can see your point, Richard, mostly because I tripped over one of those cases not long ago. The lady lived her entire life in one town and although she did travel, it was never more than a week or two and always with a sibling or two. I nearly fell off the chair when I discovered she had been married nearly 18 months ... never left her father's house, mind, but a real, official, consummated, marriage had occurred. But, I disagree anyway. (g) Putting a flag into the marriage date field where it shows up on the pedigree screen and on the individual screens at least tells you that you've looked and not found. I've wasted a whole bunch of time I couldn't really afford to waste looking for things I've already hunted for twice and didn't find. Cheryl Richard Rands wrote: > > I always ask myself, "does this comment serve any real purpose?" If > someone without a recorded spouse has children in the database, PAF > automatically enters Unknown. I believe that is sufficient information > for that circumstance. If there are no children listed, then I believe > that leaving the spouse blank is appropriate with any comments about > marriages being placed in the notes. If you have the names of both the > father and the mother, but there is no officially recorded date, I > believe blank here is appropriate as well. We just don't know the > circumstances and leaving it blank serves to indicate that you don't > know. Entering something that may be incorrect seems to judgmental and > final. > > Just my thoughts > Richard Rands > > At 01:24 PM 7/18/2005 -0700, Alishea Durham wrote: > >> My thoughts go back to a previous discussion on the >> Married Name field. Some folks have suggested putting >> the spouses full name in this field. I could see >> putting in Unmarried for someone who never did. >> >> >> >> --- FHB39@cs.com wrote: >> >> > In the marriage box instead of the date I put >> > unwed.. >> > Since she had a child, in the spouse space I put >> > unknown since the marriage >> > information is unwed I'm hoping that anyone reading >> > it will realize that the >> > child's father is unknown. This child was born in >> > Bavaria in 1863. His >> > baptismal records in the church records state that >> > he is the bastard son of >> > Catharine. >> > If there had not been any child I would have put >> > none in the spouse box >> > Fran

Cheryl wrote (In response to Richard Rands comment): > > Richard Rands wrote: > > ... > > > > Secondly, many of the comments on this list strike me as being very > > possessive of one's database. We hear the comment that this is the way > > I want to do it, or I find this method the best for me. It is very true > > that there is no official way to handle many situations, and we are > > often forced to be creative about recording awkward relationships. But > > I worry that we sometimes take a highly myopic view of our work and > > forget that our family history doesn't belong to the person recording > > Again, I disagree. It *is* mine; I'm doing it for my personal amusement > and education, not for the (dubious) benefit of mankind. Cheryl, I certainly agree that it is your database. However some people will take the attitude that they should not share this information with others. It is, of course, anyones right to keep their data to themselves. But most people are anxious to share their data with others. I am grateful for all those who share their data with the world. I have been helped greatly by those who share. It makes my work easier. I check the validity of the data I use from others. Checking the validity is much easier than "re-inventing the wheel". If you do share your data, I thank you. If you choose to keep your data private, I respect your right to do that. Aloha, John

Everyone agrees that something that will avoid wasted time is useful. It was pointed out that there is no right way to do things. But I have two additional comments that I'd like to share regarding this issue. Firstly, it has happened to me countless times that some vital detail has appeared on line after many efforts to find it. Saying that something has been hunted for twice and not found reminds me of many items I have found after searching many more times than twice. With the exponential increase in data becoming available digitally, I cannot imagine a single case where we should stop looking at twice. I am constantly reminded that we are working in a veritable hurricane-strength blast of new info that should be constantly mined. Secondly, many of the comments on this list strike me as being very possessive of one's database. We hear the comment that this is the way I want to do it, or I find this method the best for me. It is very true that there is no official way to handle many situations, and we are often forced to be creative about recording awkward relationships. But I worry that we sometimes take a highly myopic view of our work and forget that our family history doesn't belong to the person recording it. It is my hope that we will approach our work as if we could see it through the eyes of someone 100 years from now, or as if we are telling the story of someone long since dead who would really like their life to come alive to those of us still living. In other words, I believe we should step back from the details of our family history and take the "me" out of it, and try to make it universal. It is this philosophy that causes me to be reluctant to enter "never married" anywhere but the notes. Respectfully, Richard Rands

In the Help File for PAF it suggests you can use the words NOT MARRIED in the Date Field for a marriage. I've used this approach for people in my database, but in the notes for the 'marriage' I usually list the sources I searched for a marriage (in case they got married in XYZ and I didn't happen to look there). This works for a couple which had children but were not married. In some marriage records, I have found a marriage date, with a list of children born to that couple also listed (before the marriage). I just enter it as given in the source record; that's pretty self-explanatory. Regina Barry * rmbarry1066@earthlink.net * http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~rbarry4145/index.htm