If I can just update my own notes below with a few more observations on Family Historian (reflecting a bit more playing with it). Most of what I originally said is about right, except for some updates, as follows. 1. its underlying 'database' is a GEDCOM file (!!) - yes, a standard flat text file. Bizarre. Quite how they're going to add roles/witnesses into that structure, I have no idea. 2. TMG Tag types it can't understand in GEDCOM terms are thrown away - not sure how they can fix that, as it means their 'TMG direct transfer' process is still limited by the constraints of GEDCOM. And how they could implement decent sentence variables? 3. there are no canned Source formats etc, due to Item 1. Source definitions are essentially free-form - nothing like the unchangeable rigid formats forced on you by RootsMagic! 4. Charts and Reports actually work quite well, once you understand the construction method, which is opposite to TMG - we're used to choosing a report/chart, fiddling with the Options, checking the result, then going back to fiddle with the Options, try again, etc; then maybe save the format for re-use. In FH, you choose your report/chart, then fiddle with the options and the report/chart changes in front of you; then maybe save the final format for re-use. 5. Flags in TMG are carried over to FH - if a Flag is straight Y/N, that carries over as is; if you have a TMG flag name XXX with possible settings of (say) A, B, C, then FH creates 3 Flag types (let's call them XXX-A, XXX-B, XXX-C) and sets them as on/off based on your actual TMG usage. 6. Media Captions aren't thrown away, they're just saved in the wrong place - I reported as a bug. 7. I was originally looking at FH 5.0.7 - there is already a 5.0.11 which has changed the way Witness roles are saved in FH - rather than a meaningless role type number, they're now storing the Role name for later use - no idea how that is going to work though. Don Ferguson -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] Family Historian I have not done an exhaustive analysis of it, but here's some observations - Tags become Facts, Memos become Notes, Sources become Sources, Source citations become Text to Sources, Sureties get mapped into its own 4 categories of Assessment (reasonably sensibly). Sentences are based on its own very simplistic sentence structures - nothing like TMG sophistication. It has no concept of Sort Dates, and you even have to use F9 to get dated events into order sometimes. Tags types it doesn't know about seem to get dropped - I think if you pre-defined a Fact with a matching name, then things might import OK. If it does manage to import a tag that it has no sentence for, it just uses a dummy "He experienced XXX at data, place" sentence (rubbish in other words). Fact types can be added, but the standard ones can't be deleted (although can be hidden). It imported all my Sources effectively, but got a bit confused on Repositories. I'm still not clear on its approach to new Sources - can't find any canned list of source types/formats. As it can't handle Witnesses, their existence is noted as a Note to a Fact, with a Role number which is currently meaningless. Flags are an issue; by default has 2 (Living and Private) and you can define new ones, but they seem to only have on/off settings (not multiple ranges as per TMG). It has no concept of Place parts like TMG. Media is attached OK, but Captions are thrown away; there is no Primary image concept. Charts are quite good, and very fast; edits to a chart are saved back into the original person data (which may be good or bad); charts can be saved in lots of file formats. Reports are a worry - there seems no way to tailor them e.g, Individual Narrative reports include the whole family (hardly individual!). It has a bunch of defined 'Query reports' and you can add your own Custom Queries. Website creation is simple but effective - nothing like Second Site, of course, but better than certain other programs I could name. But no FTP functionality, so you can't actually create a website, as SS can.

I have been experimenting with RootsMagic for a while. Please understand that this is only a partially informed opinion. I'm certainly no RM expert. Also, my results are based on TMG 9.03 GEDCOM output and RM's import of that. That is a fairly narrow funnel to filter your data through. My analysis illustrates why Jim Byrum's announcement about TMG 9.04 is so significant for GEDCOM export possibilities. I have spent quite a bit of time on Census data. I see that as a good example of the problems we all face. It seems like there are almost as many different, customized approaches to recording Census data as there are TMG users. There is no possibility that any data export/import will understand all of our customized nuances for census data entry in TMG, or any other customized tag for that matter. With that context, here is what I have discovered: - As has been well documented, absolutely no witness information is exported by TMG currently. Thus it is not imported. -If you use any kind of data subdivisions like [M1], [M2] or [CD1], [CD2], etc. your data comes across without interpretation, complete with imbedded "||"'s. It would be incumbent on TMG to interpret this kind of information during the export process if its meaning is going to be preserved. -- RM has two fields that represent all "Places". The labels from RM for these two fields are: "Place (City, County, State, etc.)" and "Place details (address, hospital, cemetery, etc.)". All TMG place fields get concatenated together, separated by commas and exported as a GEDCOM "place". On import, this data is put in the "Place" field. "Place details" is left unpopulated. -- RM has a family structure. So when you have two principals for an event such as a census record, it will be imported as a family "fact" if possible. There appears to be a lot of debate even among RM users as to whether the family facts are the best approach for anything other than marriages. -- RM has the ability to define roles in what is called "shared facts". They are nice but not as robust as the TMG role concept. Likewise the "shared facts" do not export well, just as roles do not in TMG. In fact many RM users avoid shared facts just as TMG users avoid roles and witnesses because of the export limitations. -- RM has a very robust sentence construction mechanism that I see as easier to use than TMG in some ways. But TMG and RM sentences are not compatible and thus are not imported. It would take some nifty programming to build a TMG to RM sentence translator, but it might be possible within limits. RM sentences are defined for each "fact" and also for each role in a "shared fact". -- The Description field in a RM fact is of limited length (90 characters, I believe) and its use seems to be up to the discretion of the user most of the time (see below). RM sentences may refer to the Description with the variable [Desc] but that is the only option. I.e. you either include the entire description in one place in your sentence or you don't. -- The Note field appears to be of arbitrary length, much like the Memo fields in TMG, but RM memos do not support the use of any sentence variables to allow for automated note generation and there is no facility to include Notes in RM sentences. -- Although RM has a "Narrative Report", it does not include the same things TMG narratives include. There are not as many options in RM to influence the formatting of the narrative. RM's report is intended to be a paragraph about each person created from sentences followed by the contents of the Note for each fact. It does have the option of putting the output from each "fact" in a separate paragraph, but that is about it. RM does work similarly to TMG with the substitution of pronouns for names and the sentence definitions do give you the opportunity to override the defaults. RM does not include marriages in its narrative. Neither TMG nor RM include births of children. -- RM allows you to define "Custom facts", similar to TMG. My custom tag types imported but the sentence was always "Sentence needs to be defined." -- RM supplies standard source templates based on Evidence Explained as well as other standards and you can define your own custom source templates similar to TMG custom source definitions. But none of the definitions, standard or otherwise, in TMG are translated on import. All TMG sources are exported as "free form". Thus no source is recognized as a census citation, for example, and the definitions of the individual source elements is completely lost. I have not done much with RM data export. For census information, the RM Description field is output as an "Event descriptor" portion of the standard CENS GEDCOM tag. For example, "1 CENS Contents of Description field would appear here". According to the documentation I have, I'm not sure that is a standard GEDCOM construct. The generic EVEN GEDCOM event tag is documented to support an "Event Descriptor" but I see no indication that this construct is valid for other events such CENS or MARR, etc. So importing the contents of the description field here may not be generally supported. For a Death fact, the Description field is output as a GEDCOM "CAUS" tag, indicating the cause of death. Thus in this case the meaning of the Description field is restricted if you intend to do GEDCOM exports. The NOTE field is output as a standard GEDCOM NOTE tag with subsequent CONC tags as necessary. NOTEs are generally accepted in GEDCOM, and they should export in just about all cases, I would think. As is so often the case, your mileage may vary... John N. -----Original Message----- From: tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of karenhappuch via Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:19 PM To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDCOM, note, and description Both Legacy and Rootsmagic have Note and Description in their Events (what TMGers would call Tags). The TMG memo field imports into both programs as Note. I'm assuming that Legacy and Rootsmagic's Note and Description fields are actually memo fields. Correct? And does anyone know if they would then both export to another program? Barbara *** To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

I have added some comments interspersed in your message below, confined to GEDCOM and RootsMagic, with which I am familiar. I have not tried FH. Tom On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Don Ferguson via <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com > wrote: > If I can just update my own notes below with a few more observations on > Family Historian (reflecting a bit more playing with it). > > Most of what I originally said is about right, except for some updates, as > follows. > 1. its underlying 'database' is a GEDCOM file (!!) - yes, a standard flat > text file. Bizarre. Quite how they're going to add roles/witnesses into > that structure, I have no idea. > That is surprising and may have an adverse effect on the performance of large databases. However, it probably reads it all into a database structure in memory and writes the (modified) database back out to GEDCOM so the hit may only be on opening and closing a very large database. RootsMagic already incorporates roles/witnesses (its shared events), sentence templates, source templates, etc. in its GEDCOM export/import via custom extensions to GEDCOM so I see no reason why Family Historian cannot do so, too. RootsMagic uses its extended GEDCOM in the background even for drag'n'drop transfers between databases, so I've been told. RootsMagic uses the SQLite database engine and file system which can be queried outside of RootsMagic. Every edit is immediately written to the database file when accepted on screen. I wonder what the frequency of file saving is with FH and would it be obtrusive if a large database was auto-saved periodically. FH Help says: "Family Historian was designed from the ground up, to be 100% GEDCOM-compatible, and 100% GEDCOM-complete. You do not have to convert Family Historian files to the GEDCOM format. They already are in the GEDCOM format." - What that means is anyone's guess, given that the GEDCOM specification is in places self-contradictory or ambiguous or vague and open to interpretation. > 2. TMG Tag types it can't understand in GEDCOM terms are thrown away - not > sure how they can fix that, as it means their 'TMG direct transfer' process > is still limited by the constraints of GEDCOM. And how they could implement > decent sentence variables? > See my response to #1. > 3. there are no canned Source formats etc, due to Item 1. Source > definitions are essentially free-form - nothing like the unchangeable rigid > formats forced on you by RootsMagic! > RootsMagic's 413 built-in Source Templates based on Mills and Lackey are uneditable but you are not obligated to use any of them. You can copy any one to a custom template and edit that to suit your purpose. It also has free-form, and that is the format I advocate storing a source in for a variety of reasons while, optionally, using a template to help craft the words and the order they are in to copy and paste into the free-form fields.

TMG exports memo field to GEDCOM NOTE tags for many events but, for some attributes, it is exported to the GEDCOM attribute value, e.g., RELIgion, RESIdence, PROPerty plus a few more. RootsMagic imports the attribute value to its corresponding fact's Description; NOTEs to fact Note. It currently truncates an attribute value at the 100th character on GEDCOM import, for no good reason that I can see. My RMpi utility processes the GEDCOM so that long attribute values are split on import into Description and Note. Thus there is no loss of the memo content but cleanup will be required. I expect that RootsMagic's direct import from a TMG project (under dvlpt) will be capable of handling wider attribute values but will still be faced with the dilemma of where to put them. Because the Description field text entry, display and report designs are for short values, the simplest approach is to direct short memo values to Description, long ones to Note, which is what is intended to happen with TMG 9.04 export. Cleanup still required. RootsMagic exports its Description value to a GEDCOM event/attribute tag's inline value and its Note content to a GEDCOM NOTE block. I expect Legacy operates similarly. Tom > On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:18 PM, karenhappuch via <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Both Legacy and Rootsmagic have Note and Description in their Events (what TMGers would call Tags). The TMG memo field imports into both programs as Note. I'm assuming that Legacy and Rootsmagic's Note and Description fields are actually memo fields. Correct? And does anyone know if they would then both export to another program? > > Barbara > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Both Legacy and Rootsmagic have Note and Description in their Events (what TMGers would call Tags). The TMG memo field imports into both programs as Note. I'm assuming that Legacy and Rootsmagic's Note and Description fields are actually memo fields. Correct? And does anyone know if they would then both export to another program? Barbara

I have had some experience both with Google Sites and with Wikispaces. Wikispaces is used extensively by educators with children at the primary and secondary school level and offers collaboration and commenting tools for members but there is no way to keep selected content private in the free subscription for a publicly accessible site. A second subscription could be set to private and pages copied over. The free subscription provides 500MB capacity. A relevant example is my SQLite Tools for RootsMagic wiki at http://sqlitetoolsforrootsmagic.wikispaces.com/ . It is set up as a wiki; there is an option for a basic website, edited like a wiki - have not tried it. (BTW, that's where I have posted my RMpi utility for massaging a TMG GEDCOM into better shape for RootsMagic to digest). (and needs some updating... keeping menus and structured tables of content up-to-date is a chore) Google Sites is more powerful in some ways and maybe more of a learning curve. While restricted to 100MB for a free site, you can tie into GoogleDrive and Google+ Photos (15GB). I admin a public and a private Google Sites for our local genealogical society, the private one also links to Google Forums (albeit rather loosely). I have yet to get anyone to collaborate! Google Sites requires a Google Account (can be tied to your non-Google email as the primary email) for membership; with a Google Account you can access all things Google, more or less, with one sign-in. My public Google Site is at http://www.lakeshoregenealogicalsociety.ca/ (and needs some updating...) Good luck with your research and testing... Tom > *From:* Barbara Zanzig <bzanzig@gmail.com> > *Subject:* [TMG-REFUGEES] Collecting our wisdom > *Date:* Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:30:09 -0700 > This deserves a new subject line. Barbara L. has given much food for > thought. See my comments interspersed below. > > > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Barbara Levergood <levergood@att.net> > wrote: > > > >> You make a good point about vetting information--we want an archive to > be > >> accurate, so perhaps we develop it privately and then publish an edited > >> document (using the term loosely) rather than publishing as we go along. > >> > > > > Good idea. That means controlling access to the unpublished version. > Would > > you be willing to do that? > > Yes, since I administer this group I have access to subscriber emails here, > and I'm willing to coordinate between here and a wiki/website/whatever. > > > I think Google Sites might do what we need--there's a blogging area, a > >> files area--it has templates for various kinds of websites, including a > >> wiki. It can be restricted access--I suspect much as one subscribes to a > >> mailing list or a Google group. After we've cleaned up our notes a > little, > >> I imagine we could make it public access, or we could publish it as > edited > >> articles here on this mailing list for future reference.. > >> > >

Tom, it is irrelevant to think of it being a UK product that doesn't work well with US data. Its main problem is that it doesn't work well with TMG data, as it has no concept of roles and witnesses - I'm pleased to see they are heading in that direction though, as it does some nice things in its current release. The easiest way to check it out is to download the 30-day trial, install it, and (as they suggest) do a direct import of your TMG data - its quick and easy. I have not done an exhaustive analysis of it, but here's some observations - Tags become Facts, Memos become Notes, Sources become Sources, Source citations become Text to Sources, Sureties get mapped into its own 4 categories of Assessment (reasonably sensibly). Sentences are based on its own very simplistic sentence structures - nothing like TMG sophistication. It has no concept of Sort Dates, and you even have to use F9 to get dated events into order sometimes. Tags types it doesn't know about seem to get dropped - I think if you pre-defined a Fact with a matching name, then things might import OK. If it does manage to import a tag that it has no sentence for, it just uses a dummy "He experienced XXX at data, place" sentence (rubbish in other words). Fact types can be added, but the standard ones can't be deleted (although can be hidden). It imported all my Sources effectively, but got a bit confused on Repositories. I'm still not clear on its approach to new Sources - can't find any canned list of source types/formats. As it can't handle Witnesses, their existence is noted as a Note to a Fact, with a Role number which is currently meaningless. Flags are an issue; by default has 2 (Living and Private) and you can define new ones, but they seem to only have on/off settings (not multiple ranges as per TMG). It has no concept of Place parts like TMG. Media is attached OK, but Captions are thrown away; there is no Primary image concept. Charts are quite good, and very fast; edits to a chart are saved back into the original person data (which may be good or bad); charts can be saved in lots of file formats. Reports are a worry - there seems no way to tailor them e.g, Individual Narrative reports include the whole family (hardly individual!). It has a bunch of defined 'Query reports' and you can add your own Custom Queries. Website creation is simple but effective - nothing like Second Site, of course, but better than certain other programs I could name. But no FTP functionality, so you can't actually create a website, as SS can. I think if they implemented Roles & Witnesses properly, it would be ahead of RootsMagic (it certainly seems to avoid RM's stupidities), but that's just my feeling. But I'm not switching anytime soon, just watching these other things try to mature.... Don Ferguson -----Original Message----- From: tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tom via Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 12:16 PM To: TMG-REFUGEES@rootsweb.com Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] Family Historian Can someone please shed some light on how well Family Historian 5, by Calico Pie Limited of London, England, works with U.S. genealogy information? The software �looks� enticing, but I worry a speck about terminology. For those TMG refugees that might be interested in a future product, I suggest you read the short FAQ section about TMG and Family Historian 5: http://www.family-historian.co.uk/support/faq-tmg. The answers provided are direct from Calico Pie. Tom *** To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks, Don! Even though I might have asked the wrong question, I got the correct answer(s) -- rofl. I imagine some other folks here appreciate your words, too. Yeppers, like you, just biding my time. Tom D. -----Original Message----- From: Don Ferguson Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 11:37 PM To: 'Tom' ; tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: [TMG-REFUGEES] Family Historian Tom, it is irrelevant to think of it being a UK product that doesn't work well with US data. Its main problem is that it doesn't work well with TMG data, as it has no concept of roles and witnesses - I'm pleased to see they are heading in that direction though, as it does some nice things in its current release. The easiest way to check it out is to download the 30-day trial, install it, and (as they suggest) do a direct import of your TMG data - its quick and easy. I have not done an exhaustive analysis of it, but here's some observations - Tags become Facts, Memos become Notes, Sources become Sources, Source citations become Text to Sources, Sureties get mapped into its own 4 categories of Assessment (reasonably sensibly). Sentences are based on its own very simplistic sentence structures - nothing like TMG sophistication. It has no concept of Sort Dates, and you even have to use F9 to get dated events into order sometimes. Tags types it doesn't know about seem to get dropped - I think if you pre-defined a Fact with a matching name, then things might import OK. If it does manage to import a tag that it has no sentence for, it just uses a dummy "He experienced XXX at data, place" sentence (rubbish in other words). Fact types can be added, but the standard ones can't be deleted (although can be hidden). It imported all my Sources effectively, but got a bit confused on Repositories. I'm still not clear on its approach to new Sources - can't find any canned list of source types/formats. As it can't handle Witnesses, their existence is noted as a Note to a Fact, with a Role number which is currently meaningless. Flags are an issue; by default has 2 (Living and Private) and you can define new ones, but they seem to only have on/off settings (not multiple ranges as per TMG). It has no concept of Place parts like TMG. Media is attached OK, but Captions are thrown away; there is no Primary image concept. Charts are quite good, and very fast; edits to a chart are saved back into the original person data (which may be good or bad); charts can be saved in lots of file formats. Reports are a worry - there seems no way to tailor them e.g, Individual Narrative reports include the whole family (hardly individual!). It has a bunch of defined 'Query reports' and you can add your own Custom Queries. Website creation is simple but effective - nothing like Second Site, of course, but better than certain other programs I could name. But no FTP functionality, so you can't actually create a website, as SS can. I think if they implemented Roles & Witnesses properly, it would be ahead of RootsMagic (it certainly seems to avoid RM's stupidities), but that's just my feeling. But I'm not switching anytime soon, just watching these other things try to mature.... Don Ferguson -----Original Message----- From: tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tom via Sent: Tuesday, 2 September 2014 12:16 PM To: TMG-REFUGEES@rootsweb.com Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] Family Historian Can someone please shed some light on how well Family Historian 5, by Calico Pie Limited of London, England, works with U.S. genealogy information? The software �looks� enticing, but I worry a speck about terminology. For those TMG refugees that might be interested in a future product, I suggest you read the short FAQ section about TMG and Family Historian 5: http://www.family-historian.co.uk/support/faq-tmg. The answers provided are direct from Calico Pie. Tom *** To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Can someone please shed some light on how well Family Historian 5, by Calico Pie Limited of London, England, works with U.S. genealogy information? The software ‘looks’ enticing, but I worry a speck about terminology. For those TMG refugees that might be interested in a future product, I suggest you read the short FAQ section about TMG and Family Historian 5: http://www.family-historian.co.uk/support/faq-tmg. The answers provided are direct from Calico Pie. Tom

It is not clear what the costs might be but it might be worth looking into a not-for-profit trust or similar vehicle that would seek grants and endowments for the purpose of developing and owning "in perpetuity" a successor to TMG. Depending on Bob Velke's status he might even encourage this way to immortalize his legacy. Jerry@Fillebrown.com www.fillebrown.com/d3/i0001510.htm#i1510 RUFTR Fillebrown, Barger, Ferrill, Wallace -----Original Message----- From: tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of John and Lee Wood via Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 3:52 PM To: Carol Judge; tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] Collecting our wisdom Carol and the List in General: Yes, I like "Alternatives to TMG," but I would like to expand on the alternatives idea to offer some cautionary notes. I too am looking for alternatives, but not yet ready to abandon TMG, at least until I get my data converted to HTML via John C's Second Site, or to print it on old-fashioned paper. Having said that I am not leaving TMG just yet, I am looking at alternatives. Right now I am playing with Roots Magic. It and Legacy seem to be on most folks' minds as the leading contenders for their data. OK, but what bothers me about both of these programs is that they both seem to be products of essentially one-man-shops like TMG. Correct me if I'm wrong but, Roots Magic is the child of Bruce Busbee. I'm not sure about Legacy. Someone on the TMG List commented, when talking about a GEDCOM standard, that the two 800-pound gorillas in the room were LDS and Ancestry.com. What we need for long-term safety in a genealogy program is an 800-pound gorilla on our side. I wouldn't give you 2 cents for choosing Ancestry, they already have Family Tree Maker. Remember when Roots became UFT and CommSoft was purchased by Broderbun, then Broderbun was purchased by Ancestry? (forgive me if I have my company/chronology mixed up, I am writing this from memory--I started with Roots for DOS close to 30 years ago.) John Cardinal said that it wasn't an economically viable idea for him to try to develop a successor to TMG. Therein lies the crux of the matter. No single software developer can create a program for such a small market and expect to survive for long without some big corporate money behind him/her.. Ask Bob Velke. I have a gut feeling that LDS is working behind the scenes to fund the work on a competitor to FTM, whether it is Legacy or RM, I don't know. However, I do know that the LDS has a large investment in their web site Family Search. I suspect that it does make sense for them (LDS) to have a program for folks like us. One final thought: As I said, I am staying with TMG 9.03 for the moment, but I have seen how MicroSoft works. Don't be surprised that when Windows 9 is released Visual FoxPro won't work with it. Yes, you can keep a computer around that runs Windows 8 so you can access TMG. I could have kept a computer around that would have worked with my dBase or WordStar files. If I subscribed to that mind set, I would have to have had maybe 10 compters in my office (my first computer was an IBM PCXT in 1984). Maybe I should have kept a horse and buggy in my barn as well, so I could use my buggy whips. My father swore up and down that tubeless tires would never replace inner tubes. Once again, technology and economics seems to be calling the shots for us. I guess I am just an old anti-Luddite. All I am saying is that you should keep your eyes and ears open, put you data in as many places and formats as possible, especially print and don't panic. John Wood On 8/31/2014 2:48 PM, Carol Judge via wrote: > Somehow, subscribing to a list that says I'm abandoning TMG, almost > made me feel guilty for even considering something else. How about > something like "This group is for people who are looking for > alternatives to TMG"? > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body.

Carol and the List in General: Yes, I like "Alternatives to TMG," but I would like to expand on the alternatives idea to offer some cautionary notes. I too am looking for alternatives, but not yet ready to abandon TMG, at least until I get my data converted to HTML via John C's Second Site, or to print it on old-fashioned paper. Having said that I am not leaving TMG just yet, I am looking at alternatives. Right now I am playing with Roots Magic. It and Legacy seem to be on most folks' minds as the leading contenders for their data. OK, but what bothers me about both of these programs is that they both seem to be products of essentially one-man-shops like TMG. Correct me if I'm wrong but, Roots Magic is the child of Bruce Busbee. I'm not sure about Legacy. Someone on the TMG List commented, when talking about a GEDCOM standard, that the two 800-pound gorillas in the room were LDS and Ancestry.com. What we need for long-term safety in a genealogy program is an 800-pound gorilla on our side. I wouldn't give you 2 cents for choosing Ancestry, they already have Family Tree Maker. Remember when Roots became UFT and CommSoft was purchased by Broderbun, then Broderbun was purchased by Ancestry? (forgive me if I have my company/chronology mixed up, I am writing this from memory--I started with Roots for DOS close to 30 years ago.) John Cardinal said that it wasn't an economically viable idea for him to try to develop a successor to TMG. Therein lies the crux of the matter. No single software developer can create a program for such a small market and expect to survive for long without some big corporate money behind him/her.. Ask Bob Velke. I have a gut feeling that LDS is working behind the scenes to fund the work on a competitor to FTM, whether it is Legacy or RM, I don't know. However, I do know that the LDS has a large investment in their web site Family Search. I suspect that it does make sense for them (LDS) to have a program for folks like us. One final thought: As I said, I am staying with TMG 9.03 for the moment, but I have seen how MicroSoft works. Don't be surprised that when Windows 9 is released Visual FoxPro won't work with it. Yes, you can keep a computer around that runs Windows 8 so you can access TMG. I could have kept a computer around that would have worked with my dBase or WordStar files. If I subscribed to that mind set, I would have to have had maybe 10 compters in my office (my first computer was an IBM PCXT in 1984). Maybe I should have kept a horse and buggy in my barn as well, so I could use my buggy whips. My father swore up and down that tubeless tires would never replace inner tubes. Once again, technology and economics seems to be calling the shots for us. I guess I am just an old anti-Luddite. All I am saying is that you should keep your eyes and ears open, put you data in as many places and formats as possible, especially print and don't panic. John Wood On 8/31/2014 2:48 PM, Carol Judge via wrote: > Somehow, subscribing to a list that says I'm abandoning TMG, > almost made me feel guilty for even considering something else. How > about something like "This group is for people who are looking for > alternatives to TMG"? > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . >

I hadn't given it a thought before, but Carol is correct. Even if I started using XYZ Product today, I wouldn't be abandoning TMG today. I realize that this is probably very picky, but we might as well be picky right off the bat -- rofl. :) -----Original Message----- From: Carol Judge via Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:48 PM To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] Collecting our wisdom I like the name TMG-REFUGEES. What didn't come across quite as well for me was the topic "This group is for people who have decided to abandon TMG as a database platform." Although I am currently playing around with RootsMagic, I don't feel like I am abandoning TMG - at least not yet. It could be that other [TMG] list members who have decided to stay with TMG for now, or even for a long time, might still be interested in the discussion on this list. Somehow, subscribing to a list that says I'm abandoning TMG, almost made me feel guilty for even considering something else. How about something like "This group is for people who are looking for alternatives to TMG"? On 8/31/2014 1:30 PM, Barbara Zanzig via wrote: > Someone suggested TMG-REFUGEES wasn't a good name. What would you like > a collaborative work area and repository to be called? >> What we will be doing is looking at alternatives or successors to TMG. >> So, >> "TMG Alternatives" or "TMG Successors" would be on point, although not >> very >> exciting. And I am sure that someone would have some objection to either >> of >> those names :). I suggest that you throw the question out to TMG-REFUGEES >> and see if we can build some excitement and consensus that way. >> > What I like about Refugees is, it implies we aren't leaving necessarily by > choice. > *** To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Barbara Z. asked what I, Barbara L., was asking about GEDCOM. I think that Barbara Z. answered the essence of my question when she said that "there are other topics than a software comparison" that we might include in the project. On 8/31/2014 1:30 PM, Barbara Zanzig wrote: > > > I like having a proposal--I think there are other topics than a > software comparison though. For one, I'd like to develop, procedures I > will need to de-TMG my data when I finally decide where to take it. > > Another area might be lists of TMG dependencies--roles, split CDs, > etc. and methods of dealing with them. The nice thing about a wiki is > everyone can work in their area of concern. > > > > On a related note, do we want to think about something similar for > GEDCOM or somehow incorporate GEDCOM into the planning? > > > I'm not sure what Barbara L. is asking here. If you mean the GEDcom > discussion on TMG-L, I was planning on asking permission to summarize > the thread once it dies down. > > > > -- > Barbara Zanzig > Kirkland, WA > My websites: http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ > <http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ZanzigStudy/index.htm> -- Barbara Levergood levergood@att.net

I like the name TMG-REFUGEES. What didn't come across quite as well for me was the topic "This group is for people who have decided to abandon TMG as a database platform." Although I am currently playing around with RootsMagic, I don't feel like I am abandoning TMG - at least not yet. It could be that other [TMG] list members who have decided to stay with TMG for now, or even for a long time, might still be interested in the discussion on this list. Somehow, subscribing to a list that says I'm abandoning TMG, almost made me feel guilty for even considering something else. How about something like "This group is for people who are looking for alternatives to TMG"? On 8/31/2014 1:30 PM, Barbara Zanzig via wrote: > Someone suggested TMG-REFUGEES wasn't a good name. What would you like > a collaborative work area and repository to be called? >> What we will be doing is looking at alternatives or successors to TMG. So, >> "TMG Alternatives" or "TMG Successors" would be on point, although not very >> exciting. And I am sure that someone would have some objection to either of >> those names :). I suggest that you throw the question out to TMG-REFUGEES >> and see if we can build some excitement and consensus that way. >> > What I like about Refugees is, it implies we aren't leaving necessarily by > choice. >

This deserves a new subject line. Barbara L. has given much food for thought. See my comments interspersed below. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Barbara Levergood <levergood@att.net> wrote: > >> You make a good point about vetting information--we want an archive to be >> accurate, so perhaps we develop it privately and then publish an edited >> document (using the term loosely) rather than publishing as we go along. >> > > Good idea. That means controlling access to the unpublished version. Would > you be willing to do that? Yes, since I administer this group I have access to subscriber emails here, and I'm willing to coordinate between here and a wiki/website/whatever. > I think Google Sites might do what we need--there's a blogging area, a >> files area--it has templates for various kinds of websites, including a >> wiki. It can be restricted access--I suspect much as one subscribes to a >> mailing list or a Google group. After we've cleaned up our notes a little, >> I imagine we could make it public access, or we could publish it as edited >> articles here on this mailing list for future reference.. >> > > I like this approach. I was thinking that we could set up a template for a > wiki page that would help us to standardize the type of information we are > collecting and the format. Each person who wanted to contribute could > either modify an existing page or could make a copy of the template to > start their own. To get us started, I could markup my example, as modified > by Barbara S. > > How about if I make a proposal on TMG-REFUGEES for the type of information > we want to collect so that we can prepare the template? Just off the top of > my head (based on my example, although others will hopefully want to add > things): > * Functionality > * The reason(s) that that functionality is important (to someone) > * Features that do or do not incorporate or enable that functionality in > TMG, RM, Legacy, and FH. (Also other software that folks might be > interested in evaluating.) For each, include the software version number, > whether it is a full version or the trial version, and the evaluator's > expertise. > I like having a proposal--I think there are other topics than a software comparison though. For one, I'd like to develop, procedures I will need to de-TMG my data when I finally decide where to take it. Another area might be lists of TMG dependencies--roles, split CDs, etc. and methods of dealing with them. The nice thing about a wiki is everyone can work in their area of concern. > Suggested rules > * Do not be TMG-centric. Think first in terms of the functionality that > you value, not the corresponding TMG feature. (BARBARA Z.: DO YOU AGREE > THAT THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH IT?) > In terms of the pages about other programs, I agree. It may or may not be appropriate for other topic areas. * Be objective. > * Be specific enough that others can find the feature being mentioned. > * Be thorough. There may be more than one way to skin a kitty cat. > * If you don't know or can't find something, say so. It is usually better > to say that you can't find it than to say it doesn't exist unless you are > an expert on that software or have consulted information from an expert or > the vendor. > * If you want to add to or modify a feature mentioned by someone else, add > your own bullet so that the original information is not lost. (We will > evaluate and edit all information before publishing.) > * Feel free to include information that will assist others in learning > about a feature or its use such as informative postings on listservs, > blogs, etc. , webinars, help pages (online or within the software), etc. > * Because we want to be fair, objective, and fully accurate in our > observations and evaluations, we will fully evaluate and edit the > information presented. For this reason, please do not share the information > gathered with others until it has been released for "publication". > These are pretty good rules, pretty common sense--I want to think about them for awhile and think about whether they are too much for the size and composition of this group right now. I know any group has a lot of lurkers, but if any of you lurkers see anything go by that you object to, please speak up publicly or privately to me. I will summarize any private comments to the list anonymously if you don't wish to be identified. We're talking strategy for how this list will operate for some time to come. > > On a related note, do we want to think about something similar for GEDCOM > or somehow incorporate GEDCOM into the planning? I'm not sure what Barbara L. is asking here. If you mean the GEDcom discussion on TMG-L, I was planning on asking permission to summarize the thread once it dies down. > >> Someone suggested TMG-REFUGEES wasn't a good name. What would you like a >> collaborative work area and repository to be called? >> > > What we will be doing is looking at alternatives or successors to TMG. So, > "TMG Alternatives" or "TMG Successors" would be on point, although not very > exciting. And I am sure that someone would have some objection to either of > those names :). I suggest that you throw the question out to TMG-REFUGEES > and see if we can build some excitement and consensus that way. > What I like about Refugees is, it implies we aren't leaving necessarily by choice. > How can we encourage participation in the project? > > Barbara L. > Good question! -- Barbara Zanzig Kirkland, WA My websites: http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ <http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ZanzigStudy/index.htm>

I was thinking of starting a similar analysis (for my own benefit), but collaboration is a great idea. I have no problems with any repository, except Facebook. My only question would be whether it would be mandatory to be called Barbara to work on such s thing? <g> Don -----Original Message----- From: tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:tmg-refugees-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barbara Zanzig via Sent: Saturday, 30 August 2014 11:58 PM To: Barbara Levergood; tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list Oh, Barbara, we need a home for such lists. It's ultra late for me--but given this is a Rootsweb list, anybody have suggestions for a file repository--say, such as a Google group? I can work out the technicalities so members of this group belong, but I'd especially like to know of any objections. Barbara Z. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Barbara Levergood via <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I just started a list of features and functionalities that are important to me. For each, I list the relevant feature in TMG, RM, Legacy, and FH and any strengths and weaknesses. That is helping me organize my thoughts and my evaluations of the alternatives. > > It would be great to collaborate on such a list. > > Barbara > > -- > Barbara Levergood > levergood@att.net > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S(tm) III > > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom via > <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> </div><div>Date:08/29/2014 11:15 PM > (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com > </div><div>Subject: Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list > </div><div> </div>Absolutely! In fact, I thought about compiling a > list of those that might be important to "us". Unfortunately, my thought came late and I had deleted the messages. It might still be worth the effort to dig out the messages and start a list. Maybe take the items important to "us" and periodically combine them into a growing list. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barbara Zanzig via > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 9:38 PM > To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com > Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list > > I trust everyone is following the GEDcom discussion on the TMG list? > Invaluable information. > > Barbara > > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Barbara Zanzig Kirkland, WA Zanzig one name study: http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ZanzigStudy/index.htm *** To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Just to get the ball rolling, here is an example of a very basic but important functionality for me, the reason that it is important to me, and the features that do or do not incorporate or enable that functionality in TMG, RM, Legacy, and FH. Of course, since I am just learning RM, Legacy, and FH, it could well be that my information is incomplete. Here is where the collaboration comes in... If you have more, better, or corrected information about this functionality, please post it so that we can all benefit. Or do a similar analysis of a functionality that is important to you and share it with us. Barbara L. ++ Functionality: Display of all events in person’s life in a single list, ordered chronologically, including marriage and birth of children Important to me to assess timing of events or make hypotheses about where records for an event might be located. TMG, v. 9.x • Person view. Includes marriage and birth of children. RootsMagic, full v. 6.3.1.4 • Edit person. Includes person’s marriage but not birth of children. I haven’t found a way to configure which events are included in this view. • Search/Person List=RootsMagic Explorer, linked to Individual View. Individual View includes marriage, but not birth of children. • Timeline. But that also includes birth, marriage, etc. of siblings. I haven’t found a way to configure which events are included in this view. Legacy, trial v. 8.0.0.439 • Individual’s information. But marriage and birth of children are not included. • Name list/events. But marriage and birth of children are not included. • Name list/detail. Can customize, but only up to 8 events can be viewed at once. Family Historian, trial v. 5.0 • Individual/facts. Includes all(?) events, including marriage and birth of children. I haven’t found a way to configure which events are included in this view. ++ -- Barbara Levergood levergood@att.net

A Google document would work for this and might be a comfortable environment for many people, similar to Wordpad or a low-tech version of Microsoft Word. Another possibility is Google Sites[1], where one can create e.g. a project wiki. A wiki would be a natural for something like this, since we would be able to easily link out e.g. to informative postings to listservs, to RM webinars, etc. Although I have used wikis, I have never used Google Sites. Does anyone have experience with it? Don F.: You could go by either "Don-Barbara" or "Barbara-Don". :) Don Ferguson wrote: > My only question would be whether it would be mandatory to be called Barbara to work on such s thing? <g> Barbara L. [1] http://learn.googleapps.com/sites On 8/30/2014 9:58 AM, Barbara Zanzig wrote: > Oh, Barbara, we need a home for such lists. It's ultra late for > me--but given this is a Rootsweb list, anybody have suggestions for a > file repository--say, such as a Google group? I can work out the > technicalities so members of this group belong, but I'd especially > like to know of any objections. > > Barbara Z. > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Barbara Levergood via > <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> I just started a list of features and functionalities that are important to me. For each, I list the relevant feature in TMG, RM, Legacy, and FH and any strengths and weaknesses. That is helping me organize my thoughts and my evaluations of the alternatives. >> >> It would be great to collaborate on such a list. >> >> Barbara >> >> -- >> Barbara Levergood >> levergood@att.net >> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S(tm) III >> >> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom via <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> </div><div>Date:08/29/2014 11:15 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com </div><div>Subject: Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list </div><div> >> </div>Absolutely! In fact, I thought about compiling a list of those that might be >> important to "us". Unfortunately, my thought came late and I had deleted the >> messages. It might still be worth the effort to dig out the messages and >> start a list. Maybe take the items important to "us" and periodically >> combine them into a growing list. >> >> Tom >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barbara Zanzig via >> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 9:38 PM >> To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list >> >> I trust everyone is following the GEDcom discussion on the TMG list? >> Invaluable information. >> >> Barbara >> >> *** >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> *** >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > -- Barbara Levergood levergood@att.net

Your example shows the problems of comparing programs without having the full program or even without having experiece with a particular program function. Legacy does have a timeline called Chronology, it does include births of children, and it does have a good number of options as to what is included including some color coding. Unlike RM, the editing and entries cannot be done from the timeline at this time. Barbara S. (Yes, Doug; this list does seem to have many Barbaras.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Levergood via" <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> To: <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:07 PM Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] an important functionality for me > Just to get the ball rolling, here is an example of a very basic but > important functionality for me, the reason that it is important to me, > and the features that do or do not incorporate or enable that > functionality in TMG, RM, Legacy, and FH. Of course, since I am just > learning RM, Legacy, and FH, it could well be that my information is > incomplete. > > Here is where the collaboration comes in... If you have more, better, or > corrected information about this functionality, please post it so that > we can all benefit. Or do a similar analysis of a functionality that is > important to you and share it with us. > > Barbara L. > > ++ > > Functionality: Display of all events in person’s life in a single list, > ordered chronologically, including marriage and birth of children > > Important to me to assess timing of events or make hypotheses about > where records for an event might be located. > > TMG, v. 9.x > • Person view. Includes marriage and birth of children. > > RootsMagic, full v. 6.3.1.4 > • Edit person. Includes person’s marriage but not birth of children. > I haven’t found a way to configure which events are included in this view. > • Search/Person List=RootsMagic Explorer, linked to Individual View. > Individual View includes marriage, but not birth of children. > • Timeline. But that also includes birth, marriage, etc. of siblings. > I haven’t found a way to configure which events are included in this view. > > Legacy, trial v. 8.0.0.439 > • Individual’s information. But marriage and birth of children are > not included. > • Name list/events. But marriage and birth of children are not > included. > • Name list/detail. Can customize, but only up to 8 events can be viewed > at once. > > Family Historian, trial v. 5.0 > • Individual/facts. Includes all(?) events, including marriage and > birth of children. I haven’t found a way to configure which events are > included in this view. > > ++ > > > -- > > Barbara Levergood > levergood@att.net > > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Almost anywhere except Facebook. IF we used Google, wouldn't we all be able to access and edit the list(s) through their document cloud service (Google Docs, etc.)? Tom -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Zanzig via Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:58 AM To: Barbara Levergood ; tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list Oh, Barbara, we need a home for such lists. It's ultra late for me--but given this is a Rootsweb list, anybody have suggestions for a file repository--say, such as a Google group? I can work out the technicalities so members of this group belong, but I'd especially like to know of any objections. Barbara Z. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Barbara Levergood via <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I just started a list of features and functionalities that are important > to me. For each, I list the relevant feature in TMG, RM, Legacy, and FH > and any strengths and weaknesses. That is helping me organize my thoughts > and my evaluations of the alternatives. > > It would be great to collaborate on such a list. > > Barbara > > -- > Barbara Levergood > levergood@att.net > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S(tm) III > > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Tom via > <tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com> </div><div>Date:08/29/2014 11:15 PM > (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com </div><div>Subject: > Re: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list </div><div> > </div>Absolutely! In fact, I thought about compiling a list of those that > might be > important to "us". Unfortunately, my thought came late and I had deleted > the > messages. It might still be worth the effort to dig out the messages and > start a list. Maybe take the items important to "us" and periodically > combine them into a growing list. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Barbara Zanzig via > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 9:38 PM > To: tmg-refugees@rootsweb.com > Subject: [TMG-REFUGEES] GEDcom discussion on TMG list > > I trust everyone is following the GEDcom discussion on the TMG list? > Invaluable information. > > Barbara > > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > *** > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the message subject and body. > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Barbara Zanzig Kirkland, WA Zanzig one name study: http://www.zanziggenealogy.info/ZanzigStudy/index.htm *** To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the message subject and body. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to TMG-REFUGEES-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message