Yeah, I know I _could_ switch to Legacy Family Tree, but I have grown somewhat inured to PAF5's peculiarities and don't actually need the stress of the blisters switching would cause. So, next time someone is futzing around with PAF5, could you give some thought to the Possible Problms report? Could we specify WHICH problem we're looking for? And could a sanity check on dates be run? I mean, 8 pages of Possible Problems and the birthdate of 2869 didn't show up??? I don't actually need to know that the relatives in India, all of whom are in my database with the umbrella caste name rather than the myriad subcaste names, largely because we don't know who uses which and when, all have the same last name. Yeah, I know. And it's NOT A PROBLEM. Also NOT A PROBLEM is the great-uncle who died aged 105 or the GGGGGF who was 113 when he died. I can prove the first and legal documents certainly support the 2nd so quit harping on it! And could you USE the Bef or AFT labels in the date field? "born bef 1871 married 1876" doesn't make her 5 when she married! Nor does "died aft 1887" mean her last child, born in 1887, was posthumous. Fixing that will eliminate 3 or 4 pages of that 8page report, and if I had the REAL data, it'd be in there. Geez-Louise. Cheryl -- There should be no attachments on this message, unless I specifically mentioned them above.

Thanks for your vote for PAF over Legacy. I had my PAF database replicate and then I had 2 strokes-- talk about challenge! I'm slowly coming back. Used to type 90 plus words a min---now I hunt and peck with one finger on my right hand. Thank goodness I'm right handed, and I married the Best!!!

Another problem is that you have to put in at least one name. I don't know her name. I finally put in Mrs. /Jones/ because I knew she died before 28 Jan 1937, when her widower remarried, and I wanted to add the death date. Since the new wife belongs to the family I research, I think the program could have made the lady unknown, but with a death date. Lila ----- Original Message ----- From: "singhals" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: 30 December, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: [PAF-5] A much-needed improvement > Yeah, I know I _could_ switch to Legacy Family Tree, but I > have grown somewhat inured to PAF5's peculiarities and don't > actually need the stress of the blisters switching would cause. > > So, next time someone is futzing around with PAF5, could you > give some thought to the Possible Problms report? > > Could we specify WHICH problem we're looking for? And could > a sanity check on dates be run? I mean, 8 pages of Possible > Problems and the birthdate of 2869 didn't show up??? > > I don't actually need to know that the relatives in India, > all of whom are in my database with the umbrella caste name > rather than the myriad subcaste names, largely because we > don't know who uses which and when, all have the same last > name. Yeah, I know. And it's NOT A PROBLEM. > > Also NOT A PROBLEM is the great-uncle who died aged 105 or > the GGGGGF who was 113 when he died. I can prove the first > and legal documents certainly support the 2nd so quit > harping on it! > > And could you USE the Bef or AFT labels in the date field? > "born bef 1871 married 1876" doesn't make her 5 when she > married! Nor does "died aft 1887" mean her last child, born > in 1887, was posthumous. Fixing that will eliminate 3 or 4 > pages of that 8page report, and if I had the REAL data, it'd > be in there. > > Geez-Louise. > > > > Cheryl > > -- > There should be no attachments on this message, unless I > specifically mentioned them above. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Cheryl: Of course there is always the other option. Even though PAF 5 is no longer being updated, Ancestral Quest (from which PAF 5 was created) is being updated. If you were to use AQ to edit your PAF data, you would be able to flag these people as "Not a Problem" (right in your PAF database) so that when you run the problem report in AQ, they will not show up. Nor would you have any "stress of the blisters switching would cause", because you could continue to use PAF, and you'd find that AQ is so much like PAF, that there is virtually no learning curve. And then, since Incline Software is still updating AQ, as you notice things you'd like to see improved, you could send in a request to see if Incline Software will make the change to AQ. Since PAF is no longer being updated, this is your only avenue to work with a PAF-like program, and have the possibility that your suggestions could be acted upon. Gaylon Findlay Incline Software singhals wrote: > Yeah, I know I _could_ switch to Legacy Family Tree, but I > have grown somewhat inured to PAF5's peculiarities and don't > actually need the stress of the blisters switching would cause. > > So, next time someone is futzing around with PAF5, could you > give some thought to the Possible Problms report? > > Could we specify WHICH problem we're looking for? And could > a sanity check on dates be run? I mean, 8 pages of Possible > Problems and the birthdate of 2869 didn't show up??? > > I don't actually need to know that the relatives in India, > all of whom are in my database with the umbrella caste name > rather than the myriad subcaste names, largely because we > don't know who uses which and when, all have the same last > name. Yeah, I know. And it's NOT A PROBLEM. > > Also NOT A PROBLEM is the great-uncle who died aged 105 or > the GGGGGF who was 113 when he died. I can prove the first > and legal documents certainly support the 2nd so quit > harping on it! > > And could you USE the Bef or AFT labels in the date field? > "born bef 1871 married 1876" doesn't make her 5 when she > married! Nor does "died aft 1887" mean her last child, born > in 1887, was posthumous. Fixing that will eliminate 3 or 4 > pages of that 8page report, and if I had the REAL data, it'd > be in there. > > Geez-Louise. > > > > Cheryl > >