Elaine, I think your case is one of those extreme exceptions, perfectly legitimate but not fitting any pre-existing template. How about creating a person for the father figure, named "Not Yet Known" or some variation? The program does not care what is put in as a name. And for all we know, either in this life or the next, your niece may find an eternal companion who will be a father to her children. So his name is "not yet known", rather than the pointing finger "Unknown". Unfortunately, the term 'unknown' was probably used only to indicate that the program did not yet have the information on the person's identity, but because there are so many real life situations where the biological fathers are not known, it comes across in a more negative manner. Best wishes to your niece who has opened her heart and home to these children. Even with 2 parents it's not easy to take on the challenges often attendant with adoptions. (All 3 of my kids are adopted.) She will surely be blessed. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> To: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> Cc: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:58 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids > back to the foundling home that got rid of them, > but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she > isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, > didn't personally have these illegitimate > children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN > husband tag is an annoyance. > > I am doing a "family" tree, so adoptions are in it > big-time. I am not doing a biological *only* > blood line hand-me-down some money or title > inheritance tree <smile>. > > Linda, I did not take offense. I have NO idea how > or if I can forcibly get rid of "unknown" when > there are adoptions by a single parent, male or > female. But it would be nicer than that ugly > condemning finger that seems to point out that > something is wrong or missing (and I suppose it is > for the LDS). I guess I primarily think that > precisely because I am not preparing a biological > bloodline database. So I am frustrated and tagged > on to this thread for that reason. > > Of course, as I said, she cold give the foundlings > back and see if a traditional family picks them up > and then I wouldn't have this problem. Ah, now, I > am getting bitter with my frustration over the > issue. I'll look around to see if any other > programs accommodate these new modern parental > associations. > > Elaine > > Research: What I'm doing, when I don't know > what I'm doing. > > Hello Linda > > On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote > >> Elaine, > >> I regret that my remarks may have in some way >> offended you. That was not my >> intent. PAF is an excellent program, >> although other programs have some >> features that I wish were also incorporated >> in PAF. There is no reason for >> you to change your use of a genealogy program >> simply because you are not >> LDS. The program can be used equally well by >> both members and non-members. > >> Stewart Millar in another post has some >> excellent suggestions for dealing >> with non-traditional genealogical issues. > >> Linda > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> >> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM >> Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay >> marriages in PAF--LDS content > > >>>I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the >>> program. So the question wasn't totally >>> unreasonable since I feel certain there are many >>> here like me and that I am not the only unchurched >>> member on board this mailing list. >>> >>> I use other programs as well, but have always used >>> PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some >>> adjustments. >>> >>> Elaine >>> > >

Ummm, it kinda sounds as if the rest you haven't discovered the back-door here, so ... Genealogy starts with YOU and goes backward. If you do your data-entry the same way, some of these problems vanish magically. (g) It is possible to add individual (Shay S 'Adopted/) as an INDIVIDUAL! Then you can click on her and say "add Parent" and it will allow you to add anyone in the database as a parent (Singh L. /person/), does not create a marriage record and often doesn't even show "Unknown" in the spouse slot. OTOH, there does not appear to be a way to then add a spouse for Singh without getting Shay attached to that spouse /or/ creating a "2nd marriage" situation. Thing is, as someone else mentions, the data-model for PAF is Husband-Wife-kiddlies, just as I-10 goes from FL to Calif; if you want to go to Chicago, you've gotta change freeways somewhere around Mississippi, because there's no chance I-10 is gonna change its route to be accommodating. If PAF's data-model is consistently failing you, it may be time to change programs ... perhaps to one which is NOT lineage-linked (TMG is event-linked, for instance) would be more flexible and meet more of your current needs. Cheryl Linda wrote: > Elaine, > > I think your case is one of those extreme exceptions, perfectly > legitimate but not fitting any pre-existing template. How about > creating a person for the father figure, named "Not Yet Known" or some > variation? The program does not care what is put in as a name. And for > all we know, either in this life or the next, your niece may find an > eternal companion who will be a father to her children. So his name is > "not yet known", rather than the pointing finger "Unknown". > Unfortunately, the term 'unknown' was probably used only to indicate > that the program did not yet have the information on the person's > identity, but because there are so many real life situations where the > biological fathers are not known, it comes across in a more negative > manner. > > Best wishes to your niece who has opened her heart and home to these > children. Even with 2 parents it's not easy to take on the challenges > often attendant with adoptions. (All 3 of my kids are adopted.) She > will surely be blessed. > > Linda > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> > To: "Linda" <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> > Cc: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 7:58 PM > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF--LDS content > > >> Well I could suggest that my niece give the kids >> back to the foundling home that got rid of them, >> but I think that's a bit harsh. However, she >> isn't married, probably doesn't intend to marry, >> didn't personally have these illegitimate >> children, and the inability to remove that UNKNOWN >> husband tag is an annoyance. >> >> I am doing a "family" tree, so adoptions are in it >> big-time. I am not doing a biological *only* >> blood line hand-me-down some money or title >> inheritance tree <smile>. >> >> Linda, I did not take offense. I have NO idea how >> or if I can forcibly get rid of "unknown" when >> there are adoptions by a single parent, male or >> female. But it would be nicer than that ugly >> condemning finger that seems to point out that >> something is wrong or missing (and I suppose it is >> for the LDS). I guess I primarily think that >> precisely because I am not preparing a biological >> bloodline database. So I am frustrated and tagged >> on to this thread for that reason. >> >> Of course, as I said, she cold give the foundlings >> back and see if a traditional family picks them up >> and then I wouldn't have this problem. Ah, now, I >> am getting bitter with my frustration over the >> issue. I'll look around to see if any other >> programs accommodate these new modern parental >> associations. >> >> Elaine >> >> Research: What I'm doing, when I don't know >> what I'm doing. >> >> Hello Linda >> >> On Friday, May 27, 2005, you wrote >> >>> Elaine, >> >> >>> I regret that my remarks may have in some way >>> offended you. That was not my >>> intent. PAF is an excellent program, >>> although other programs have some >>> features that I wish were also incorporated >>> in PAF. There is no reason for >>> you to change your use of a genealogy program >>> simply because you are not >>> LDS. The program can be used equally well by >>> both members and non-members. >> >> >>> Stewart Millar in another post has some >>> excellent suggestions for dealing >>> with non-traditional genealogical issues. >> >> >>> Linda >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ETM" <etm1935@yahoo.com> >>> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:45 PM >>> Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay >>> marriages in PAF--LDS content >> >> >> >>>> I am not LDS but have always enjoyed using the >>>> program. So the question wasn't totally >>>> unreasonable since I feel certain there are many >>>> here like me and that I am not the only unchurched >>>> member on board this mailing list. >>>> >>>> I use other programs as well, but have always used >>>> PAF as my main program, perhaps I should make some >>>> adjustments. >>>> >>>> Elaine >>>> >> >> > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List > http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php > >