I can't imagine that the Church would ever create a version of PAF which would acknowledge parents of the same gender. A family as defined by the Church consists of a male father and female mother and their offspring. Obviously there are many variations on this in real life due to deaths, adoptions, etc., but in our eternal lives the ultimate goal is the Church defined family unit. PAF is the Church's software program used to submit names for temple ordinances, including the priesthood ordination for men and sealing of the families. Without a male parent, there can be no sealing of the family, either now or for eternity, so there would be no point in creating what would amount to a "false" family in PAF. Perhaps other genealogy programs which aren't concerned with temple ordinances might attempt to create some form of a parental relationship which allows for same gender parents, but I don't see that ever happening with PAF. I don't think the fact that some civil jurisdictions have legalized same gender "marriages" has any affect on whether the Church would alter its program to accommodate such liaisons. Although there are a variety of accommodations in PAF for keeping track of today's varying lifestyles, multiple marriages, blended families, etc. it does have to be boiled down finally to a child being sealed into one family only consisting of a mother (female) and father (male). In situations where the father is not known, my understanding is that the sealing is done with the grandfather as the priesthood connection, although I'm not quite sure how that is entered. But the child has to be sealed to the priesthood also, and if both parents were female that could not happen. My suggestion would be copious notes. Obviously nothing is going to happen with these types of relationships while the parties are living, as the "parents" could not maintain this relationship and be members of the Church, nor be sealed in the temple. It's unfortunate for the child. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Jones at home" <alanjones10@cox.net> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:30 PM Subject: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF ? > > I am not raising the moral or political issues of gay marriage, > please don't address that arena. > > BUT the fact is we have people who have family members > who are gay. > AND the fact is that some jurisditions make it legal for gays to marry. > > Currently PAF 5.2.18 forces a spouse to be of the opposite gender. > There is no way to force it to be both men or both women. > > Are there any plans to allow for these relationships in a future > edition of PAF ? > > For those using PAF, who might have had this situation, > how do you record it? Perhaps just in the notes? > > And then, what if they both adopt a child? > > Alan > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > >

Alan, I can't even get rid of "unknown" for a non-husband to my single mother (adopted two children) niece. I would like her to stand alone. Can that *even* be done in PAF? Elaine Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go. --Oscar Wilde Hello Alan On Thursday, May 26, 2005, you wrote > I am not raising the moral or political > issues of gay marriage, > please don't address that arena. > BUT the fact is we have people who have family members > who are gay. > AND the fact is that some jurisditions make > it legal for gays to marry. > Currently PAF 5.2.18 forces a spouse to be > of the opposite gender. > There is no way to force it to be both men or both women. > Are there any plans to allow for these > relationships in a future > edition of PAF ? > For those using PAF, who might have had this situation, > how do you record it? Perhaps just in the notes? > And then, what if they both adopt a child? > Alan

Harry Lazarus wrote: > I agree with Richard Rand that any submission can furnish a clue. However it > would be nice if the submitter would cite the source of the information > submitted. This is true of Family Search and other genealogical sites. > Harry Maybe it's me -- lots of stuff *is* -- but some of the "sources" I receive aren't worth the paper to print them on. "WFT #432" for instance, or "www.OneBigFamily.com" And then there're the people who want the sources you provide them explained "What's Liber 3 folio 358 mean?" or justified, "So, why did you look in the X county records? They lived in Y county, are you sure it's the same family?" I'm beginning to get really fond of "Private Communication." If it's good enough to nuclear physics, it's good enough for genealogy. (g) Cheryl

I agree with Richard Rand that any submission can furnish a clue. However it would be nice if the submitter would cite the source of the information submitted. This is true of Family Search and other genealogical sites. Harry

I am not raising the moral or political issues of gay marriage, please don't address that arena. BUT the fact is we have people who have family members who are gay. AND the fact is that some jurisditions make it legal for gays to marry. Currently PAF 5.2.18 forces a spouse to be of the opposite gender. There is no way to force it to be both men or both women. Are there any plans to allow for these relationships in a future edition of PAF ? For those using PAF, who might have had this situation, how do you record it? Perhaps just in the notes? And then, what if they both adopt a child? Alan

I added several custom events to one of my Individual forms. When they were out of the sequence I wanted, and before I had added any information to them, I could use the Cancel feature to get rid of the event, and then reenter it again,-- since the event being added is always added to the end of the list. But I was wondering how to either rearrange the sequence of the custom events or if you needed another event of the same kind ( such as another Residence event) how can that be done when you already have data on the form. I find that all the custom events I add are put at the end of the list. A second related question--if I create a custom template, is there a way to transfer the data I already have on an Individual form to my custom template, or do I have to reenter all those data again? Thanks for your help, Helen

Regarding the lack of documentation, sources, notes, etc., in the various files you find at familysearch.org., I would like to weigh in with my personal experience. About ten years back when I first started going after information on my family, I was grateful to find some of their names listed in the old Ancestral File database. And I did not understand and recognize the importance of documentation. Ignorant as I was, I submitted my mother's line and my father's line to the AF, after getting permission from those who were living and who would be included in any degree. This submission is full of errors. And, if you recall, notes and sources could not be included in these submissions, even if I'd been smart enough to have them! (Several years later and much more aware of documentation, I made submissions to the PRF which included my notes and sources. Is it all proven? Of course not but I continue to work on it and will make additional submissions as I uncover errors.) My point in all this is that had I not made my initial submission with all its errors to the AF, I would have missed making contact with other researchers who found my name there and contacted me. So let's be grateful for what we find, be kind to those of us who aren't yet perfect and continue to learn from, and share with, each other. Isn't that what PAF was created for? Beverly - Mailto:kngsldy@cableone.net Families are Forever!

Hello Helen, I don't think you can rearrange the order of how custom events are displayed in the Individual form, but why do you care? The Individual form is nothing more than the data entry screen. You can control how they are printed in a custom report, and that is where it seems to me you should care. When you create a custom template, you are not creating a different form in the database. Think of the templates, including the default template, as a window into the data in your database. If you create a custom template, you are creating a window into your data with the items you have not included being masked from your view. So the straight forward answer, is No. You do not have to reenter all the data. If you create a custom template that contains only the RIN, sex and name, when you use that template, every time you click on an individual, you will only see the RIN, sex and name. If you try to add a new individual from your custom template, you will only be able to add the name and sex and all the other field will be left blank... because you have masked your view of them. In any case, I think the best paradigm to think of for templates is a window into your database. Richard Rands At 04:13 PM 5/26/2005, Helen W Hamilton wrote: >I added several custom events to one of my Individual forms. When they >were out of the sequence I wanted, and before I had added any information >to them, I could use the Cancel feature to get rid of the event, and then >reenter it again,-- since the event being added is always added to the end >of the list. But I was wondering how to either rearrange the sequence of >the custom events or if you needed another event of the same kind ( such >as another Residence event) how can that be done when you already have >data on the form. I find that all the custom events I add are put at the >end of the list. > >A second related question--if I create a custom template, is there a way >to transfer the data I already have on an Individual form to my custom >template, or do I have to reenter all those data again? > >Thanks for your help, >Helen > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/

Take heart..... AF will someday soon be blended into a new database, (making the need to keep AF go away) and in that new system we should be able to make corrections to the data that was originally in AF. > > From: aderynyto@shaw.ca > Date: 2005/05/26 Thu PM 03:32:48 EDT > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI > > > > Richard Rands wrote: > > Hi folks, > > As the primary author of the book, Family History Documentation > > Guidelines, it is one of my main frustrations to encounter information > > that is undocumented and/or incorrect. I spend a lot of time trying to > > teach people to do good documentation. I bill myself as a documentation > > evangelist. So I think I can understand the feelings about bad > > information that has been expressed in this thread. > > > > However, it seems to me that we should consider the fact that if people > > did not make any information available until it is proven to be 100% > > correct, we probably would not have nearly as many clues, leads, places > > to start, or hunches to go on as we do by having the volumes of data > > available to us.......... > > Hi all: > > I take heart from Richard's comments. Some time ago, and after several > years of research, I submitted my family details to the Ancestral File. > It has proved very profitable as a number of people have contacted me > and exchanged information. > > However, it is no longer possible to correct the Ancestral File. I now > know that there are a number of errors in what I submitted, most of them > minor, and lots of new information and better sources that I did not > have when I originally submitted. > > This is frustrating to me as I sometimes have to explain to contacts > that the information has changed and they reply that they saw it on the > AF (implying that it must be true). > > Jean Gilson > Winnipeg, Canada > > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/05 > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service > http://www.familysearch.org/ > >

Richard Rands wrote: > Hi folks, > As the primary author of the book, Family History Documentation > Guidelines, it is one of my main frustrations to encounter information > that is undocumented and/or incorrect. I spend a lot of time trying to > teach people to do good documentation. I bill myself as a documentation > evangelist. So I think I can understand the feelings about bad > information that has been expressed in this thread. > > However, it seems to me that we should consider the fact that if people > did not make any information available until it is proven to be 100% > correct, we probably would not have nearly as many clues, leads, places > to start, or hunches to go on as we do by having the volumes of data > available to us.......... Hi all: I take heart from Richard's comments. Some time ago, and after several years of research, I submitted my family details to the Ancestral File. It has proved very profitable as a number of people have contacted me and exchanged information. However, it is no longer possible to correct the Ancestral File. I now know that there are a number of errors in what I submitted, most of them minor, and lots of new information and better sources that I did not have when I originally submitted. This is frustrating to me as I sometimes have to explain to contacts that the information has changed and they reply that they saw it on the AF (implying that it must be true). Jean Gilson Winnipeg, Canada -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/05

The whole issue of maintaining a worldwide lineage-linked database is a thorny one. In my meetings with the developers of the future system under development in Salt Lake City, we have discussed the problem at length. They fully understand the need for there to be varying opinions about the details for a given individual and a pedigree, so they are planning to allow those variations to be managed and accessible. The plan is to make it possible for the submitter of each variation to post the associated source documentation to substantiate their claims and also possible for users to evaluate each opinion and decide for themselves which variation is the most accurate. Richard Rands

Well said and I am of the same opinion. "Be happy with what you get for nothing and try to improve on it." Ross GH Cotton, Burlington ON CAN 905)639-2929 Genealogy of the COTTON surname is my Enigma. I haven't sent an attachment if the details are not mentioned above. Check out my Genealogy Web Page at www.skylinc.net/~rgcotton GOONS member responsible for tracking the family name COTTON, #1437 Coordinator for Cotton DNA testing Project, Worldwide ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Rands To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI Hi folks, As the primary author of the book, Family History Documentation Guidelines, it is one of my main frustrations to encounter information that is undocumented and/or incorrect. I spend a lot of time trying to teach people to do good documentation. I bill myself as a documentation evangelist. So I think I can understand the feelings about bad information that has been expressed in this thread. However, it seems to me that we should consider the fact that if people did not make any information available until it is proven to be 100% correct, we probably would not have nearly as many clues, leads, places to start, or hunches to go on as we do by having the volumes of data available to us. We all know that even the most primary of sources can have hideous errors. My mother-in-law is listed as a male in the census record when she was an infant. I can go on and on about how normally good sources have been misinterpreted, so I find myself being much more cautious about criticizing information submitted by others. There was a time when I was not as conscientious about accuracy as I have become, and I appreciate the patience my mentors had with me. A good scientist continues his or her research to refine their understanding of their field, but they are not very popular if they criticize the work of those who came before them that laid the foundation of where they are now. Just my personal opinion. Richard Rands SV-CGG ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Search http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=PAF-5-USERS

Hi folks, As the primary author of the book, Family History Documentation Guidelines, it is one of my main frustrations to encounter information that is undocumented and/or incorrect. I spend a lot of time trying to teach people to do good documentation. I bill myself as a documentation evangelist. So I think I can understand the feelings about bad information that has been expressed in this thread. However, it seems to me that we should consider the fact that if people did not make any information available until it is proven to be 100% correct, we probably would not have nearly as many clues, leads, places to start, or hunches to go on as we do by having the volumes of data available to us. We all know that even the most primary of sources can have hideous errors. My mother-in-law is listed as a male in the census record when she was an infant. I can go on and on about how normally good sources have been misinterpreted, so I find myself being much more cautious about criticizing information submitted by others. There was a time when I was not as conscientious about accuracy as I have become, and I appreciate the patience my mentors had with me. A good scientist continues his or her research to refine their understanding of their field, but they are not very popular if they criticize the work of those who came before them that laid the foundation of where they are now. Just my personal opinion. Richard Rands SV-CGG

This is all very well and good, BUT, I have had people get cranky when contacting them and asking them to supply information. (Not too many; but some.) I think some people just like the idea of seeing their name up there as submitters but don't want to go any further. Has anyone else experienced this problem? If you dont want to help, please don't leave leave your contact details. Rollei (from Australia) Researching: LITTLE, Hibbard, Labies, Harmegnies, Gilbert, Bickford http://www.rolleilittle.com/ please sign my guestbook <Snip> AND it gives you the person who submitted it, so you can get it directly from them via email. <snip>

I have tried to contact submitters for further information and been ignored. But on the other hand I found some serious misinformation and sent a letter about it to the submitter and gave a source citing page #s etc., ( a Pulitzer winning biography), I never received an acknowledgement but did notice that eventually the errors were corrected. I find the misinformation on there more upsetting. I find it very frustrating not being able to contact the submitter to give them a source for the correct information. Fran

Sorry if this is a repeat....something went weird so I don't know if my first email was sent of not. My fingers are getting tired so this will be the short version of the story. I am a venter from way back. It does no good. I still keep my leaders informed (one member of the stake presidency referred to "Alan's zingers") but instead of waiting on them, I go ahead to find a solution that does not require the church leaders to do anything. I got church members to donate funds to buy the familysearch CDs for a ward house that has not FHC. I got computers donated, enough for both the FHC and a FH training room in a ward house. I got volunteers to set them up in networks, and the list goes on.... Church members often are willing to help if they know there is a need. Past church directives were at one time misunderstood by many to mean "you can't tell people what you need", that is wrong. You can tell people. You just can't have a Bishop call a member and assign them to donate something. I checked! While it has it's frustrations too, I find this way far more satisfying. > From: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> > Date: 2005/05/25 Wed PM 06:14:31 EDT > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI > > Unless Family Search has changed its resources and I haven't noticed, the > PRF online is only an index. It doesn't give you any information at all > other than CD # and record #. When I have been able to view PAF files for a > relative, there usually has been either notes or family links, etc. If all > you have to go on is the FamilySearch PAF index, you have no way of knowing > if there is other information. > > I have no faith in our FHC getting the CDs at anytime. As for Ohana's > Insight, our former computer person did actually get the initial program, > but never updated it, so it's useless because we cannot use it to check for > ordinances. > > We now supposedly have a new computer person, but I haven't seen anything > changed and it's been months. We cannot use flash drives because the > computers have Windows 98 and each computer has to have the drivers > downloaded for every kind of flash drive there is, although supposedly the > computer guy was going to upgrade to 2000 which has all the drivers so we > could use the flash drives. But nothing has been done. > > I'm sorry to vent; this has nothing to do with PAF, but I'm just tired of > dealing with outdated equipment and resources. And then we wonder why no > one comes to the FHC. > > Linda > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <alanjones10@cox.net> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI > > > > Most of the PRF information is available on the website FamilySearch.org. > > AND it gives you the person who submitted it, so you can get it directly > > from them via email. > > > > As far as the PRF CDs, I was told that the Church was sending them free to > > all FHCs. If true, your FHC could get them if they wanted to for free. > > > > Regarding the little extra info that might be on the CDs, remember that if > > people did not include such data, it will not be there. AND we, people, > > are very bad about including all that data. > > > > Alan > > > >> > >> From: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> > >> Date: 2005/05/25 Wed PM 01:37:12 EDT > >> To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > >> Subject: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI > >> > >> I have a very grumpy reason for not submitting my data to the PRF. With > >> ancestral file,the info was available, first to FHCs before the internet, > >> then online once FamilySearch came online. Pedigree Resource File comes > >> only on CDs that have to be purchased. Our Stake FHC only has up to disk > >> 30-something. Even those were purchased privately by stake members who > >> wanted to"build up" the collection, but have not done so recently. I'd > >> have to go to the regional FHC which is something I just can't do on a > >> regular basis. It seems that whenever I do get a hit on the PRF index, > >> it's up in the 60s or 80s. I do want to buy the entire collection for my > >> use, but it's pricey and other more urgent expenses keep coming up. So > >> I'm rather grumpy that we are urged to submit our information to this, > >> but have to pay out in order to see it. Even rootsweb lets you look at > >> others' submitted family histories for free. > >> > >> And, I'm not one who complains about not having free access to > >> genealogical records; just complaining that one can only see the records > >> if they have access to the CDs. If they were automatically supplied to > >> my stake FHC like the AF ones were, or online, I wouldn't fuss. > >> > >> Linda > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Alan Whitcomb > >> To: Linda > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:55 PM > >> Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI > >> > >> > >> This gives us more reasons to submit our data to the Pedigree Resource > >> File, and to encourage our friends to do this as well. > >> > >> > >> > >> ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > >> RootsWeb > >> http://www.rootsweb.com/ > >> > >> > > > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > > > > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > AVG Anti-Virus Users > Disable the 'Certify outgoing messages' option via the E-mail Scanner tab. > >

Linda wrote: >I have a very grumpy reason for not submitting my data to the PRF. With ancestral file,the info was available, first to FHCs before the internet, then online once FamilySearch came online. Pedigree Resource File comes only on CDs that have to be purchased. Our Stake FHC only has up to disk 30-something. Even those were purchased privately by stake members who wanted to"build up" the collection, but have not done so recently. I'd have to go to the regional FHC which is something I just can't do on a regular basis. It seems that whenever I do get a hit on the PRF index, it's up in the 60s or 80s. I do want to buy the entire collection for my use, but it's pricey and other more urgent expenses keep coming up. So I'm rather grumpy that we are urged to submit our information to this, but have to pay out in order to see it. Even rootsweb lets you look at others' submitted family histories for free. > >And, I'm not one who complains about not having free access to genealogical records; just complaining that one can only see the records if they have access to the CDs. If they were automatically supplied to my stake FHC like the AF ones were, or online, I wouldn't fuss. > >Linda > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alan Whitcomb > To: Linda > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:55 PM > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI > > > This gives us more reasons to submit our data to the Pedigree Resource File, and to encourage our friends to do this as well. > > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >RootsWeb >http://www.rootsweb.com/ > > >Alan; > > I understand your frustration. At our FHC we have about the first 80 CDs of the PRF file. Our resources are limited. There is a solution. The program PRF Magnet will search the PRF Index on-line. From that index it will then compile pedigrees or family groups and it will generate a GEDCOM file of that information. I have not personally used this program. I have talked to several people who have seen demonstrations. Both of them then bought the program. It is available from ohanasoftware.com. Richard L. Halliday West Linn, Oregon (where we received 240% of the normal amount of rainfall this May)

Unless Family Search has changed its resources and I haven't noticed, the PRF online is only an index. It doesn't give you any information at all other than CD # and record #. When I have been able to view PAF files for a relative, there usually has been either notes or family links, etc. If all you have to go on is the FamilySearch PAF index, you have no way of knowing if there is other information. I have no faith in our FHC getting the CDs at anytime. As for Ohana's Insight, our former computer person did actually get the initial program, but never updated it, so it's useless because we cannot use it to check for ordinances. We now supposedly have a new computer person, but I haven't seen anything changed and it's been months. We cannot use flash drives because the computers have Windows 98 and each computer has to have the drivers downloaded for every kind of flash drive there is, although supposedly the computer guy was going to upgrade to 2000 which has all the drivers so we could use the flash drives. But nothing has been done. I'm sorry to vent; this has nothing to do with PAF, but I'm just tired of dealing with outdated equipment and resources. And then we wonder why no one comes to the FHC. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: <alanjones10@cox.net> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI > Most of the PRF information is available on the website FamilySearch.org. > AND it gives you the person who submitted it, so you can get it directly > from them via email. > > As far as the PRF CDs, I was told that the Church was sending them free to > all FHCs. If true, your FHC could get them if they wanted to for free. > > Regarding the little extra info that might be on the CDs, remember that if > people did not include such data, it will not be there. AND we, people, > are very bad about including all that data. > > Alan > >> >> From: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> >> Date: 2005/05/25 Wed PM 01:37:12 EDT >> To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI >> >> I have a very grumpy reason for not submitting my data to the PRF. With >> ancestral file,the info was available, first to FHCs before the internet, >> then online once FamilySearch came online. Pedigree Resource File comes >> only on CDs that have to be purchased. Our Stake FHC only has up to disk >> 30-something. Even those were purchased privately by stake members who >> wanted to"build up" the collection, but have not done so recently. I'd >> have to go to the regional FHC which is something I just can't do on a >> regular basis. It seems that whenever I do get a hit on the PRF index, >> it's up in the 60s or 80s. I do want to buy the entire collection for my >> use, but it's pricey and other more urgent expenses keep coming up. So >> I'm rather grumpy that we are urged to submit our information to this, >> but have to pay out in order to see it. Even rootsweb lets you look at >> others' submitted family histories for free. >> >> And, I'm not one who complains about not having free access to >> genealogical records; just complaining that one can only see the records >> if they have access to the CDs. If they were automatically supplied to >> my stake FHC like the AF ones were, or online, I wouldn't fuss. >> >> Linda >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Alan Whitcomb >> To: Linda >> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI >> >> >> This gives us more reasons to submit our data to the Pedigree Resource >> File, and to encourage our friends to do this as well. >> >> >> >> ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >> RootsWeb >> http://www.rootsweb.com/ >> >> > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > >

Hi Folks, I am using PAF 5.2.18.0 and am just starting to add multimedia to my records. I have created a separate folder just for multimedia with subfolders for each main family name group and a folder for other names or documents. My problem (or wish) is to add multimedia to marriages. PAF 5 does not allow this. Has there been a fix or update to correct this? It seems to be a reasonable request, is there a technical reason for not providing this feature? Has anyone found or developed a work around for this? Thanks for any replies, Bud L

Most of the PRF information is available on the website FamilySearch.org. AND it gives you the person who submitted it, so you can get it directly from them via email. As far as the PRF CDs, I was told that the Church was sending them free to all FHCs. If true, your FHC could get them if they wanted to for free. Regarding the little extra info that might be on the CDs, remember that if people did not include such data, it will not be there. AND we, people, are very bad about including all that data. Alan > > From: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> > Date: 2005/05/25 Wed PM 01:37:12 EDT > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PAF-5] PRF/was No Source Information given in IGI > > I have a very grumpy reason for not submitting my data to the PRF. With ancestral file,the info was available, first to FHCs before the internet, then online once FamilySearch came online. Pedigree Resource File comes only on CDs that have to be purchased. Our Stake FHC only has up to disk 30-something. Even those were purchased privately by stake members who wanted to"build up" the collection, but have not done so recently. I'd have to go to the regional FHC which is something I just can't do on a regular basis. It seems that whenever I do get a hit on the PRF index, it's up in the 60s or 80s. I do want to buy the entire collection for my use, but it's pricey and other more urgent expenses keep coming up. So I'm rather grumpy that we are urged to submit our information to this, but have to pay out in order to see it. Even rootsweb lets you look at others' submitted family histories for free. > > And, I'm not one who complains about not having free access to genealogical records; just complaining that one can only see the records if they have access to the CDs. If they were automatically supplied to my stake FHC like the AF ones were, or online, I wouldn't fuss. > > Linda > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alan Whitcomb > To: Linda > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:55 PM > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] No Source Information given in IGI > > > This gives us more reasons to submit our data to the Pedigree Resource File, and to encourage our friends to do this as well. > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/ > >