Joe - apologies for sending this via the public-PAF notice board but as you can see from the jargon on top of my message below, I have had trouble using your email address from two of my email addresses ---- maybe you have a spam blocker set to block unrecognised email addresses? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:Mailer-Daemon@mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com] Sent: 09 July 2005 16:48 To: stewart99@millarweb.org Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: thehornguy@bellsouth.net retry time not reached for any host after a long failure period ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: <stewart99@millarweb.org> Received: from [80.41.229.0] (port=4114 helo=Laptop) by mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DrHYx-000EDo-Rt for thehornguy@bellsouth.net; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:48:19 +0000 From: "Stewart Millar" <stewart99@millarweb.org> To: <thehornguy@bellsouth.net> Subject: FW: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:48:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcWEnMEj8mWzM1dfSF69ulmXC+qzzwAAIABg X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Joe - having trouble with your email address (see below) - trying now to send from another of my email addresses in case the problem is at my end ----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:Mailer-Daemon@mk-smarthost-9.mail.uk.tiscali.com] Sent: 09 July 2005 16:41 To: sm999@tiscali.co.uk Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: thehornguy@bellsouth.net retry time not reached for any host after a long failure period ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ Return-path: <sm999@tiscali.co.uk> Received: from [80.41.229.0] (port=4068 helo=Laptop) by mk-smarthost-9.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DrHRU-000BL1-D4 for thehornguy@bellsouth.net; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:40:36 +0100 From: "Stewart Millar" <sm999@tiscali.co.uk> To: "'thehornguy'" <thehornguy@bellsouth.net> Subject: RE: [PAF-5] Dividing my PAF Files Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:42:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcWElRUqDMVAB4xzTfWdvEuQkXlrNwAAqedw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: <00a201c58495$b3458b40$6101a8c0@launchmodem.com> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Hi Joe, When you consider the info on "one" family line --- don't necessarily limit your visualisation of this to an ancestry view (going back in time), but consider also a descendancy view (coming forward in time). Considering my own family (combined single database for me and my wife) - have a look at my FH web site at www.millarweb.org --- And take a look at the "Family History" page --- there you will see that our family history is presented in two formats - a pedigree view (going back in time) and a descendancy view for each of our main end-of-line family names. The Descendancy reports presented here are generated by PAF for each of the main family names - currently 14 (7 for me and 7 for my wife's side) - these are the main means of communicating specific "family name" information with cousins having connections to the same family-name groups without being confused with any un-connected individuals/families from our other ancestral connections (what I think you are trying to achieve). This is all generated from the single PAF database. The data on the Descendancy reports can also be selected in PAF to generate gedcom files for those relatives that may want the data in a genealogical electronic format. The point made by Ross regarding one-name studies is a completely separate ball game to a personal family history data base - comparing apples and carrots, which I think he agrees with; for a personal family history I would strongly adhere to my previously stated views, namely, keep it all together in one database; as you can see from my web site, PAF can separate, analyse and report on any particular set of relations, name groups or descendancies that you are likely to need - all from one database. I hope this helps. Regards, Stewart -----Original Message----- From: thehornguy [mailto:thehornguy@bellsouth.net] Sent: 09 July 2005 15:52 To: Stewart Millar Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Dividing my PAF Files Hello, Stewart. Now, you have me thinking about that question, a bit differently!! Good comments!! My reason for wanting to do the four-way split on the one big data-base, is so that I can print each one, for 'work-sheet' hard copy purposes, or for info for (to) myself and anyone who is seeking the info on one family line, but who is not 'interested' in (kin to) any of the other lines and for whom the other 3/4ths of the total database is superfluous. Maybe you are correct, and the four parallel data bases would be problematic, but I surely had a lot of trouble using the one big one I had in the FTW files, so that had become an 'issue', whether it was just a personal 'gripe' or something a bit more real. I do understand that we each become a bit 'warped' about some idea or other,when it seems to be an alternative, and when it is not easy to actuate that idea, to then become 'frustrated' without real cause! Your point is well taken! I am now in self analysis mode!! Thanks! Joe DUKE ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Millar" <sm999@tiscali.co.uk> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [PAF-5] Dividing my PAF Files > Hi Joe -- & others on this topic, > > I don't wish to unnecessarily upset people - and I have hesitated about > voicing my opinion on this - but as I've watched comments on this topic of > managing multiple data bases and being a PAF user since the beginning I have > tried to think of any advantages to this process. > > And I can think of none - even after watching the previous posts. > > Just why anyone would wish to do this is beyond me. It can only breed > problems --- exactly how your single data base is split --- how on earth you > manage to recombine it to pass on to your children --- how you deal with any > ancestral lines that occur in multiple databases -- the duplication of > data/sources between the generations where the split occurs --- never being > able to do a complete ancestral or descendancy analysis --- and what if your > children want to follow your example and have 4 databases based on their > grandparents, which of course are your parents - the merging and de-merging > is enough to give anyone a permanent headache. > > My unreserved recommendation is - don't do it. Keep a single database for > your family - you, your spouse and your children. When your children > (eventually) move on with their spouse and want to inherit the family > database - simply (!) merge yours and their spouses together. > > The old IT slogan of KISS has a lot going for it. > > Good luck, > > Stewart > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: thehornguy [mailto:thehornguy@bellsouth.net] > Sent: 08 July 2005 14:57 > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Dividing my PAF Files > > > Hello, Walt an others!! > > I very much appreciate your comments in the message with that subject line > shown above!! > > One of my own 'stumbling places' (after I had got a considerable amount of > data already in-put) with FTW was that I later decided I wanted to operate > with at least four data-base groups, as one person suggested, with my four > sets of GP couples. > > Now, I have also decided to take the FTW GEDCOM (In separate parts, if > possible) and transfer them into the PAF 5.2, one of the four GP couples > (plus the data for their ancestor group) at a time. > > I have not become very familiar with the PAF in-putting process, yet, so > there is still a good bit of 'learning curve' for me to get through. > > Is it better to do the GEDCOM, import it, and then split it into four > separate data-bases, or to split them into four before making the GEDCOM > files for transport?? Or, perhaps, the real question is, at which point > in the import process do (should) I make the four data-bases separate?? > And will that be easy to work with, or not, in the PAF system?? > > I appreciate all this chatting about the PAF, and am saving the entries > which seem to be most useful for me, so that I can go back and look them > over, as I go along. > > Thanks for your comments below, and before, and also now!! > > Joe DUKE > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <PAF-5-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com> > To: <PAF-5-USERS-D@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:04 AM > Subject: PAF-5-USERS-D Digest V05 #134 > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service > http://www.familysearch.org/ > > ______________________________