Home  |  Reunion 10 Support  |  iPhone  |  iPad  |  ReunionTalk Forums  |  Upgrade  |  Contact Us

The ReunionTalk Digest Archives

ReunionTalk Digest messages for October 2004


Date: October 01, 2004
From: Tommy Buch
Subject: Re: Biblical genealogy

Robert Andersen <bobnskip@xxxxx_com> wrote:

> I want to create a descendant chart of biblical characters, however,
> they only have one name, how can I make this work?

Bob, I just started such a task this past July.

I have made it through Genesis, and all I have used is the name that is
listed leaving the "last name" field blank. Also, for a birth date, I
started at 0001. I wanted to start it at 0000 but Reunion would not accept
that date. I don't know why Reunion has decided that 0000 should be
rejected, but I simply put 0001 knowing that it should be 0000. Maybe
Reunion can be modified to accept this date as a valid date in a future
version release.

I found my biblical endeavor to be quite an enlightening experience. I
encourage everyone to take time out from their current research to take on
the task of using Reunion to record the genealogy of Genesis and subsequent
chapters. You will find it to be somewhat of a challenge (logically and
mathematically), but spiritually rewarding. You may have to read and
re-read verses several times before you understand the connections, but by
using Reunion, the recording of the Bible's genealogy is possible.

Tommy Buch

------------------------------

Date: October 01, 2004
From: Maria Hopper
Subject: Publishing

I have finally finished my Hopper Genealogy (330 pages) and I'm
looking for a publiser. - Has anyone had experience will publishing
from a MAC disk - everything including the photos and maps (tif
images) is in Appleworks 6.2.7. It prints out beautifully on my
printer. Please send replies directly to me as I know this is a little
of subject, but I need input from MAC users. Ree

Maria (Ree) Pratt Hopper
Please visit my web site - Ree's Trees
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~reetrees/bhome.index.html

------------------------------

Date: October 01, 2004
From: Mary Moody
Subject: Re: Mac systems 9 and 10

These messages mainly address 2 issues; 1. security of Mac OS X and
2. stubborn folks who will not upgrade to OS X and let go of their
old applications - which work and do what they want.

Sorry, I was unable to answer sooner because I was getting my husband
ready to travel for the first time since his heart attack and
quadruple by-pass. It was a major production.

As far as I am concerned this is the end of this topic. I will not
address it again, publicly or privately; I do not have time.

"Steve W. Jackson" <swjackson@xxx_com> wrote:

> I don't understand what you mean by "proved right"? What have you
> seen that leads you to conclude that OS X is not secure? Did a
> representative from Apple at your MUG meeting agree with your
> assertions? Until I see the proof for myself, I'll have to remain
> skeptical of any such claims.

I guess you do not receive CERT Advisories; I have for years. Never
have I seen one such adviory that included OS 1.x-9.x as I have for
OS X. I bought my Dual G4 tower in May 2002. Because we were
travelling and moving for 4 months, by the time I was ready to switch
in Nov, I read enough to make me hesitate. The following are in
chronological order.

5 Aug 2002: CERT Advisory CA-2002-25 . . .: "Apple Computer, Inc.
The vulnerability described in this note is fixed with Security
Update 2002-08-02."

25 Oct 2002: CERT Advisory CA-2002-29 . . .: "Apple Computer, Inc.
The Kerberos Administration Daemon was included in Mac OS X 10.0,
but removed in Mac OS X 10.1 and later. . .."

28 Oct 2002: CORRECTION: CERT Advisory CA-2002-29 . . .: the URL
reveals <http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-29.html>: "Apple
Computer, Inc. The Kerberos Administration Daemon was included in
Mac OS X 10.0, but removed in Mac OS X 10.1 and later. . . .."

21 Feb 2003: CERT Advisory CA-2003-06 . . .: "Apple Computer Inc.
There are currently no applications shipped by Apple with Mac OS X
or Mac OS X Server which make use of the Session Initiation
Protocol."

3 Mar 2003: CERT Advisory CA-2003-07 . . .: "Apple Computer, Inc.
Security Update 2003-03-03 is available to fix this issue.
Packages are available for Mac OS X 10.1.5 and Mac OS X 10.2.4. .
. .."

1 Oct 2003: CERT Advisory CA-2003-26 Multiple Vulnerabilities in
SSL/TLS: "Apple: Vulnerable. This is fixed in Mac OS X 10.2.8
which is available from http://www.apple.com/support/"

Norton Anti-virus has had mid-month updates for the NAV versions
7.0.2 and up that support OS X when they weren't required for the
earlier ones, 7.0 and earlier. My notices have come from
VersionTracker and from the web site itself.

Microsoft has its own advisories (which I receive), those had always
excluded Macintosh OS until OS X was released.

> This Apple rep should've either debunked the myths that your members
> cited or gotten details so that each could be researched and better
> information provided to you. But to stand idly by and let your MUG
> members tell him without challenge that OS X is insecure is
> unbelievable. The fact is that OS X is more secure than OS 9 in
> virtually every way.

The 2 Apple reps in late 2001 and early 2002 said they knew about
them and Apple was working on it -- see the answers in the above CERT
advisories for 2002 and 3.

OS X's security problems were talked about in several Mac lists. It
has been almost 2 years ago now, so I do not remember which ones.

> > I like many features that have been dropped in major apps (even
> > though I purchased 4 upgrades, I still use MSWD 5.1a and will until
> > they bring back one particular feature). One of my dear friends, a
> > Mac expert, said that my old apps would work better in OS X than
> > 9.2.2. When I find sth that works, I keep it. I am not concerned
> > about keeping up with the Jones'.
> . . . you should remember whose application you're talking about in
> this instance. There are many people in the Mac community who
> lamented the atrocious product called MS Office 6. But you can't
> let the bad judgment of one software maker shape your picture of
> all other applications that are available for OS X. This complaint
> is unfairly aimed at Apple when the culprit is Microsoft. But you
> can't let the bad judgment of one software maker shape your picture
> of all other applications that are available for OS X. This
> complaint is unfairly aimed at Apple when the culprit is Microsoft.

I don't understand what what you mean. I was making the point that
I have good reason to use some olds apps and that some actually do go
forward to OS X.

> In the technology business, the only thing that's inevitable is
> change. Sooner or later, everything you've got now becomes food for
> a museum. :-)

As the Mac OS changed through the years, I have already lost many
applications and made many changes --some for the better, but, I do
not take steps backwards. Therefore, until I can find sth that is
the same or better than what I need, I'm holding. I have seen the
best Mac utility products of all time (Fifth Generation Systems)
bought up by Norton, then deep sixed. I will use what applications
fit my needs, not attempt to be a contortionist to change and fit my
needs to someone else's idea of what I should want. After looking
carefully, it was only when I found a computer that did what I wanted
that I finally bought one-my Mac 128.

I am not obligated to buy and or use what is available just because
that is all that is available.

The one app I have had since its beginning and have always upgraded
and never regretted is Reunion; keep up the good work Leister.

Al Poulin <alpoulin@xxx_net> wrote:

> > One of my dear friends, a Mac expert, said that my old apps would
> > work better in OS X than 9.2.2.
>
> I wonder what the friend meant. Old apps, per se, will not work at
> all in OS X. Most of the old apps that work in OS 9.2.2 will
> continue to work in Classic mode when the Classic facility is
> running in OS X. That means that OS X is controlling an OS 9.2 (or
> 9.1) System Folder which in turn runs the old app. In Classic, the
> OS X desktop disappears and the familiar OS 9 desktop shows up. But
> in reality, most experts would say that an old app "could possibly"
> not run as well in Classic mode, as compared with running after
> starting up in OS 9. In most cases, most people would not see the
> difference.

I should have said "some"- omitted in my hasty typing. MSWD is one
of the ones he mentioned. It has gone trough all the OS upgrades.
As many of you did, I left behind a lot of favorite applications with
OS 8. I have a couple, that I depend on and use daily, that have also
made the transitions, but will not work in OS X.

"Daniel R. Killoran, Ph.D." <drkilloran@xxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> I am, however, even MORE curmudgeonly, as I have yet to upgrade from
> Reunion 5, since that was the last version to support the 68K Macs,
> of which I have 4.

I have never regretted upgrading Reunion, even when my numbering
system got all screwed up in the upgrade. The new features are
always worth it.

--
Mary Moody
mam-lists@xxxxxxx_com

------------------------------

Date: October 01, 2004
From: Sarah Dart
Subject: Genealogy.com census images in Safari

I just accidently found a way around the problem of the horizontal
scroll bar not showing up when trying to view genealogy.com census
images in Safari.

Click on the "save this image" link (which is always visible because
it is on the upper left) and the scrollbar magically appears...
Cheers,

Sarah Dart

------------------------------

Date: October 01, 2004
From: Earl
Subject: Re: Poll results for myroots

Ken Ozanne <ken.ozanne@xxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> Please, what is "MyRoots". Does it have a URL?

MyRoot is a Palm OS application that allows one to transfer their genealogy
data to a handheld (in GEDCOM format). It makes research while traveling
light much easier.

The link to the poll is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/myroots/

Earl

------------------------------

Date: October 01, 2004
From: Dale J. Stephenson
Subject: Re: Mac systems 9 and 10

Mary Moody <mam-lists@xxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> "Steve W. Jackson" <swjackson@xxx_com> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand what you mean by "proved right"? What have you
>> seen that leads you to conclude that OS X is not secure? Did a
>> representative from Apple at your MUG meeting agree with your
>> assertions? Until I see the proof for myself, I'll have to remain
>> skeptical of any such claims.
>
> I guess you do not receive CERT Advisories; I have for years. Never
> have I seen one such adviory that included OS 1.x-9.x as I have for
> OS X. I bought my Dual G4 tower in May 2002. Because we were
> travelling and moving for 4 months, by the time I was ready to switch
> in Nov, I read enough to make me hesitate. The following are in
> chronological order.

I don't receive CERT advisories, but I do understand that they alert
the community to possible vulnerabilities, not necessarily extant
threats.

> 5 Aug 2002: CERT Advisory CA-2002-25 . . .: "Apple Computer, Inc.
> The vulnerability described in this note is fixed with Security
> Update 2002-08-02."

This advisory concerns a buffer overflow in Sun's XDR library, a quick
locate check shows xdr libraries only in Python. No running processes
were using the library. The only program listed as a specific
vulnerability in the CERT advisory even distributed on MacOSX is
kadmind, a KRB5 authentication server. Not only is that not normally
running, I'm not sure if you can even get it running from the GUI.

In other words, the risk from this vulnerability to a typical Mac OS X
user is nil. 0.00% chance of anything bad happening. And yet, the
potential vulnerability was fixed on August 2nd, three days *before*
CERT made the advisory.

If you had downloaded a KRB5 authentication server for Mac OS 9, and
run it, you'd have the exact same vulnerability, except you wouldn't
get a fix for it in Software Update. But even in that extremely
unlikely case, the chance of getting hit by a PPC-exploiting worm
(remember, the buffer overflow exploits the ability to run arbitrary
code, but running arbitrary x86 code won't do much good), are
vanishingly small. You're very safe running it on MacOS 9, completely
safe running it on MacOS X -- and not likely to be running it all on
either system.

> 25 Oct 2002: CERT Advisory CA-2002-29 . . .: "Apple Computer, Inc.
> The Kerberos Administration Daemon was included in Mac OS X 10.0,
> but removed in Mac OS X 10.1 and later. . .."

A different vulnerability, but again it's a target that *doesn't run*
on stock installs. This one wasn't even included in 10.1.

> 28 Oct 2002: CORRECTION: CERT Advisory CA-2002-29 . . .: the URL
> reveals <http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2002-29.html>: "Apple
> Computer, Inc. The Kerberos Administration Daemon was included in
> Mac OS X 10.0, but removed in Mac OS X 10.1 and later. . . .."

This is the same advisory you just mentioned.

> 21 Feb 2003: CERT Advisory CA-2003-06 . . .: "Apple Computer Inc.
> There are currently no applications shipped by Apple with Mac OS X
> or Mac OS X Server which make use of the Session Initiation
> Protocol."

This means that OS X is not affected. Presumably, the same would be
true of Mac OS 9.

> 3 Mar 2003: CERT Advisory CA-2003-07 . . .: "Apple Computer, Inc.
> Security Update 2003-03-03 is available to fix this issue.
> Packages are available for Mac OS X 10.1.5 and Mac OS X 10.2.4. .
> . .."

This is a sendmail vulnerability. Sendmail is NOT enabled by default
on any MacOS X, and I don't think you can start it from the GUI either.
But if you started it from the command line, Apple had a security
update out for the potential vulnerability on the same day as the CERT
advisory.

If you had downloaded sendmail to run on MacOS 9, you'd be equally
vulnerable, though you wouldn't get the free fix from Apple.

> 1 Oct 2003: CERT Advisory CA-2003-26 Multiple Vulnerabilities in
> SSL/TLS: "Apple: Vulnerable. This is fixed in Mac OS X 10.2.8
> which is available from http://www.apple.com/support/"

This is OpenSSL, which is used by stuff real people use, such as a
browser authenticating. Once again, there was never an attack on the
wild for PPC computers, but this time the initial CERT advisory
actually beat the free update -- by two days. By the time it got to
you, it seems it was out already.

Real world risk -- zero.

I can assure you that the possibility of a similar vulnerability (not
this exact one) in MacOS 9's SSL is very, very high. But the practical
risk is very low, because it's not an attractive target and there's not
source to examine. Security through obscurity and obsolescence. Using
an open source implementation, shared in common with many other
vendors, does make it much more likely for such vulnerabilities to be
found, but also much more likely to be fixed.

> Norton Anti-virus has had mid-month updates for the NAV versions
> 7.0.2 and up that support OS X when they weren't required for the
> earlier ones, 7.0 and earlier. My notices have come from
> VersionTracker and from the web site itself.

And yet, there are *still* no viruses for OS X. Not one.

> Microsoft has its own advisories (which I receive), those had always
> excluded Macintosh OS until OS X was released.

And yet, the Microsoft macro viruses aren't any more dangerous to OS X
than to OS 9.

> > This Apple rep should've either debunked the myths that your members
> > cited or gotten details so that each could be researched and better
> > information provided to you. But to stand idly by and let your MUG
> > members tell him without challenge that OS X is insecure is
> > unbelievable. The fact is that OS X is more secure than OS 9 in
> > virtually every way.
>
> The 2 Apple reps in late 2001 and early 2002 said they knew about
> them and Apple was working on it -- see the answers in the above CERT
> advisories for 2002 and 3.

The ones that were fixed before there was a threat?

It's not true that OS X is more secure than OS 9 in virtually every
way. OS X has remote services that OS 9 lacks. They aren't on by
default, and someone paranoid about security wouldn't enable them, but
you *can* turn them on, and remote access allows the possibility of a
remote exploit. In that respect, OS 9 is safer, though the stock
installs would be equally safe.

Then there's local exploits, the class of exploits that seek to gain
"root access" for a misbehaving application or user. A good number of
the CERT advisories are about such problems, which if exploited
(though, as usual, there never seems to be an exploit in the wild) can
allow an application or user to become "root" and do anything they
want.

There's no point in such an advisory against Mac OS 9, because every
application or user, by default, *starts* as root and can do anything
they want. Every potential local "security" risk has the *worst case*
scenario of becoming like MacOS 9. For local security, there's simply
no comparison between the two. Mac OS X has it, Mac OS 9 doesn't.

> OS X's security problems were talked about in several Mac lists. It
> has been almost 2 years ago now, so I do not remember which ones.

Those of us who use OS X still follow these things. Security just
isn't a real world problem. There's no worms, no viruses, no unpatched
exploits, and a few trojans that largely would work just as well (or
better) on Mac OS 9 systems. If you leave remote services off, you can
ignore even the theoretical possibility of remote attackers.

That's why you got such a reaction when you mentioned security as a
concern. I could see listing it as a concern if you were talking about
another well-known operating system that comes with easily exploited
remote services enabled out-of-the-box, and a zillion viruses and worms
designed to zombify it. But OS X? We know better.

I do agree there's no need to replace something that serves all your
needs, whether it's old OSes, old software, or old hardware. My son
still gets good use out of a 6500 running MacOS 7 (with no access to
the internet!), and I'm happy to have an iMac around still running
MacOS 8 (MacOS 9 broke some good games). If it isn't broke, why fix
it? There's no reason to move to OS X unless it allows you to do
something you couldn't do before, or to do something you did do before
better. For family history, the only thing OS X allows me to do that I
couldn't do before is use iDisk for off-site remote backup of my
Reunion data files. And my wife used iMovie to make a short film out
of family pictures we scanned, that was pretty cool too.

But one nice thing about running the latest and greatest is that I know
I won't have any problems running the next version of Reunion :->.

Dale J. Stephenson
dalestephenson@xxx_com

------------------------------

Date: October 02, 2004
From: William Thompson
Subject: Importing e-mail or snail-mail addresses

Researching the archives, I only found one reference -- a query --
about importing e-mail or snail-mail addresses into Reunion. Anyone
done this and care to share tips or procedures?

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------

Date: October 02, 2004
From: John Goodman
Subject: Re: Biblical genealogy

Tommy Buch wrote:

> I wanted to start it at 0000 but Reunion would not accept
> that date. I don't know why Reunion has decided that 0000 should be
> rejected, but I simply put 0001 knowing that it should be 0000. Maybe
> Reunion can be modified to accept this date as a valid date in a future
> version release.

Tommy,

You can't use 0000 as a date because there is no such thing as zero
time. The very first year in time is the year 1. On January 1st 2005,
the very first second is in the year 2005.
Another way to put it is the years 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. December 31st of 1
B.C. is right next to January 1st of 1 A.D. The year 0 A.D. doesn't
exist.

John

------------------------------

Date: October 02, 2004
From: Mary Arthur
Subject: Re: support of Reunion

I moved from OS 8.6 to X, so can't comment on the value of X over 9.
I think people are forgetting that we have an incredible support in
Liester and are worrying over nothing.

I am sure that they will continue to support 8 as they continue to
support previous versions, but to expect the new version to be
compatible with old or very old operating systems is unfair. If it is,
great, if not, 8 is still a great program!

Mary Arthur

------------------------------

Date: October 02, 2004
From: Bob White
Subject: Re: Poll results for myroots

Ken Ozanne <ken.ozanne@xxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> Earl wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks -- The poll results of MyRoots are in and REUNION users
> > lead the pack!
>
> Please, what is "MyRoots". Does it have a URL?

You'll find My Roots at http://www.tapperware.com/ I have used it for
several years to carry my relatives around with me.

It's a genealogy application for your Palm or Windows based PDA's. A
good resource on the subject is at
http://web.syr.edu/~rsholmes/genealogy/palmreunion/geneapp.html

Bob White**************Membership Chair
MacNexus: Sacramento's Macintosh User Group
(916) 363-7115***bobwhite@xxxxxxxx_org

------------------------------

Date: October 02, 2004
From: Richard Bienvenu
Subject: Trying to Install Virtual PC, but I can't find

the serial number! (Mislaid, somewhere or other, a year ago.) Well,
that's my tale of woe. I just brough my new iMac G5 (it's incredibly
beautiful!) home and want to install Virtual PC--my most important
genealogy CD (Southwest La. Records) is Windows only.

Is there any kind of a way around that serial number request? Would
Microsoft be likely to help? I've never dealt with them, although I
did use DOS once!

Thanks,

Richard Bienvenu

P.S. I do have a running copy of Virtual PC on my office machine, and
I have made a CD of it, but some files seem not to have made it
over--the serial number thing again, I'd guess.

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Stephen Hill
Subject: How many megabytes

I have converted a family file to webcards.

How do I find/calculate the megabyte size of the webcard "set"?

Steve Hill

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Mike Horst
Subject: Re: How do I get an upgrade?

Lucy Ainsley asks about getting the Reunion 8 upgrade in the above
message.

For information on ordering the Reunion 8 upgrade, head over to this
page on our web site...

http://www.LeisterPro.com/doc/Version8/Upgrade8Info.html

Also, you may want to see this page regarding the new features in
Reunion 8...

http://www.LeisterPro.com/doc/Version8/NewFeatures/NewFeatures8.html

Mike Horst
Leister Productions, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Marco Soria
Subject: Glitch with names

Hello dear fellow Reunioners,

I am a happy user of Reunion since many, many years with very few problems
ever - and a huge database of over 110,000 names. I now use a Powerbook G4
with Reunion 7 in Classic mode from OSX 10.2.8. Works fine for my purposes.
However, I noticed recently an annoying feature that I have not been able to
correct.
Because of many instances of identical first names and family names, I often
use the equivalent of "son of" or "daughter of" in different languages. For
instance, in hebrew a guy might be Jacob ben Mordechai Cohen, his sister
might be Ester bat Mordechai Cohen etc.
Problem: my beloved Reunion has started acting funny recently, because it
will automatically assign a capital first letter to any word appearing in
the first name field, i.e. Jacob Ben Mordechai or Ester Bat Mordechai.
I use other variations on this theme for first names (eg Jacob's wife, or
Jacob's father-in-law or sister-in law etc.), and I reserve all-capital
letters in names for nicknames or other changes both in first names and in
family names (eg, Robert BOB Kleinzeller KLEIN). Therefore, I find this
glitch quite disturbing.
Anybody out there having a clue to what's going on, and what could be done
in order to revert to the default situation? All help will be greatly
appreciated.
All the best from

Marco R. Soria
Milano, Italy

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: kaye
Subject: Re: Descendant Chart and Setting up family trees

> ... the tree print outs...take many more sheets of paper to print out
> than I think are
> needed. I would also like some greater input as to lay out. Is there
> a tree making program which works with Reunion?

One thing Tim did not point out in his answer to the above was the
ability to print at a percentage of the whole. Under page setup you can
set the scale. It is very rare that I print out at 100% - I most
frequently use 70-75% which makes quite a saving in paper, is still
perfectally readable and leaves space to make all those necessary notes
when working at a repository.

Kaye
Dunedin, New Zealand

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Lewis Stein
Subject: Setting up family trees

From all of the great responses which i had to my question I learned
two things. First, that Reunion users are happy to give good advice
and second, that I don't have to look any further than Reunion itself
to make the kind of trees that I need. It is just a matter of learning
in depth about the program.

Lewis Stein

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: How many megabytes

Steve Hill <shillndd@xxxxxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> I have converted a family file to webcards.
>
> How do I find/calculate the megabyte size of the webcard "set"?

Steve,

Whether you're in OS 9/earlier or OS X, you'll be able to do this the
same way. Reunion usually wants to put "reports" into the Reports
folder inside its own program folder. Reunion 8 allows you to
designate a new location. But the web cards just created constitute
a report. Find that folder (you should have been able to set its
name and location in the dialog that opened when you told Reunion to
create your web cards), select it, and use the Get Info command
(Command-I). The size shown in MB or KB may or may not be entirely
accurate given a variety of factors. But the size in bytes should be
pretty close to the actual size required on your server when you're
ready to upload.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Glitch with names

Marco Soria <soria@xxxxx_it> wrote:

> I am a happy user of Reunion since many, many years with very few
> problems ever - and a huge database of over 110,000 names. I now use a
> Powerbook G4 with Reunion 7 in Classic mode from OSX 10.2.8. Works fine
> for my purposes. However, I noticed recently an annoying feature that I
> have not been able to correct.
> Because of many instances of identical first names and family names, I
> often use the equivalent of "son of" or "daughter of" in different
> languages. For instance, in hebrew a guy might be Jacob ben Mordechai
> Cohen, his sister might be Ester bat Mordechai Cohen etc.
> Problem: my beloved Reunion has started acting funny recently, because
> it will automatically assign a capital first letter to any word
> appearing in the first name field, i.e. Jacob Ben Mordechai or Ester Bat
> Mordechai. I use other variations on this theme for first names (eg
> Jacob's wife, or Jacob's father-in-law or sister-in law etc.), and I
> reserve all-capital letters in names for nicknames or other changes both
> in first names and in family names (eg, Robert BOB Kleinzeller KLEIN).
> Therefore, I find this glitch quite disturbing.
> Anybody out there having a clue to what's going on, and what could be
> done in order to revert to the default situation? All help will be
> greatly appreciated.

Marco,

This sounds suspiciously like the behavior controlled by the "Initial
Caps" checkbox on the Edit Person window. With this turned on, the
normal behavior of Reunion is to capitalize the first letter of each
"word" appearing in the First & Mid Name field. I've found that I
can often change selected portions successfully, but sometimes it's
necessary to turn it off before saving. Then, I can open the Edit
Person window again, check it, and close -- without it changing the
case of names in that particular person's record.

Maybe this helps.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Ray Bowler
Subject: Re: Can't update file in OS X

Dan Killoran wrote:

> Sue Guptill wrote:
>
> > I recently upgraded to OS X. I seem to have 2 problems: 1) None of my
> > event sources show. 2) I can't add new data. When I tried to add a
> > spouse to an ancestor, for example, I typed it in and clicked Save,
> > but the new data didn't show up.
>
> You probably don't have WRITE permission in the directory where
> Reunion wants to write the file.
>
> BTW, nearly ALL the troubles reported in OS-X turn out to be
> "Permission" problems, so always consider that first!

I agree but to elaborate a little--Under the directory Users there is
another directory with your ID (mine is raybowl). If your data file
is not in that directory with your user name then you may not be able
to do anything with it. There might be other problems but that is the
first one to check. If necessary move the data file into your own
directory. If you cannot move it or if this doesn't help contact me
off line and I'll try to help.

--
Ray

Des Moines, IA Mac Users Group
Fourth Tues of the month.
See

<WWW.DMMUG.ORG>

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Bob White
Subject: Re: Can't update file in OS X

Sue Guptill <sguptill@xxxxxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> I recently upgraded to OS X. I seem to have 2 problems: 1) None of my
> event sources show. 2) I can't add new data. When I tried to add a
> spouse to an ancestor, for example, I typed it in and clicked Save,
> but the new data didn't show up.

Go to the Applications folder >> Utilities folder where you will find a
program called Disk Utility. Start it up. In the left panel, select the
name of your hard disk. On the right, under First Aid, click on the
Repair Disk Permissions button. Depending on the speed of your Mac and
how many files you have, it will take from several minutes to maybe ten
minutes to go through all files and repair permissions. Often, when
files are brought in from from an older system, the permissions are not
all set correctly. Hopefully, this will cure your ills. Also, I
recommend that you do this a couple times monthly and whenever you
experience oddball printing problems.

Bob White**************Membership Chair
MacNexus: Sacramento's Macintosh User Group
(916) 363-7115***bobwhite@xxxxxxxx_org

------------------------------

Date: October 03, 2004
From: Ronald N. Gowe
Subject: Saint names as prefixes

Further to the discussion on this subject, here is my two cents worth:
As an adult convert to Catholicism, I was given the name Joseph at my
baptism, followed by the addition of Christopher as a confirmation name
when that sacrament later took place. Neither of which were applied in
common usage. However, 25 years later there was a problem in finding
the civil record of my marriage as I had not shown the Joseph prefix
when searching records.
Eventually it was found that the marriage had been recorded with Joseph
preceding the given names that I had been using since birth. Due to
Banns being published, no license had been required prior to the
marriage. The registration by the Church, however, did include Joseph.
Cheers, Ron.

------------------------------

Date: October 04, 2004
From: Al Poulin
Subject: Re: Mac systems 9 and 10

Mary Moody <mam-lists@xxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> I guess you do not receive CERT Advisories; I have for years. Never
> have I seen one such adviory that included OS 1.x-9.x as I have for
> OS X.

Indeed, Apple continues issueing advisories and Security Updates
through 2004. Apple is doing its job of providing us with a highly
secure OS X. Plugging potential security holes in OS X is one aspect
of the overall environment relating to security and integrity of the
data. In reading various Macintosh-oriented e-lists, I do not recall
anyone claiming to have been bothered by any security holes in OS X.
The one possible exception would be the case earlier this year where
the vendor of a virus fighting software package trumpeted one of the
security holes, apparently as a marketing move. But Apple plugged that
hole before it could be exploited through malfeasance.

On the other hand, comments in the e-lists about OS X security and
integrity of the data are universal with praise. Noteworthy is the
disappearance of extension conflicts which triggered many a complaint
of crashes and loss of data. There were experiences of loss of data in
the early versions of OS X, usually through user error such as
ill-advised methods of updating and upgrading software versions and
just playing around in the Terminal or Root modes. While good early
practice with OS X was to have a separate copy on an extra partition,
this precaution may now safely be ignored. Admittedly, as users take
advantage of fast cable and DSL internet connections, there arises the
need to be aware of the need for firewalls, good port controls, and use
of passwords for file sharing. These measures are needed not because
of security vulnerabilities in OS X, but simply because users want to
take greater advantage of today's technologies.

Al Poulin

------------------------------

Date: October 04, 2004
From: martha
Subject: People disappearing from the index

I wanted to check some information on my great aunt, Hattie
ROTHSCHILD and went to find her through the index. She wasn't there.
I found her husband David, with her listed as his wife, but further
down in the index, her name was not there. [They both had the same
last name, although they were not related before they wed.] Following
the suggestion of someone on this list, I made a compact copy of the
database. I opened it, hoping my great aunt would be there, but she
was not. I have "repaired" the file - and am told there is nothing to
repair. I worry about how many other people have slipped out of the
index. I should have 3 Hattie ROTHSCHILDs and not one is listed in
the index, although all their family cards are in the database.

Another, perhaps related problem, is that when I try to make a find
list of multimedia files, very few are listed while I have quite a
large number linked. Hattie Rothschild has two photos, but she is not
on the list, and neither is her mother or father, but both of them
have pictures.

Could someone suggest what needs to be done? And perhaps why such
things have occurred? I am using OSX 10.1.5, Reunion 8.05

Thank you! Martha Lev-Zion

------------------------------

Date: October 04, 2004
From: FINN1928
Subject: MAC OS X - Version 10.2.3 EMac

I bought my new computer in Dec 2002. I have not transferred my
Reunion to the new computer.

I understand there are "upgrades?" "changes?" on line from Apple
for my 10.2.3, but I have not downloaded them. I have a "telephone"
modem and I think that Earthlink or AOL will shut me off before all
the downloading goes through. Should I change to something other
than "telephone" modems or should I purchase the CD's?

Do I have a problem? I apologize for being a tech dummy.

My old computer is a Performa 6116CD which I have like very much,
but I do not have enough "space".

I have over 8,000 individuals in my Reunion file.

On 2/15/99 I purchased Reunion 6.0 upgrade. I was unable to install
it on my Performa 6116CD.

Would it work to install it as a new program on the 10.2.3? Is an
"upgrade" a complete new program or does it simply "upgrade" the old
program. In other words, do i need to transfer the old program I
have on the Performa and then upgrade to Reunion 6.0???

I will be leaving for a short trip, but I always check the Reuion
daily messages upon returning home. I look forward to answers to
these questions.

Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: October 04, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Reunion Import to PCs

Peter Lindell <pjlindell@xxxxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> Wondering which genealogy PC software imports via GEDCOM best from
> Reunion 8. My adult daughter is ready to start doing genealogy with
> her PC and we need to know which PC software to get for her. I will
> not be able to get her to switch to MAC. I have an old MAC laptop
> with system 8.5. Maybe I should just give her that. Any thoughts
> out there?

Peter,

You really should express to your daughter just how disappointed you
are as a parent that she's leaving the fold for a "lesser" computer.
:-)

I don't know a great deal about the capabilities of specific PC
programs when it comes to importing GEDCOM files. But I can offer a
thought concerning the matter on the Reunion end, which is to say
that Reunion won't, by default, include everything in your family
file. It can be made to export more than the defaults, but the
GEDCOM standard isn't nearly sufficient for a truly good exchange.
The idea, though, is to look into those fields in your Reunion data
that don't have GEDCOM tags assigned, or that use non-standard tags.

To get a better idea what I mean about GEDCOM tags, go to the Options
menu and choose Define Person Fields and look at the Events tab.
Each entry there may include a GEDCOM tag near the bottom and an
"Active" checkbox. "Adopted" already has "ADOP" entered and "Active"
checked. Many have tags listed but are not active. The same is true
for Facts, Notes and Flags.

Reunion appears to be quite flexible in importing a GEDCOM in that it
will analyze the file first and let you choose which tags to include
or exclude, as well as assigning some of the tags to specific fields
in case they're not among those it already knows, etc. Since it lets
us define additional fields, it's clearly possible to assign tags to
some and include them in the fields that are exported, I would
imagine -- though it's probably wise to refer to the manual for
further information.

The real question is going to be a combination of whether the GEDCOM
standard can handle some of this information at all, and whether the
program your daughter gets will be as flexible about dealing with the
information you've included in an export. I know I'm one of many who
are hopeful that the new GEDCOM 6.0 standard (if it's ever really
finalized) will be much more useful in data exchange between programs
and platforms.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 04, 2004
From: Daryl W. Gordon
Subject: RE: Biblical genealogy

John Goodman <johngoodman@xxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> Tommy Buch wrote:
>
> > I wanted to start it at 0000 but Reunion would not accept that
> > date. I don't know why Reunion has decided that 0000 should be
> > rejected, but I simply put 0001 knowing that it should be 0000.
> > Maybe Reunion can be modified to accept this date as a valid date
> > in a future version release.
>
> Tommy,
>
> You can't use 0000 as a date because there is no such thing as zero
> time. The very first year in time is the year 1. On January 1st
> 2005, the very first second is in the year 2005. Another way to put
> it is the years 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. December 31st of 1 B.C. is right
> next to January 1st of 1 A.D. The year 0 A.D. doesn't exist.

Excellent explanation, John.

It is amazing how difficult this concept is for some folks. Another similar
situation exists with clock time. If you think in terms of a 24 hour clock,
the day ends at 2400 and a new day begins at 0001; there is never a "time"
that is all zeroes. The first second of a new day begins with 1. If you
think in terms of a 12 hour clock, it does get a little funny. 12:00 noon is
12:00 p.m. 12:00 midnight is 12:00 a.m. However, the day (or the am) begins
not at 12:00 a.m. but at 00:01 a.m. (or 00:00:01 using seconds). So, to use
John's example above, December 31 of 1 B.C. at 2400 hours (12:00 a.m.) is
right next to 0001 (00:01 or 00:00:01 a.m.) of January 1 of 1 A.D.

Centuries sometimes cause confusion, also. The years 2001 through 2100 are
the 21st Century, not the 20th as some think (1901 to 2000 was the 20th).
This is, of course, because the years 1 A.D. Through 100 were the 1st
Century. 101 started the 2nd Century; so you can see that the century is
always one more than the "hundredth" date. Did you notice how many people
were talking about New Year's Day of 2000 being the "new century" back in
late 1999? But those that understand this knew that the "new century" would
not start until New Year's Day of 2001.

And that is probably much more than Tommy would want to know, but it is
interesting, isn't it?

Daryl

--
Daryl W. Gordon, The Gordon Company, Indianapolis, Indiana
dgordon122@xxxxxxx_net

------------------------------

Date: October 04, 2004
From: Linda Roberts
Subject: Re: Trying to Install Virtual PC, but I can't find

BienvenuR@xxxxxxxx_edu wrote:

> I just brough my new iMac G5 (it's incredibly beautiful!) home and
> want to install Virtual PC

If you are trying to install Virtual PC on a G5, you will need to order
version 7, which just came out. My order is on "backorder". Versions
prior to this will not work on a G5.

Linda Roberts

------------------------------

Date: October 05, 2004
From: Celia Snyder
Subject: Report Problem

I've recently noticed that when I create a Register Report and it is
opened in MS Word, there are extra periods at the ends of the
sentences Reunion creates, see example below:

2. Vicar Peter MAVERICKE (Robert1), 12G Grandfather. Born ca 1550 in
Alwiscombe, Devonshire, England. Peter died in Alwiscombe,
Devonshire, England, in 1615/1616; he was 65. .

Peter Maverick was ordained as a deacon on 15 January 1573, and as a
priest three months later and then was admitted to the Perpetual
Vicarage of Awliscombe on the resignation of Richard Bacon on 3
November 1580.

In 1612 Peter Maverick sued William Champneys over the 99-year lease
between the two for Champneys' land. Vicar Maverick made a down
payment, but upon the anniversary of the second payment, Champneys
denied knowing anything about the extended lease. Apparently
Champneys had discovered that a neighbor would have given him more
money. Champneys made up a new lease, for one year, with
unreasonable demands to which Peter Maverick agreed. A few months
later, Champneys evicted the good Vicar. Before the matter could be
settled completely and satisfactorily to both parties, Vicar Peter
Maverick died a violent death early in the year 1616.

On 7 Nov 1577 when Peter was 27, he married Dorothy TUCKE, 12G
Grandmother, daughter of Robert TUCKE (ca 1524-) & Alice (1528-16 Dec
1607), in Awliscombe, Devonshire, England. Born ca 1555 in
Alwiscombe, Devonshire, England. Dorothy died in Devonshire, ENGLAND,
ca 1616; she was 61. .

They had the following children:
3 i. John (<1578-1635)
ii. Judith, 12G Aunt. Born in 1580. .
iii. Rebecca, 12G Aunt. Born in 1580. .
iv. Nathaniel, 12G Uncle. Born in 1583. .
v. Daniel, 12G Uncle. Born in 1585. .
vi. Elizabeth, 12G Aunt. Born in 1585. .
vii. Marie, 12G Aunt. Born in 1586. .
viii. Marie, 12G Aunt. Born in 1588. .

I suspect the problem may be with how Reunion interacts with MS Word.
I recently upgraded to the latest version of MS Word - 2004. I don't
recall having problems with the older version.

The anomaly also occurs with the Ahnentafel Report, but I haven't
noticed any problem with any of the other reports.

Celia Snyder

------------------------------

Date: October 05, 2004
From: Carl Carter
Subject: RE: Reunion Import to PCs

Peter Lindell <pjlindell@xxxxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> Wondering which genealogy PC software imports via GEDCOM best from
> Reunion 8. My adult daughter is ready to start doing genealogy with
> her PC and we need to know which PC software to get for her. I will
> not be able to get her to switch to MAC. I have an old MAC laptop
> with system 8.5. Maybe I should just give her that. Any thoughts out
> there?

I have an old PC that has Family Tree Maker version 5 on it, and it
imports GEDCOMs just fine. I'm sure the current version, 11 I think,
will do the same. If you have created special fields for data, you
woulld have to duplicate them on the PC first to do an import. There
are a number of other PC programs that I have tried demos of, and they
should work too. The only advatage to FTM is that it will access the
gazillion CDs they have available, while I haven't found any others
that will.

Carl

------------------------------

Date: October 05, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: OS 9/10.3/X

Virginia wrote:

> Hello;
>
> I lied, I just ordered OS X ver. 10.3! Said I wouldn't! I think I
> can use it in "classic" mode. That is OS 9, right? I wanted a dvd
> writer, and most only are aimed at OS 10/X. Soooooo? I am hoping
> that there will not be too many problems!
>
> Anyone with information for a G3, Blue & White Mac, switching to OS
> X would be appreciated.
>
> Thank you, do enjoy the "info" that is digested here!

Virginia,

Many OS X users have come to refer to OS 9 as Classic, but it's only
really correct to refer to it that way when OS 9 is started within OS
X. But you shouldn't have too much trouble.

Assuming that your B&W machine has the latest (9.2.2) installed,
you'll be able to install 10.3 without issues (presumably) and then
tell the System Preferences pane for Classic where the existing
"System Folder" is located that it should use when launching Classic.
The same 9.2.2 you've been using will thereby serve as your Classic
environment, though you'll want to know that there will be some new
items added by OS X with your permission the very first time you
launch Classic. The vast majority of your existing OS 9 programs
should work in that mode without any trouble. Those that can't
include anything that tries to talk directly to the hardware, like
some older printer or scanner drivers).

If you've already got Reunion 8 under 9.2.2, it will probably still
work in Classic. But your Reunion CD should have the OS X version
that you can install to use the native OS X version. Just remember
to visit Leister's web site to get the updates to bring it to 8.05.

Good luck and welcome aboard the OS X merry-go-round! :-)

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: APATRICIAS
Subject: Bookmarks

All the names I've entred don't show up under, "Bookmarks."
But they do under, "Index." How come?

I would like them to all be listed in, "Bookmarks."

Patricia Allen

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: jacqi
Subject: A few Chart problems

I have just created a rather complex chart showing a marriage
relationship between my husband's family and my brother-in-law's
family. I had to use various sized and coloured lines to show the
marriage connections and copy and paste a Relative Chart from my
brother-in-law's family into a Relative Chart of my husband. During
this process Reunion crashed two or three times, so I learned after the
first time to Save frequently.

During the exercise I found a couple of 'quirks' in Reunion -

1. When importing the Relative Chart of my brother-in-law, the spouse
connecting lines for the earliest generation wouldn't import with the
chart, although they were shown on the original and were enclosed in
the selection rectangle. I tried this several times, leaving larger
and larger space, but couldn't capture them.

2. Being in Australia, I use A4 (21 cm x 29.7 cm) paper, and in this
case the Page Setup was in Landscape. However, the complete chart,
together with borders, doesn't center on the page properly, and I
can't see how to make it do so. The margins are:
Top - 0.9 cm
Bottom - 0.6 cm
Left - 0.7 cm
Right - 1.5 cm

I am using an eMac OSX10.2.8, Reunion 8.05, and an Epson Stylus C61. I
tried, on Page Setup, choosing Settings - Reunion 8. When I click OK,
the chart contents, inside the frame, all moves up a little, but the
setting doesn't 'stick' - i.e. when I choose Page Setup again the
default Setting - Page Attributes has returned, and I have to choose
Reunion 8 again. I don't know much about these things, but I think the
printer driver for Stylus C61 isn't fully compatible with Reunion's
settings. Also the Binding Margins choice, shown in Reunion's Manual,
doesn't appear when I choose Settings - Reunion 8.

Advice and comments gratefully received.

Jacqi, Melbourne, Australia

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Denny Lowe
Subject: Re: People disappearing from the index

Martha <martha@xxxxxxx_bgu.ac.il> wrote:

> I wanted to check some information on my great aunt, Hattie
> ROTHSCHILD and went to find her through the index. She wasn't there.
> I found her husband David, with her listed as his wife, but further
> down in the index, her name was not there. [They both had the same
> last name, although they were not related before they wed.]

Martha, Is there any possibility Reunion's Index is set to sort on
"Married Name, First & Mid Name" rather than sorting on "Last Name,
First & Mid Name"?

I do see the behaviour you describe if I set the index to sort on the
former, rather than the latter, drop down choice.

Denny (Langley BC)

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Frank Mitchell
Subject: Re: People disappearing from the index

martha <martha@xxxxxxx_bgu.ac.il> asked

> I wanted to check some information on my great aunt, Hattie
> ROTHSCHILD and went to find her through the index. She wasn't there.
> I found her husband David, with her listed as his wife, but further
> down in the index, her name was not there. [They both had the same
> last name, although they were not related before they wed.]

At the top of the index list is the Show pop-up menu set to Males?

If it is, change it to All

-- Frank Mitchell, Scottsdale, Arizona

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: martha
Subject: Re: People disappearing from the index; multimedia list failure

I want to thank you for your trouble and apologize for asking a
question I should have realized myself, that people had disappeared
from my index because it was set to "male". That was the case, and I
am embarrassed that I bothered this list with something I should have
checked out myself. Please accept my apologies!

On the other hand, the problem with the failure to list multimedia
files continues to be a real problem and I cannot locate an answer.
When I do a 'find'--->presets---->with multimedia files, up pops a
"found" list with only 18 people listed out of a file of more than
13,000 people, with at the very, very least 500 of them connected to
multimedia files.

Can anyone suggest what the cause of this problem might be and how to
fix it?

Thank you in advance! Martha

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Al Poulin
Subject: Re: MAC OS X - Version 10.2.3 EMac

FINN1928@xxx_com wrote:

> I bought my new computer in Dec 2002. I have not transferred my
> Reunion to the new computer.
>
> I understand there are "upgrades?" "changes?" on line from Apple
> for my 10.2.3, but I have not downloaded them.

There are "updates" up to 10.2.8, plus Security Updates. Take a look
at the Apple web pages in the Support tab, Downloads. You will find
that you can go to 10.2.8 in one step, with "combo" update.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=25525 As for the
Security Updates, look at the Article ID #61798 and assess whether you
want to bother with them. You can read the article by typing the five
digits into the search block. But if you have no particular issues
with 10.2.3, you could well stick with that version. On the other
hand, it's kind of fun to go through the process, learning things, and
then getting the benefits of bugs fixes and greater confidence in the
system.

> I have a "telephone" modem and I think that Earthlink or AOL will
> shut me off before all the downloading goes through. Should I change to
> something other than "telephone" modems or should I purchase the CD's?

My sister has a G4 iMac with a bad telephone line in a rural area.
When downloading large updates through the night, if the process stops,
she reconnects at another time, and the computer's browser (Safari)
picks up where the download left off and continues.

A cable modem or DSL with the phone line will makes things more
pleasant for anything to do with the internet. In buying the CD, the
current retail OS X is for 10.3 Panther. You may get something like
10.3.2, but you still have the update to download for 10.3.5. Unless
you have a particular reason to take Panther now, I recommend you get
the download update to 10.2.8. Wait for the next version "upgrade" CD
set to 10.4 Tiger which should hit the street sometime between January
and July.

> My old computer is a Performa 6116CD which I have like very much,
> but I do not have enough "space".

You could attach an external hard drive, or hook it up via ethernet to
the eMac for file sharing.

> I have over 8,000 individuals in my Reunion file.
>
> On 2/15/99 I purchased Reunion 6.0 upgrade. I was unable to install
> it on my Performa 6116CD.

Your Performa meets the system requirements for Reunion 6.0. You could
try again, and in a separate thread, describe in detail what happens,
with any error messages.

> Would it work to install it as a new program on the 10.2.3?

Reunion 6 will work in Classic mode under 10.2.3 or any later version
of OS X, meaning that OS X is using an OS 9.2.2 System Folder with
modifications to run your legacy application.

> Is an "upgrade" a complete new program or does it simply "upgrade" the
> old program. In other words, do i need to transfer the old program I
> have on the Performa and then upgrade to Reunion 6.0???

The upgrade is a complete package. You could load it without first
loading the old Reunion. But I recommend you first load the old
Reunion on the eMac, then move your files, and examine them closely.
When you are satisfied that things work well, including with your
printer, then load Reunion 6 on the eMac. Depending on the old Reunion
version, Reunion 6 may "convert" the old files. If so, then review
them again.

You may find Article ID #25755 useful: "Mac OS: Moving Files From Your
Older Macintosh to a New One." And for questions specific to
Macintosh, but not Reunion, there are helpful "Email Lists" to which
one can subscribe at http://lowendmac.com/ Look in the right side
list on the home page.

Al Poulin

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: L230j
Subject: Re: OS 9/10.3/X

Virginia wrote:

> Anyone with information for a G3, Blue & White Mac, switching to OS
> X would be appreciated.

I have been running Reunion just fine on my Blue & White G3 350 for
a long, long time. I started when I was running OS 9.2.2 but then
upgraded to OS X 10. I found I could run it in either 'Classic' mode
which is basically 9.2.2 in OS X.

There are several ways in which Reunion is better when running in OS
X than in OS 9. Currently I am running Reunion 8.05 using OS X
10.2.8. I do not think you will have any problems but remember
Reunion updates the data file to run in OS X when you first run it
in OS X.

So if you have any reason to think you might ever want to go back to
OS 9 or an earlier version, keep a copy of the data file that has not
run in OS X. It will not contain anything you add later in OS X, of
course.

In fact, it is a good idea to back up everything including Reunion
before you install OS X or make any such major changes.


John M. Leggett
1133 Sawyer Way
Sun Prairie WI 53590-4440
608-825-6761

"The first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide
what you want."- Ben Stein

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Colin
Subject: Re: OS 9/10.3/X

Hi Virginia

I have an Apple Blue & White G3 running OSX 10.3.5 with OS 9.2.2
which runs in classic mode.

First thing to check is the size of your hard drive. In the UK these
computers only had 6GB hard drives which is not sufficient.
I purchased and installed an 80GB drive in addition to the 6GB.
I have OSX installed on the 80GB drive and OS 9.2.2 on the 6GB
drive. Also advisable to increase the memory if you can. The spec
states 128 minimum and this is a minimum. I have 192 and find
that insufficient at times if I have too many programs open at once.

I am really pleased with OSX and being able to run all my old software
such as Reunion 7 in classic mode is great.

Hope this is helpful and please contact me if you need further info or
help.

Regards

Colin

www.theusherweb.me.uk

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Al Poulin
Subject: Re: OS 9/10.3/X

Virginia <skydancer@xxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> I lied, I just ordered OS X ver. 10.3! Said I wouldn't! I think I
> can use it in "classic" mode. That is OS 9, right?

Yes, Classic mode in OS X uses an OS 9 System Folder, but it is not OS
9 per se that is running.

> I wanted a dvd writer, and most only are aimed at OS 10/X. Soooooo?
> I am hoping that there will not be too many problems!
>
> Anyone with information for a G3, Blue & White Mac, switching to OS
> X would be appreciated.

For making the OS switch, print and study Apple's technical articles on
the subject. I highly recommend one of the "Panther" books by David
Pogue or Robin Williams. They are oriented to the home consumer and
yet have enough detail for reference purposes into hard questions. I
have Pogue's book, and it has been extremely helpful; I understand
Robin Williams is more user friendly.

To do all you say, you may have several little projects on your hands.
But the beauty of your desktop machine is its expandability. If your
B&W has not been upgraded in hardware since new, to make OS X
tolerable, you need a bare minimum of 256MB RAM, and 516MB to make it
fairly happy.

If your hard drive is still the original 6 or 12 GB item and it is 50
to 70% full by now, it will choke on OS X. OS X needs a minimum of 2
or 3 GB space to load, and then you want at least that much more for
elbow room in the immediate future.

For the DVD device, make sure a new one is backward compatible with
your Firewire 400 Mbps. And for DVD, you may want to jump your RAM all
the way to 1GB. That covers the basic elements. The next thing to
look as is whether YOU will be happy with DVD performance with a B&W.
Ask around. I hope other ReunionTalkers will comment on this. I
recommend you join the G-List at http://lowendmac.com Let them know
your precise configuration including CPU speed. There are folks there
who will be happy to comment on their experiences. They may recommend
a speed boost with an accelerator.

You can start by looking at http://lowendmac.com/ppc/g3c.shtml, its
various links, including specifications, and from there to Apple's
related pages. Also, there is: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/

The bottom line here is that you could easily invest over half the cost
of a new eMac just to upgrade the B&W. And you still do not get the
performance of a new machine. You could consider returning your OS X
box before opening it.

Al Poulin

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Jackie
Subject: Re: OS 9/10.3/X

Virginia wrote:

> Anyone with information for a G3, Blue & White Mac, switching to OS
> X would be appreciated.

Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but I just fully upgraded my G3
Beige desktop to it's max. running OS 10.2.8. with Classic. I can't go
any further (to Panther) because the processor won't support it, but
it's working fine for me so far. Reunion 8 is running fine, AFTER I
removed it from OS9 Classic - the reinstallation in OS X kept failing
because it detected a current version already in place. Thank you
Reunion HELP!

I also had 2 USB ports installed in my G3 to help support printer,
scanner, sandisk, etc. I didn't want to purchase a new computer at
this time and these upgrades will keep me going for a long while. I
don't even need to run the Classic anymore.

Jackie Smith
Sonoma, CA

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Blaise A. Darveaux
Subject: RE: Biblical genealogy

I think there have been some inaccurate statements said about "time". To
say that there is no such thing as zero time is ludicrous. That's like
saying that the number line doesn't have a zero or that the origin of a
coordinate system is not zero. It is true that when we talk about the
time of day we never say it is zero o'clock because the hours are
expressed in a cyclical manner. But our calendar system is supposedly
based on the belief that Jesus was born at the zero mark a little over
2004 years ago. If you say there is no such thing as zero time, then
tell me, if you were born at the stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1 BC,
would you be 1 year old? Of course not. You would be zero years old.
After a month you would be 0 years, 1 month old. After 2 months you
would be 0 years 2 months old, etc. Our calendar system should (but
doesn't, see below) and people's age starts at 0, not 1.

And the reason some people were saying that the new century really
begins 1 Jan 2001 and not 1 Jan 2000 is because the people that devised
our current calendar system inadvertently had Jesus being born on year 1
instead of year 0. They goofed and didn't include the year from 0 to 1.
So in essence, Jesus was wrongly aged as 1 year old when he was born.
Thus, on the stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1999 only 1999 years have
passed since the birth of Jesus (because they started counting at 1
rather then 0), not 2000 years.

The statement that many people get confused about what century we are in
is true. The 1800's was the 19th century, 1900's was the 20th century,
and we are now in the 21st century, although we have not completed 21
centuries yet. I am 45 years old, but I am in my 46th year (since birth).

I do end with questions, however, If our reckoning of years (our
calendar) doesn't include the 0 AD to 1 AD year, (as a proper number
line would) who decided that and why wasn't it corrected when it was
discovered that there is a "missing year".? Are there no documents,
throughout history, that refer to that year? Did everyone just decide to
agree that if they knew of something that occurred, say, 5 months before
Jesus' birth to use "5 months BC" rather then say "7 months AD"?

Hope this inspires more thought,

Blaise A. Darveaux

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Tommy Buch
Subject: RE: Biblical Genealogy

"Daryl W. Gordon" <dgordon122@xxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> John Goodman <johngoodman@xxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:
>
> > Tommy Buch wrote:
> >
> > > I wanted to start it at 0000 but Reunion would not accept that
> > > date. I don't know why Reunion has decided that 0000 should be
> > > rejected, but I simply put 0001 knowing that it should be 0000.
> > > Maybe Reunion can be modified to accept this date as a valid date
> > > in a future version release.
> >
> > Tommy,
> >
> > You can't use 0000 as a date because there is no such thing as zero
> > time. The very first year in time is the year 1. On January 1st
> > 2005, the very first second is in the year 2005. Another way to put
> > it is the years 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. December 31st of 1 B.C. is right
> > next to January 1st of 1 A.D. The year 0 A.D. doesn't exist.
>
> Excellent explanation, John.
>
> It is amazing how difficult this concept is for some folks. Another
> similar situation exists with clock time. If you think in terms of a
> 24 hour clock, the day ends at 2400 and a new day begins at 0001;
> there is never a "time" that is all zeroes. The first second of a
> new day begins with 1. If you think in terms of a 12 hour clock, it
> does get a little funny. 12:00 noon is 12:00 p.m. 12:00 midnight is
> 12:00 a.m. However, the day (or the am) begins not at 12:00 a.m. but
> at 00:01 a.m. (or 00:00:01 using seconds). So, to use John's example
> above, December 31 of 1 B.C. at 2400 hours (12:00 a.m.) is right
> next to 0001 (00:01 or 00:00:01 a.m.) of January 1 of 1 A.D.
>
> Centuries sometimes cause confusion, also. The years 2001 through
> 2100 are the 21st Century, not the 20th as some think (1901 to 2000
> was the 20th). This is, of course, because the years 1 A.D. Through
> 100 were the 1st Century. 101 started the 2nd Century; so you can
> see that the century is always one more than the "hundredth" date.
> Did you notice how many people were talking about New Year's Day of
> 2000 being the "new century" back in late 1999? But those that
> understand this knew that the "new century" would not start until
> New Year's Day of 2001.
>
> And that is probably much more than Tommy would want to know, but it
> is interesting, isn't it?

Okay ... now that John and Daryl has given us an explanation in
proper date and time etiquette, I do understand why Reunion is
rejecting 0000 as a "valid date", but let me explain my case a
little further.

I obviously miswrote when I asked for 0000 to be accepted as a
"valid date". I should have wrote asking for 0000 to be accepted as
a valid entry in the date field within Reunion. I am not using 0000
as a "valid date" per se, but instead, I wanted to use 0000 as a
starting/reference point. Therefore, if a person ever used 0000 as
a date, per se, they would be using it in this sense.

For example, if I am only using the date field to calculate the
notion of time only, then if someone lives 930 years from a
"starting point", then all I have to do is enter 0000 as a birth
date, per se, and 930 as a death date and Reunion would calculate a
correct age of 930. Again, it is not my intention to use proper
date etiquette in this case.

Now, to use proper date etiquette, as John and Daryl explained, I
would have to enter 0001 and 0931 for the birth and death dates,
> respectively, in order for the age of 930 to be calculated by
> Reunion. I prefer my requested method, to this method, for the
> particular purpose in which I am requesting 0000 to be accepted as a
> valid entry. Obviously, I am just trying to use Reunion in a way in
> which it was not meant to be used. That's why I just went with 0001
> and then continued my dates as I desired. But with a little tweaking
> of the code, I do think that Reunion could be modified to accept such
> a request, although its use would be limited.

Tommy Buch

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: James Beall
Subject: RE: Biblical genealogy

"Daryl W. Gordon" <dgordon122@xxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> John Goodman <johngoodman@xxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:
>
> > Tommy Buch wrote:
> >
> > > I wanted to start it at 0000 but Reunion would not accept that
> > > date. I don't know why Reunion has decided that 0000 should be
> > > rejected, but I simply put 0001 knowing that it should be 0000.
> > > Maybe Reunion can be modified to accept this date as a valid date
> > > in a future version release.
> >
> > Tommy,
> >
> > You can't use 0000 as a date because there is no such thing as zero
> > time. The very first year in time is the year 1. On January 1st
> > 2005, the very first second is in the year 2005. Another way to put
> > it is the years 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. December 31st of 1 B.C. is right
> > next to January 1st of 1 A.D. The year 0 A.D. doesn't exist.
>
> Excellent explanation, John.
>
> It is amazing how difficult this concept is for some folks. Another
> similar situation exists with clock time. If you think in terms of a
> 24 hour clock, the day ends at 2400 and a new day begins at 0001;
> there is never a "time" that is all zeroes. The first second of a
> new day begins with 1. If you think in terms of a 12 hour clock, it
> does get a little funny. 12:00 noon is 12:00 p.m. 12:00 midnight is
> 12:00 a.m. However, the day (or the am) begins not at 12:00 a.m. but
> at 00:01 a.m. (or 00:00:01 using seconds). So, to use John's example
> above, December 31 of 1 B.C. at 2400 hours (12:00 a.m.) is right
> next to 0001 (00:01 or 00:00:01 a.m.) of January 1 of 1 A.D.

John, this is not exactly true. A real 24-hour clock begins counting with
zero, and rolls over to zero again, one second after 23 hours, 59 minutes,
and 59 seconds. Even a countdown timer ends at zero, regardles of what time
it is initialized with.

Some cultures in the world actually use a 24-hour clock by default. Consider
for example, France. There, one second prior to midnight might be designated
23h59m59s. Exactly midnight would be 0h00m. If you guessed 24h00m, that
would be incorrect as far as midnight is concerned. While some people or
cultures (i.e. North Americans) may have difficulty with the concept of
"zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds", such a time does exist once every
24 hours, exactly at what we call midnight. --James.

--
Stuart-James Beall <jamesbeall@xxxxxxxxxx_com>
Stuart-James Beall <bealldna@xxxxxxxxx_net>

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Maria Hopper
Subject: Publishing

I received many wonderful responses to my request with help with
publishing my genealogy book, I also received many request to share the
information with the list. I haven't checked out all the sights yet
but here are those that were recommended.

The biggest help to me was that with OS X I could save the pages to a
pdf file [the option is on the print screen] Then I could take it to
any publisher.


From: willardm1@xxxxxxxxx_net
Subject: Re: Publishing
Date: October 1, 2004 5:40:17 PM EDT

I recommend you check with one or two commercial printers in your area.
I discovered their service is the best value.

Back in 2002 I did an illustrated 48-page family history pamphlet for
our family reunion using Adobe InDesign. The printer didn't have a copy
of that software and suggested I submit my project to him in PDF
format. I did and the job looked great.

I had 150 copies printed at less than $2.50 each. My pamphlet was black
& white and run on high quality 20-weight extra bright white, tabloid
size paper with a 60-weight bright white paper for the cover.

You'll find that cost per copy is a fuction of both page count and the
number of copies printed. Since your genealogy is 300 pages long you
may not need to have many copies printed to qualify for a low unit
cost.

Hope this helps.

Good Luck,

Bill


From: larryn@xxxxxxxxxxx_net
Subject: On demand publishers
Date: October 1, 2004 7:12:08 PM EDT

Take a look at http://www.bookmarket.com/ondemand.html for a list of
such short run publishers. I have a contact who knows a little more
about this..


From: Bellthorpe@xxx_com
Subject: Re publishing family history
Date: October 1, 2004 8:44:47 PM EDT

Maria,

This is just my 2 cents, but publishing through a local or
traditional print publisher is rather expensive, especially if you
have over 300 pages. Have you ever considered e-publishing your
family history book in PDF format?

I am currently publishing several eBooks which I will soon be
promoting on my website, and I am more than pleased with the
e-publishing concept. I use AppleWorks 6 to prepare my text and
images in book form, such as you have done, and then I print the
book out on my laser printer to proof it. When I'm satisfied with
its appearance, I convert my AppleWorks file to a pdf file using a
Mac shareware program called PrinttoPDF by James Walker. I then
submit my pdf file online to the National Library of Canada to
obtain an ISBN number and copyright. (I am not familiar with the
process of obtaining ISBN numbers in the US; here in Canada the
application is all online and ISBNs are provided without charge to
Canadian authors and publishers.) You should not require an ISBN
number, however, unless you plan to sell your book in bookstores or
on Amazon.

In case you're not familiar with PrinttoPDF, a free trial version
can be downloaded from this webpage,
http://www.jwwalker.com/pages/pdf.html, and it runs in OS 9.2
or in classic on OS X. It's a wonderful little program, and if you
should decide to purchase it, it's only $20 US -- much cheaper than
Adobe's version, yet it serves the purpose.

The pdf file produced is an "exact" image of what you see in
AppleWorks. A printout of the contents of the pdf file it will look
"exactly" the same as a printout of the contents of your AppleWorks
file; and it doesn't matter whether you use a Mac or a PC -- pdf
files are universal. Thus, you can distribute your finished pdf file
(ebook) to family members who use PCs, and they will be able to
access and print the pdf file just the same as you can. Publishing
at zero cost!

Not only that, but you can easily obtain a professional-looking
"print on demand" copy of your pdf file for those relatives who
don't have computers -- spiral or perfect binding, color covers and
all -- simply by uploading your pdf book to http://www.lulu.com
and paying a reasonable printing charge (I believe it's currently
something like $4.53 per book plus .02 cents per page, but don't
quote me; I could be wrong). You can even place your book on a LuLu
author's page for people to purchase a pdf or print version of your
book at their leisure, without any cost to you. You retain your
copyright and you determine your book's retail price; or you can
decide to make it available at cost; or you can purchase print on
demand copies yourself to distribute or give as gifts. Lulu's site
explains it all.

Just a thought or two to consider. Hope this helps.

Regards,

Don Bell

Maria (Ree) Pratt Hopper
Please visit my web site - Ree's Trees
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~reetrees/bhome.index.html

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Maria Hopper
Subject: Publishing II

From: davewells@xxx_com
Subject: Re: publishing
Date: October 1, 2004 9:51:48 PM EDT

Hello,
You could try downloading the Appleworks upgrade to 6.2.9 at:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=120213

For publishing....

http://www.heritagebooks.com/publishing.htm
http://www.gatewaypress.com/
http://www.iuniverse.com/publish/family_tree/
http://www.genealogical.com/default.asp?AFID=1132

Dave


From: hls3@xxx_net
Subject: genealogy book publisher
Date: October 2, 2004 12:38:30 AM EDT

I have finally finished my Hopper Genealogy (330 pages) and I'm
looking for a publisher. - Has anyone had experience will publishing
from a MAC disk - everything including the photos and maps (tif
images) is in Appleworks 6.2.7. It prints out beautifully on my
printer. Please send replies directly to me as I know this is a little
off subject, but I need input from MAC users. Ree

Hi Ree,
I just finished a 370 page genealogy on my father-in-law's family. It
has a color cover, a color insert, b & w photos, maps, illustrations,
etc. I used Reunion's Ahnentafel Report system. I even have a
pedigree chart that printed out as 24 inches wide and TEN FEET long.
My first try was using Appleworks as the word processor. The text
printed out fine, but all the illustrations were TERRIBLE when printed.

I found out it was because I saved them as JPEGs and Appleworks
reduces the resolution of all images to 72 dpi and that resolution
prints out to look awful. So I transferred the whole thing to
Microsoft Word and tried the images as TIFFs. It was a tiny bit
better, but still not satisfactory, since the process of making it a
PDF also changed the images too much and degraded them. In the end I
saved all the images as PICT files and was finally satisfied with the
way the images printed out after I saved the whole thing as a PDF (very
important step for taking to a printer).

I saved the whole report as a PDF, put it on a CD and took it to
Kinko's. I had separate files for the color cover, color insert, main
text, 10-foot pedigree chart, and a pedigree chart that I wanted
printed on 11 x 17 paper. They have different binding options
available and you need to talk to someone in the store who is
experienced with the options. I lucked out and talked to a manager who
really knew her stuff and could help me decide. I ended up with the
coil binding, and got 70 pound paper for the main text.

This book came out much better than my first attempt several years ago
when I printed out the text leaving spaces for xerox copies of the
illustrations, taking it to OfficeMax to just copy and coil-bind. When
I look at that book now, I cringe. How times change!
My 20-something son looked through the book and said it looked quite
professional. I took that as high praise, and am quite happy with the
result from Kinko's.

Good luck with your book!

Ann Stroupe
Federal Way, Washington

THANKS SO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING

Maria (Ree) Pratt Hopper
Please visit my web site - Ree's Trees
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~reetrees/bhome.index.html

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Urs Geiser
Subject: Re: multimedia list failure

Martha wrote:

> On the other hand, the problem with the failure to list multimedia
> files continues to be a real problem and I cannot locate an answer.
> When I do a 'find'--->presets---->with multimedia files, up pops a
> "found" list with only 18 people listed out of a file of more than
> 13,000 people, with at the very, very least 500 of them connected to
> multimedia files.
>
> Can anyone suggest what the cause of this problem might be and how to
> fix it?

This seems to be a quirk of the preset, which forces the search on
couples, not persons. I'm not sure whether this is a bug or a
feature (Leister?). All the presets seem to be set to apply only to
one, either persons or couples, but not both in cases where it would
make sense, no matter what your currently displayed tab is.

Just do it by hand: In Find Anything, set the Persons tab. Search
for Multimedia>#Multimedia Files : greater than : 0 You should get
the complete list of people with multimedia files attached to
them. You can even save this search criterion as a new preset
(e.g., Persons with Multimedia) and edit the presets to rename the
old one (e.g., to Couples with Multimedia).

(Tested on R 8.05 under OS 9.1 - I'm one of those people who haven't
made the jump to OS X yet because the last computer I bought doesn't
have the necessary horsepower.)

Urs Geiser (ugeiser@xxxx_com)
Woodridge (DuPage Co.), IL, USA

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Bookmarks

Patricia Allen wrote:

> All the names I've entred don't show up under, "Bookmarks."
> But they do under, "Index." How come?
>
> I would like them to all be listed in, "Bookmarks."

Patricia,

A quick visit to the manual will tell you that the Bookmarks button
will only display 50 people. You can turn it off entirely, or clear
it, or put specific people on it using instructions provided in the
manual.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: langf2
Subject: Classic Problem

I would advise anyone buying a new Mac. to partition it. You can then
install OS 9.2 in one of them and have OS x. in one of the others. I
have 4 partitions of about 10 GB each. One is OS 10.2.6., one is OS
10.2.8., one is OS 9.2.2., and the other is called Swap/Temp. Everything
works fine.

Al Langford

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Carl Bender
Subject: Biblical time

There is no missing year between 1 B.C. and A.D. 1 for a quite simple
reason. There was no zero in the numbering system until several
centuries after the birth of Christ and after Dennis developed the
basis for the calendar used in the western world today. When Dennis
(the Younger or Shorter, I've forgotten which) was developing that
calendar, the numbering system was structured on the Roman system of I,
V, X, L, C, D, M, etc. The Arabic system used today was the first to
include the concept of zero (0). but did not come until late in the
first millennium.

Carl Bender

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Misha Hoekstra
Subject: RE: Biblical genealogy (No year zero - who decided?)

Blaise A. Darveaux wrote:

> I think there have been some inaccurate statements said about
> "time". To say that there is no such thing as zero time is
> ludicrous. That's like saying that the number line doesn't have a
> zero or that the origin of a coordinate system is not zero. It is
> true that when we talk about the time of day we never say it is zero
> o'clock because the hours are expressed in a cyclical manner. But our
> calendar system is supposedly based on the belief that Jesus was born
> at the zero mark a little over 2004 years ago. If you say there is no
> such thing as zero time, then tell me, if you were born at the
> stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1 BC, would you be 1 year old? Of
> course not. You would be zero years old. After a month you would be
> 0 years, 1 month old. After 2 months you would be 0 years 2 months
> old, etc. Our calendar system should (but doesn't, see below) and
> people's age starts at 0, not 1.
>
> And the reason some people were saying that the new century really
> begins 1 Jan 2001 and not 1 Jan 2000 is because the people that
> devised our current calendar system inadvertently had Jesus being
> born on year 1 instead of year 0. They goofed and didn't include the
> year from 0 to 1. So in essence, Jesus was wrongly aged as 1 year old
> when he was born. Thus, on the stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1999 only
> 1999 years have passed since the birth of Jesus (because they started
> counting at 1 rather then 0), not 2000 years.
>
> The statement that many people get confused about what century we
> are in is true. The 1800's was the 19th century, 1900's was the 20th
> century, and we are now in the 21st century, although we have not
> completed 21 centuries yet. I am 45 years old, but I am in my 46th
> year (since birth).
>
> I do end with questions, however, If our reckoning of years (our
> calendar) doesn't include the 0 AD to 1 AD year, (as a proper number
> line would) who decided that and why wasn't it corrected when it was
> discovered that there is a "missing year".? Are there no documents,
> throughout history, that refer to that year? Did everyone just
> decide to agree that if they knew of something that occurred, say, 5
> months before Jesus' birth to use "5 months BC" rather then say "7
> months AD"?

My understanding is that the calendar convention of having no zero
year stems less from some mistaken assignment of numbers than from
the nature of the numbering itself, viz.: calendar years are
ordinal, not cardinal. In this they're like the centuries, but
because the numbers have gotten so bulky, we simply pronounce the
digits. We've probably all come across the traditional way to spell
out years, e.g., in the one thousand seven hundred and fifty-ninth
year of Our Lord, Laurence Sterne took up his pen in earnest. That
sounds just like you being in your forty-sixth year, Blaise.

(On the day after my father's seventieth birthday last year, I
congratulated him on entering his eighth decade. He was actually
more dismayed than my mother was when she turned 64 and I told her
friends that she was a million in base two.)

Since writing the above, I came across a fascinating backgrounder on
the topic at http://www.wordiq.com/definition/century. It notes that
calendars were traditionally ordinal (e.g. the thirtieth year of
King John's reign), and that our confusion on this head derives
largely from the introduction of Arabic numerals and the very
concept of zero to the West.

Salut,

Misha Hoekstra
Aarhus, Denmark

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: John Goodman
Subject: RE: Biblical genealogy

James Beall wrote:

> John, this is not exactly true. A real 24-hour clock begins counting
> with zero, and rolls over to zero again, one second after 23 hours,
> 59 minutes, and 59 seconds. Even a countdown timer ends at zero,
> regardles of what time it is initialized with.
>
> Some cultures in the world actually use a 24-hour clock by default.
> Consider for example, France. There, one second prior to midnight
> might be designated 23h59m59s. Exactly midnight would be 0h00m. If
> you guessed 24h00m, that would be incorrect as far as midnight is
> concerned. While some people or cultures (i.e. North Americans) may
> have difficulty with the concept of "zero hours, zero minutes, zero
> seconds", such a time does exist once every 24 hours, exactly at
> what we call midnight. --James.

James,

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. First, a "real" 24-hour clock
would be based on Coordinated Universal Time, commonly referred to as
UTC. A UTC clock actually begins at 00:00:01 (unless it is fast enough
to take the digits out further). It reaches the point that you think is
24:00:00, or 00:00:00, at 23:59:60.

Second, a countdown timer is not related to actual time. It is merely a
device that "counts" the difference between a start time you pick, and
a finish time that you also picked. This is a mathematical concept, not
a time concept. Zero exists in math. It means that the difference
between the finish time you picked and actual time is "nothing." For
example, if the difference between two stacks of coins is zero, it
means the two stacks have the same number of pieces.

Third, a vast majority of all cultures (not just some) in the world
actually use a 24-hour clock. France (and all of Europe), if fact, use
UTC. So does the US government and the Internet. Exactly midnight is
not 00:00:00, it is 23:59:60. An analog clock that only has whole
integers on it's face may have the number "24" or the symbol "0" at the
midnight position. Who cares? As long as we know it's exactly midnight.
Here is a test: Your countdown timer is set to countdown from 23:00:00
to ring at midnight. How does the math work inside that little timer?
It knows what a second is, so it subtracts 23:00:00 from...........what?
Certainly not zero. removing something from zero is still nothing.

John

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: Carol Botteron
Subject: Re: Biblical genealogy (year capability)

As long as we're talking about dates ... Reunion could be used for
other purposes besides genealogy. For example, a novelist might use
it to keep track of the relationships between characters.

Suppose I were writing a historical novel with characters born before
and after the nonexistent year zero. Or a far-future novel in which
the years have more than 4 digits. Could Reunion handle those?

I'm not 100% serious here, but with a vehicle like Reunion we wonder
how much horsepower it has!

Carol Botteron (that's French Swiss) <botteron@xxxx_mit.edu>
Maintainer, Civil War Units File

------------------------------

Date: October 06, 2004
From: John Goodman
Subject: Re: Biblical genealogy

Blaise A. Darveaux wrote:

> I think there have been some inaccurate statements said about
> "time". To say that there is no such thing as zero time is
> ludicrous. That's like saying that the number line doesn't have a
> zero or that the origin of a coordinate system is not zero. It is
> true that when we talk about the time of day we never say it is zero
> o'clock because the hours are expressed in a cyclical manner. But our
> calendar system is supposedly based on the belief that Jesus was born
> at the zero mark a little over 2004 years ago. If you say there is no
> such thing as zero time, then tell me, if you were born at the
> stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1 BC, would you be 1 year old? Of
> course not. You would be zero years old. After a month you would be
> 0 years, 1 month old. After 2 months you would be 0 years 2 months
> old, etc. Our calendar system should (but doesn't, see below) and
> people's age starts at 0, not 1.
>
> And the reason some people were saying that the new century really
> begins 1 Jan 2001 and not 1 Jan 2000 is because the people that
> devised our current calendar system inadvertently had Jesus being
> born on year 1 instead of year 0. They goofed and didn't include the
> year from 0 to 1. So in essence, Jesus was wrongly aged as 1 year old
> when he was born. Thus, on the stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1999 only
> 1999 years have passed since the birth of Jesus (because they started
> counting at 1 rather then 0), not 2000 years.
>
> The statement that many people get confused about what century we
> are in is true. The 1800's was the 19th century, 1900's was the 20th
> century, and we are now in the 21st century, although we have not
> completed 21 centuries yet. I am 45 years old, but I am in my 46th
> year (since birth).
>
> I do end with questions, however, If our reckoning of years (our
> calendar) doesn't include the 0 AD to 1 AD year, (as a proper number
> line would) who decided that and why wasn't it corrected when it was
> discovered that there is a "missing year".? Are there no documents,
> throughout history, that refer to that year? Did everyone just
> decide to agree that if they knew of something that occurred, say, 5
> months before Jesus' birth to use "5 months BC" rather then say "7
> months AD"?

Blaise,

I think a little background on our current calendar is in order. First,
you need to remember our linear concept of numbers, as you suggested.
In primary school we were shown a line of numbers with "0" in the
middle, and the minus' to the left and the plus' to the right. The fact
that the "0" occupied it's own space probably implied that zero
possesses a value equal to other whole numbers. Zero possesses no
value, it is the absence of value. You even mention an example that a
point in your first year of life is "0 years 2 months.". You spend your
first year living in year one. Subtract 2 from 3 and you get 1.
Subtract 0 from 1, and you get 1. Zero has no value.

Next, let's talk about what our calendar is based on. The granddaddy of
the current calendar was the Julian calendar. It originally started
with "ab urbe condita", which was the founding of Rome according to
Varro. Many rulers modified it, but Diocletion instituted Anno
Diocletiani, with the year one representing his first year of reign.
This is the first official 1 A.D. In 525 A.D. Dionysius Exiguus
proposed the system of Anno Domini which gradually spread in the
Christian world. This calender was numbered from the incarnation of
Jesus Christ on March 25th. The year one began on March 1st. March was
the first month of the year back then. This required changing the
Diocletion calender by 284 years and the original "ab urbe condita"
calendar by 753 years.

Now, let's fast forward a thousand years. In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII
created the Gregorian Calendar - named after himself, naturally. This
is the calendar you now know (sort of). A lot of leap minutes, days,
years, etc. have been added to keep January 1st where it is. Anyway,
the Catholic countries pretty much adopted it. The Protestant countries
drug their feet but eventually changed over. The Eastern Orthodox never
really did. To give you an idea how messed up it was, The English had a
Wednesday dated 2 Sep 1752, and the next day, Thursday, was 14 Sep
1752. In 1923 some, but not all, Eastern Orthodox churches switched.
Many still use a revised Julian calendar. I guess it depended on what
side you were on at the end of WWI.

I don't know why we are all arguing about this. Somebody wanted to
start time from zero but assumed that zero has twelve months in it. It
has none because the definition of zero is nothing. The first year
started immediately after nothing. Therefore, the first month of
January is in the first year of existence, ergo, year number one. That
date would be written as January 0001 (add more zeros in front if you
like).

John

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: John Hill
Subject: Re: MAC OS X - Version 10.2.3 EMac

Al Poulin wrote:

> But if you have no particular issues with 10.2.3, you could well
> stick with that version. On the other hand, it's kind of fun to go
> through the process, learning things, and then getting the benefits
> of bugs fixes and greater confidence in the system.

I can only speak for a G4 tower, but my experience has been that 10.2.8
has been much more stable than any of the earlier 10.2.x - and indeed
more stable than anything later than 7.6.1. I haven't attempted to move
to 10.3.x for that reason!

John (Bournemouth).

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Len Farber
Subject: Re: Biblical genealogy

One simple, but unpopular comment.

There is no year zero because that is the way the calendar was designed.
Chinese, Hebrew, Indian and Islamic calendars, to name a few, are all
different.

We are dealing with the calendar designed by the Catholic Church to
help standardize the date of the Easter holiday.

The year numbering system was a part of this. It contained no Year 0.

Since most scholars now believe that Jesus was probably born around 4
BC on the current calendar, the "mistake" was bigger than being a
single year off.

The main purpose, however, was to fix the time for holy days and the
year numbering system was secondary.

As much as we may wish for a year zero and want the new millennium to
begin in 2000, there is no year 0 and the new millennium began in 2001,
like the Arthur Clarke title.

It is too late to appeal to Pope Gregory. He is long gone.

Len Farber
Oak Park, Illinois

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Daryl W. Gordon
Subject: More On Time

Blaise A. Darveaux wrote:

> I think there have been some inaccurate statements said about
> "time". To say that there is no such thing as zero time is
> ludicrous.

This is one of the inaccurate statements. Not to be argumentative,
but Blaise overlooks several issues with this posting, but I stated
in mine that there are a lot of people that can1t grasp this.

> If you say there is no such thing as zero time, then tell me, if
> you were born at the stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1 BC, would you be
> 1 year old?

It should be obvious to anyone that if you are born at midnight on
December 31 of one B.C, you would be one second old, then one minute
old, then one day old, etc., etc. But did you know that "31 Dec 1 BC"
never was? It's true; the Gregorian calendar that we use today was a
product of the Roman empire developed many, many years later, so
that date really only occurred in theory since the calendar did not
yet exist. And, the birth date of Jesus Christ is also theoretical
and does not split B.C. And A.D. As Blaise seems to assume. That's
why the period roughly assumed today to have been roughly before the
birth of Jesus is referred to as "Before the Common Era" and "Before
Christ" is not used. This has nothing to do with religion, it only
recognizes that Gregory could not possibly have know the exact date
and time of Jesus' birth when he created the calendar that we use
today. It should also be noted that the Gregorian calendar was (is)
not the only calendar ever created; it's just the one that was most
widely accepted for use and, over time, beat out all others much
like VHS beat out BETA in video recording.

James Beall wrote:

> John, this is not exactly true. A real 24-hour clock begins counting
> with zero, and rolls over to zero again, one second after 23 hours,
> 59 minutes, and 59 seconds. Even a countdown timer ends at zero,
> regardles of what time it is initialized with.
>
> Some cultures in the world actually use a 24-hour clock by default.
> Consider for example, France. There, one second prior to midnight
> might be designated 23h59m59s. Exactly midnight would be 0h00m. If
> you guessed 24h00m, that would be incorrect as far as midnight is
> concerned. While some people or cultures (i.e. North Americans) may
> have difficulty with the concept of "zero hours, zero minutes, zero
> seconds", such a time does exist once every 24 hours, exactly at
> what we call midnight. --James.

Sorry, James. The clock does not "count", it only depicts a relative
time. If you go out and buy a digital clock (one with just numbers
displayed and no second, minute, or hour hands), you will find that
it will never read all zeroes. 24 does indeed follow 23 hours, 59
minutes, and 59 seconds. And a 3countdown timer2 is designed to
start at zero and end at zero always; this has nothing to do with
actual time or the clock. James is correct that in Europe they do
use the 24 hour clock time system. He might be surprised to know
that we use it here, also. Public safety agencies such as police and
fire departments, the military, and others use the 24 hour system
even though it is not widely used by Americans. The 24 hour clock
always ends in 2400 and never zero; otherwise, it wouldn't be a 24
hour clock, would it?

As I said, it is not my intent to be argumentative. As a US Army
veteran trained in communications with training in time zones and
trained to make sure electronic messages were recorded properly with
correct times using the 24 hour clock and currently working in public
safety using the 24 hour clock on a daily basis, I am knowledgeable
on this topic. Also, as I said in my original posting, I recognize
that a lot of people do not grasp this; so, regardless of what else
is said, I will make no further comment on the topic. Time and the
calendar are creations of man to facilitate tracking our daily lives
and really has nothing to do with the natural world going on around
us. If there were no calendars and no clocks, what day would it be
and what time would it be?

All of this can be documented with a little research if anyone finds
the topic interesting.

Daryl

-
Daryl W. Gordon, The Gordon Company, Indianapolis, Indiana
dgordon122@xxxxxxx_net

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Peter Cook
Subject: Re: Biblical genealogy

Blaise A. Darveaux wrote in part:

> So in essence, Jesus was wrongly aged as 1 year old when he was born.
> Thus, on the stroke of midnight on 31 Dec 1999 only 1999 years have
> passed since the birth of Jesus (because they started counting at 1
> rather then 0), not 2000 years.

Not correct, however I don't blame Blaise for her confusion.

She also wrote :

> I do end with questions, however, If our reckoning of years (our
> calendar) doesn't include the 0 AD to 1 AD year, (as a proper number
> line would) who decided that and why wasn't it corrected when it was
> discovered that there is a "missing year".? Are there no documents,
> throughout history, that refer to that year? Did everyone just decide
> to agree that if they knew of something that occurred, say, 5 months
> before Jesus' birth to use "5 months BC" rather then say "7 months AD"?
>
> Hope this inspires more thought,

Part of the answer requires some history on calendars:
While various Christian figures from the Roman Emperor Constantine
onward had suggested the AD/BC split for numbering calendar years, the
decision to officially use AD and BC was not made until 1582 when Pope
Gregory introduced the present day calendar, now known as the Gregorian
calendar. Among other things, this required the loss of ten days, which
no doubt was met with much angst and confusion by those in Europe who
were aware of such things. In 1582, Protestant England under Queen
Elizabeth, was more concerned with defeating the Spanish than changing
to a new 'popish' calendar. As the United Kingdom, Britain finally
changed from the Julian calendar in 1752. Incidentally, the passage of
an additional 170 years meant the loss of another day - making eleven
in all - cause for even more angst and confusion among a slightly more
educated populace perhaps?

The Julian calendar (named after Julius Caesar who introduced it in
what we now call 45 BC), was the first widely used calendar to have
twelve months & leap years, and ended not on December 31 (the end of
the tenth month), but in March. Hence the reason dates before 1752 in
Britain for the months of January, February and part of March are
sometimes found in the parish registers or other records, as a double
year [e.g. 21 Feb 1732/3]. This is also the reason why dates which do
not use this double year convention may appear to be out of sequence in
the parish registers of the time [e.g. an entry for January 1688
{conventionally 1688/9} would follow that for December 1688].
Fortunately for us, with freeform dates, Reunion provides a solution on
how to record these dates. However, don't forget to select the later
year of the two if you want ages which span the change over to be
correctly calculated.

Now to Blaise's missing year:

I concur with Blaise's comments re age - from the day of birth to the
day before the first birthday is the first year, however the child's
age is zero years, sometimes shown in records (particularly burials of
infants) as "nonage".

I shall ignore the fact that the birth of Christ is now generally
agreed by theologians to have been in 4 BC, and try to deal with the
issue as it would have been considered by Pope Gregory and his advisors
in 1582:

The first thing that was decided was that the calendar year would start
as near to Christ's birth as possible, hence 1 January became the start
of the year in the Gregorian calendar.

So what happens to the week between 25 December and 1 January of 1 AD?
It can't be BC (Before Christ's birth) as that would have required
Christ to be born before he was born - highly tautological and
illogical. Now while the year could be written as 0 AD, i.e. in
Christ's "nonage", it should not as all but one week of it was
definitely BC. Therefore as the last week has already been shown not to
be BC, this year was, and still is, year 0 of the Gregorian Calendar.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Finally FWIW since I haven't traced back before 1541 on any of my lines
yet, I'm not too worried if the staff at Leister don't fix the now
confirmed year Zero problem any time soon. <VBG>

regards

Peter D. Cook
Western Australia
Running Reunion 8.05 on a 900MHz G3 IBook with OSX 10.3.3

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Dave Groebner
Subject: Time and dates

So much has already been submitted to this Digest regarding the
numbering of years that it seems nothing else can be said. However,
it appears that the one important element which has not been
mentioned is that we must distinguish between a POINT in time and
the PASSAGE (or PERIOD) of time.

I am entirely in agreement with all that has been said except that
there was theoretically a year 0000. That was a POINT in time, not
a PERIOD of time. It was the starting point, much like the start
line at a track and field running race, the goal line in football
(Zero yard line) , the stop watch setting for any timed event. etc.
Another way to think of it is that an alleged year 0000 would in
fact be year 0001 B.C. To number a year as 0000 between B.C. and
A.D. is ambiguous. It would indicate a zero passage of time.

The first year A.D. began at that 0000 STARTING POINT and was
declared year 0001. At the end of 365 days one year had passed- the
period of time we consider year 0001. After the stroke of midnight
(a POINT in time) on December 31, year 0002 began and was completed
after 365 days had passed.

Time is passing as we read these digests on a calendar date date
which we also consider to be a point in time (i.e. I read it on
October 8th). This is where the confusion seems to arise. Are we
talking about a point IN time or a period OF time?

Dave

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Patrick J. McCann, Jr.
Subject: two files?

I discovered that I had two copies of the same family file on my
computer and, what's worse, that I had been entering data into both
over a period of about two months, some times in one, sometimes in
the other file. Now I am about 400 people different acc. to the two
files' indices. Any suggestions on how I can reconcile the two? I
have over 56,000 individuals in each file. I tried setting up markers
like "changed in the last month." But that showed 22,000 people had
been changed, and I know I didn't type in that much data. Thanks.
--
Patrick J. McCann, Jr.
Dallas, TX
CRESCIT SUB PONDERE VIRTUS

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Donald Kauffman
Subject: Zero, et al.

"Daryl W. Gordon" <dgordon122@xxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> It should also be noted that the Gregorian calendar was (is)
> not the only calendar ever created; it's just the one that was most
> widely accepted for use. . .
> . . . and, over time, beat out all others much like VHS beat out BETA
> in video recording.

. . . and, over time, beat out all others much like MAC beat out
WINDOZ for genealogical computing!

All this talk about the year zero suggests to me that Shakespeare may
have been right --- "Much Ado About Nothing" --- which is really
something considering how this discussion started in the first place.

Perhaps when Shakespeare wrote, "It was the best of times; it was the
worst of times", he was thinking of the period of time between 1 BC and
1 AD. I think that was the time when Charles Dickens, who lived in a
place called "Two Cities" was born. As Zorro might say, "Hi Ho Zero,
watch your Tale of!"

. . . and to all a GOOD NIGHT! :-)

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Paul S.Boyer
Subject: RE: Biblical genealogy

Counting Years
by Paul S. Boyer

I hope that I am not carrying on this discussion too far, but I think
that there is a very easy way to understand how we handle years. The
first year in our calendar is Year 1, meaning the first year. We are
really naming it as an ordinal: as the First Year. During the First
Year, less than a year has passed since the point of origin of the
scheme.

Think of the age of a baby: in its first year, it is less than a year
old; yet it is in its First Year.

When we say that it is 2004, we mean that we are in the the 2004th Year
A. D. That is why the new millenium began after 2000 years: that is,
when the clock rolled from 2000 into 2001. The fact that so many
people celebrated a year early, just shows how most people do not even
understand something as simple as a calendar -- or else they don't
worry about it.

In genealogy we must be a bit cautious, because sometimes in an
obituary one will see something like: "He died in his 83rd year."
Sometimes the writer really means that, and is saying that the deceased
was 82 years old; but other times the writer is confused, and somehow
was thinking that this was the same thing as saying that he was 83.
Beware! I have found that people are often confused about these
things, and even what is written in stone (as on a gravestone) may be
inaccurate.

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Otto
Subject: A Zero Year - Not 2000 years ago!

There was no zero year 2000 years ago because the zero (Siphra-Sifr)
had not been introduced to Europe from Mayan culture (300 c.e.) as of
yet by the Arab mathematicians.
It was introduced approximately 800 c.e.
Greeks and Romans did not need a zero. They did their counting on an
abacus.
...  Otto

" The Zen moment..." wk. of September 19, 2004-
________________________________
"Time doesn't. . . We do."

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: Blaise A. Darveaux
Subject: Re: Biblical genealogy

If I were argumentative I would respond to some of Daryl's ideas on
time, but I won't. I would like to thank him, John Goodman, and Peter
Cook for their histories on the formation of our current calendar.
Although much of it was already known by me (yes, I knew that Jesus'
birth is estimated, not exact) these things are always good to read
again. After all, a lot of people are not "US Army veterans" that have
the ability to "grasp" these difficult concepts.

Oh yes, and Peter. I really don't think that I am: 1) "confused" and 2)
female.

One last thing. George Thomas suggested a book to me that may be of
interest to others.

"ZERO" by Charles Seife, publisher clip below:

The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped
it, and the Church used it to ward off heretics. Zero - infinity's twin
- is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything. For
centuries the power of zero smacked of the demonic; once harnessed, it
became the most important tool in mathematics. In Zero , science
journalist Charles Seife follows this innocent-looking number from its
birth as an Eastern philosophical concept to its struggle for acceptance
in Europe, its rise and transcendence in the West, and its ever-present
threat to modern physics. Here are the legendary thinkers - from
Pythagoras to Newton to Heisenberg, from the Kabalists to today's
astrophysicists - who have tried to understand it and whose clashes
shook the foundations of philosophy, science, mathematics, and religion.

©2000 by Charles Seife; (P)2000 by The Publishing Mills


Keep on thinking, y'all.

Blaise A. Darveaux, who is really glad his recorded family lines in
Reunion don't go back to zero time.

"Hey folks, this is not rocket science. It is much more complicated."

------------------------------

Date: October 07, 2004
From: James Beall
Subject: RE: Biblical genealogy

I1ll keep this short.

I do have a real 24-hour digital clock, made by Timex. It indeed
does show all zeros at midnight -- 00:00:00. I do not claim that all
other clocks will behave the same. Also, about certain agencies in
the U.S.A. -- using 24-hour clocks -- no, I am not surprised. There
is a reason I chose the word "Cultures".

For people who want to read the find details about UTC clocks, or GMT,
or Zulu time, check out this page:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html

And this FAQ:

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/timefaqs.htm

--James

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: ann
Subject: a bit of a problem

I recently discovered that someone had stolen a bunch of information
from our web site and is passing it off as his own. He has it up on
the Rootsweb, Ancestry and World Connect sites.

To top it off, much of what he's stolen are people who aren't even
related to him. His interest is in a family line of someone who
married my husband's mother's cousin. I know this becuase I
corresponded with this guy some time ago about that line. For some
reason he decided to add a bunch of info on our family and he's even
got several living people listed by name rather than listed as living.

I know he doesn't have a scrap of documentation to support what he's
put up about these people and, as anyone knows who does honest
research, we've spent a lot of time and no small amount of money to
get documentaiton to substantiate what we have in our files.

I wrote to him 3 times, over some months, asking him to remove us
from his files. He finally responded to the 3rd message. I tried to
be polite in asking him to remove us and I'm hoping he will do it,
though he gave me some tale about working long hours and not having a
lot of time to do this, but promised to see what he could do.

But then I found he'd also swiped the photos from our site and added
them to his site, and I got mad. I've written again and this time I
wasn't as polite, but I think I have a right to be upset. Those
photos represent years of collecting and research, and hours of photo
editiing to make most of them usable for our site. Most of them are
rather rare as this family line didn't seem to take many photos and
we've had a heck of a time locating any photos of these people. For
this reason, I know the photos he has on his site are our photos and
not something he found somewhere else.

What does one do about people like this, people who'd rather steal
than do honest research?

I know there are always going to be people like this, but ...

I'd like some advice from you folks as to how to handle this, and
thanks for listening to my rant. :)

Ann Griffee
www.griffee.net

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: Timothy Lundin
Subject: Re: A few Chart problems

jacqi wrote:

> 1. When importing the Relative Chart of my brother-in-law, the spouse
> connecting lines for the earliest generation wouldn't import with the
> chart, although they were shown on the original and were enclosed in
> the selection rectangle. I tried this several times, leaving larger
> and larger space, but couldn't capture them.

Does using the command Edit-->Copy-->Chart capture all the objects?

> 2. Being in Australia, I use A4 (21 cm x 29.7 cm) paper, and in this
> case the Page Setup was in Landscape. However, the complete chart,
> together with borders, doesn't center on the page properly, and I
> can't see how to make it do so.
> I am using an eMac OSX10.2.8, Reunion 8.05, and an Epson Stylus C61. I
> tried, on Page Setup, choosing Settings - Reunion 8. When I click OK,
> the chart contents, inside the frame, all moves up a little, but the
> setting doesn't 'stick' - i.e. when I choose Page Setup again the
> default Setting - Page Attributes has returned, and I have to choose
> Reunion 8 again.

I'm not sure what's causing the chart to move around when choosing the
Reunion 8 settings, but here's some things that might help:

- If a chart won't center, it's often because of a stray object that's
been added and lost track of outside the main boundaries of the tree.
If you can find something like this and delete it, then choose
Object-->Align-->Everything to Center, that will take care of things.

- If there's no lost object, and the chart is just centering in a way
you don't like, just do your page setup without using the Reunion 8
options, then choose Object-->Select-->All Objects and drag the whole
tree to the position you prefer. Don't go back to Page Setup, because
it will move your tree back to the position it prefers. (If you
uncheck the Center Chart box in the Reunion 8 page setup options, it
should stop the automatic moving of the chart, but this shouldn't be
necessary as long as you stay away from Page Setup after you get your
chart adjusted to your tastes.)

> Also the Binding Margins choice, shown in Reunion's Manual,
> doesn't appear when I choose Settings - Reunion 8.

This is a report setup option, and will not show up in the chart page
setup window.

Tim
http://www.familygraphics.com

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: jim
Subject: 'unmarried' designation

I probably should try to find this in the manual but I think I'll fire
the question off anyway - and then look.

My uploads, both Person Sheets and Gedcom uploads, seem to be
designating persons for whom no spouse is entered as 'unmarried'. Is
this something I'm doing or a quirk of the database?

Thanks,

jim berry

--

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~langolier/

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: L230j
Subject: RE: Partitioning

Judy Myers wrote in reply to a suggestion from Al Langford that she
partition her hard drive and install OS 9.2 on one partition and OS X on
another:

> Sounds like a great way to put 10.2.x on one of our computers. How
> do we do it?

While partitioning is sometimes a great way to put 10.2.x on a
computer, it is not always the best way nor the easiest.

If you have 9.2.2 installed on a drive and it is working well you
can simply install 10.2.x on the same drive provided the drive has
enough space. Installation of OS X will not adversely affect the OS
9 already there.

In fact, Apple says that if you put OS 9 and OS X on the same drive
(or partition) you MUST install OS 9 first. If the drive does not
have enough space to do this partitioning will not help.

With all due respect to Al, I would not advise anyone buying a new
Mac to partition the drive as he describes his if they have to ask
how to do it.

Four partitions with three different operating systems two of which
are essentially the same is probably not for most folks anything
other than needless complication and wasted space.

Having said that I must admit that my B&W G3 has two 120GB hard
drives with a total of four 60GB partitions because my B&W G3 will
only recognize a hard drive (or partition) up to 100GB. After
experimenting with a variety of ways, I have both OS 9.2.2 and OS
10.2.8 on the same partition...the first or Boot one.

A problem I found with relatively small partitions such as 10GB is
that it sometimes makes it hard to handle large files and folders
such as one gets with Reunion.

John M. Leggett
1133 Sawyer Way
Sun Prairie WI 53590-4440
608-825-6761

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: langf2
Subject: RE: Classic

First of all read and study this:

http://www.sciencequest.org/support/computers/mac/topics/partitioning.html

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: D. C. Osten
Subject: Re: a bit of a problem

Ann Griffee wrote:

> I'd like some advice from you folks as to how to handle this, and
> thanks for listening to my rant. :)

1) It's a gray area - you could contact his ISP, but if he claims
it's his family information as well, then you get into an
interesting area and chances are his ISP will side with them. I
would seriously talk to the Rootsweb/Ancestry/World Connect people
about this, though. I'm sure they've dealt with similar situations.

2) I would definitely contact his ISP about the living people/names,
but again, like above, it's a gray area. The genealogy sites he is
hosting it on might side with you in this case though and at least
ask him to take that portion down.

3) As far as the photos, if he is directly linking to you, you could
change the filenames (of course that doesn't prevent him from
changing his inks :-/ ). If he's not directly linking and is
hosting them on his site, it's still a gray area, but copyright laws
maybe on your side, depending on when and who made the pictures.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have the feeling that since he hasn't
responded before now, chances are your talking to a wall, and only
going to his ISP, and Rootsweb/Ancestry/World Connect are your only
options. I don't think it's worth the money to make a legal case.

If it was me, I would make the living persons/names the issue and
just forget about the rest.

I would email your relatives and let them know that his site is not
a legitimate site and any data on there is suspect. Your relatives
are what's most important here, and as long as they know what he's
doing, you shouldn't worry about anything else.

Chad Osten
http://www.macgenealogy.org

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: Mabry Benson
Subject: Re: a bit of a problem

I had a similar thing happen to me, though not as bad - I shared my
info with another family member and he then posted it all as if it
were his. But at least after I asked him to take off the info about
living people, he did that.

I only post the bare-bones info, not ALL the details of my research.
When I correspond with someone, I don't send them all the info on the
first communications, but save back some/most until I see that they
are sharing with me too.

But I also figure that many, many times I have gained by someone
else's research, and that I too should share. The first thing I do
with a 'new' line is to see what has already been done. There is no
point for me to reinvent the wheel and do what had already been done.
Without some amount of interchange we would all have far less. After
all that is why we publish our work - for others to see. Most people
who do this can tell if someone has done the work themselves, or if
someone else has done it.

Mabry Benson

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: L230j
Subject: Re: a bit of a problem

Ann Griffee wrote:

> I recently discovered that someone had stolen a bunch of information
> from our web site and is passing it off as his own...

Anything put on the web may be subject to this kind of thing unless
you know how to prevent downloading or copying (if that is
possible?) That is why I have not created a website with my data on
it. I would not feel comfortable putting on the web anything
relating to living persons without their permission. At times it may
also be an invasion of privacy to post data that concerns deceased
persons.

On the other hand, who has not found the web sites of others helpful
in researching their own family and perhaps on occasion incorporated
such finding into their own data?

The first question I would have concerning your situation is whether
he simply added to his site data that you believe came from yours, or
if he is claiming that what you believe to be your data is his, that
is, the result of his efforts. As I understand it, unless data
posted publicly is copyrighted anyone may use it in almost any way
they wish but it is always proper to indicate the source.

In my experience it is far more common to see on the web sites of
others data about my family that I know to be incorrect. This is
particularly true of the LDS site which I find very useful in spite
of that. But then the LDS site clearly states that it contains what
has been submitted and they make no effort to check or correct it.

I wrote to two persons who had posted data about my grandfather on
the LDS site that was a mixture of fact and fiction. Some of the
facts were correct, but they applied to another family member, not
my grandfather. It turned out that one of the posts was based on the
other and the original poster said she could care less as it was part
of her husband's family, not hers.

It may well be that copying the work of others rather than doing
research personally and carefully documenting everything hurts the
one who does it more than the one from whom they 'steal' it. No
serious genealogist would pay much attention to data that merely
copied from someone else.

John M. Leggett
1133 Sawyer Way
Sun Prairie WI 53590-4440
608-825-6761

"The first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide
what you want."- Ben Stein

------------------------------

Date: October 08, 2004
From: Bill Nash
Subject: ZERO et. al.

Blaise Darveaux wrote:

> Here are the legendary thinkers - from Pythagoras to Newton to
> Heisenberg, from the Kabalists to today's astrophysicists - who have
> tried to understand it and whose clashes shook the foundations of
> philosophy, science, mathematics, and religion.

This whole thing reminds me of my favorite little bit of philosophy
(that I am ignoring at the moment,) which is "If you have nothing to
say, then say it."

I am also reminded of the White King speaking to Alice in "Through the
Looking Glass"

'Just look along the road, and tell me if you can see either of them.'

'I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.

'I only wish _I_ had such eyes,' the King remarked in a fretful tone.
'To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too! Why, it's as much
as _I_ can do to see real people, by this light!'

BN

------------------------------

Date: October 09, 2004
From: Lola Angell
Subject: I have a family under the wrong parents

I really goofed. I have a son and his wife attached to the wrong
parents. They both have the same surname, but I have the wife under
the husband's parents. How do I correct this??? And what will it do
to the other ancestors? I don't know who the parents of the wife are,
I thought I had it right, but have been proven wrong.

Please make it simple, and help me. I hope I have made my problem
clear.

Lola

------------------------------

Date: October 09, 2004
From: jacqi
Subject: Centering chart frame on A4 page

Hello Tim,

My problems were -

> 1. When importing the Relative Chart of my brother-in-law, the spouse
> connecting lines for the earliest generation wouldn't import with the
> chart, ... ...

Tim replied:

> Does using the command Edit-->Copy-->Chart capture all the objects?

Yes, that worked - thank you very much for the tip.

My second problem was -

> 2. Being in Australia, I use A4 (21 cm x 29.7 cm) paper, and in this
> case the Page Setup was in Landscape. However, the complete chart,
> together with borders, doesn't center on the page properly ... ...

I don't think I was clear enough in my explanation. It's not the chart
itself I can't center. The chart IS centered inside the frame. But
the frame won't center on the paper. The right margin is much larger.

Have you any other good ideas?

Regards, Jacqi

------------------------------

Date: October 09, 2004
From: Bob White
Subject: MyRoots

In a message that I posted in the Oct 4 digest, I stated:

> It's a genealogy application for your Palm or Windows based PDA's.
> A good resource on the subject is at
> http://web.syr.edu/~rsholmes/genealogy/palmreunion/geneapp.html

It turns out that this web page no longer exists.

I had a printed copy which I found a couple days ago when someone else
from the Digest contacted me regarding being unable to find it. The
information is really out of date (An example is that it still refers
to a Palm as a PalmPilot!). I contacted the author; the email address
on my printed copy was still good. He didn't realize that it was no
longer there. He has not kept up with Palms and their genealogy
applications, so he said that he would not be updating it. I think that
I'd better check before giving you all any other addresses. :-)

Bob White**************Membership Chair
MacNexus: Sacramento's Macintosh User Group
(916) 363-7115***bobwhite@xxxxxxxx_org

------------------------------

Date: October 09, 2004
From: Otto
Subject: The Answer Is Still Zero.

Zero has no value. It is a placeholder.
It stands in line until a real number comes along.

The Roman priestcraft used Babylonian base 60 mathematics to manage
money.
Commoners were given Roman numerals to count their sheep.

Transition is thus: 1 b.c.e. - 1 c.e.
There was no zero year.

... Otto

------------------------------

Date: October 09, 2004
From: Mary Moody
Subject: calendar and counting years

"Daryl W. Gordon" <dgordon122@xxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> It should also be noted that the Gregorian calendar was (is)
> not the only calendar ever created; it's just the one that was most
> widely accepted for use. . .
> . . . and, over time, beat out all others much like VHS beat out BETA
> in video recording.

Looking for sth else today, I found this-- a real serendipity:

Calendars and Their Histories

<http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/calendars.html>

Earth Science Picture of the Day reports our own country's calendar
difficulties:

<http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=50176>

"George Washington was actually born on February 11, 1732. The Julian
Calendar that was used at the time in colonial America was 11 days
out of sync with the Gregorian Calendar, already in use throughout
much of the world. In 1752, the Gregorian Calendar was adopted by the
colonists, and Washington changed his birth date to the 22nd in an
attempt to minimize confusion."

Paul S. Boyer wrote:

> Think of the age of a baby: in its first year, it is less than a year
> old; yet it is in its First Year.

Asian babies are 1 at birth because they are in their first year of
life. When we say a baby is 1, they say 2, in its second year of life.

I taught English as a second language to university educated Asian
women. They taught me this.

--
Mary Moody
mam-lists@xxxxxxx_com

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: Judith Haller
Subject: Re: a bit of a problem

I had a cousin post private information on Ancestry/WorldConnect as
well, so I sympathize with your dismay. For me, the outcome was ok, as
the material was removed, as far as I can tell. Since Ancestry "owns"
the data we post, as do other commercial services, it may not be
possible to totally undo the damage. Plus, we don't know how far the
data spread. Someone else may repost it once it disappears! Meanwhile,
you are at the mercy of this disreputable person.

The only solution I can propose is to be stingy about posting and
sharing.

---Leave "bait" for other researchers. Serious researchers will contact
you about a possible connection, and you can open a dialog. I met some
of my distant cousins this way. The name collectors and plagiarizers
can go elsewhere. Don't feel you have to tell all. Swallow your pride
in your work.

--Post ONLY names of dead relatives with birth/death and place info.
Don't even post sources! If any member of the sibling group is alive,
don't post any info on any of the siblings. This practice has the added
benefit of protecting privacy in addition to protecting your research.

--Distribute only a few less-precious photo items. Make them small,
low-res images unsuitable for print or video.

--Post on a password-protected site such as .Mac and give access to
selected people. If you are really ready to distribute a lot of info,
you might want to publish a book to establish authorship with a
copyright date.

--Lastly, you might want remind the offender of the dangers of his
postings (this may apply to your site as well). Suppose your third
cousin's husband owns a business and recently fired a sex-offender.
Don't help a criminal to track down their grandchildren. It's
surprisingly easy on Ancestry.

Good luck!

Judith

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Partitioning

John Leggett wrote:

> Judy Myers wrote in reply to a suggestion from Al Langford that she
> partition her hard drive and install OS 9.2 on one partition and OS
> X on another:
>
> > Sounds like a great way to put 10.2.x on one of our computers. How
> > do we do it?
>
> While partitioning is sometimes a great way to put 10.2.x on a
> computer, it is not always the best way nor the easiest.
>
> If you have 9.2.2 installed on a drive and it is working well you
> can simply install 10.2.x on the same drive provided the drive has
> enough space. Installation of OS X will not adversely affect the OS
> 9 already there.
>
> In fact, Apple says that if you put OS 9 and OS X on the same drive
> (or partition) you MUST install OS 9 first. If the drive does not
> have enough space to do this partitioning will not help.

[ snip ]

I'm not familiar with any place where Apple states that OS 9 must be
installed first, but even Apple is sometimes wrong. There are lots
of people who have elected to use the "erase and install" option
available with recent editions of OS X. As the name implies, it
reformats the entire volume (meaning drive or partition) and then
installs OS X onto it. Lots of folks have successfully installed OS
9 onto that same volume after the fact for use as Classic. What's
required is that the volume have OS 9 drivers if it's to be bootable
to OS 9, although that's not possible on the newest Macs available.
That can be done via the Disk Utilities program in Panther (I can't
recall for sure about Jaguar).

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Classic

langf2@xxxx_net wrote:

> First of all read and study this:
>
> http://www.sciencequest.org/support/computers/mac/topics/partitioning.html

It should be pointed out that the article referred to is dated August
1999. The first release of Mac OS X didn't appear until March of
2001. I have to say that this article is of no practical use, in my
view, to anyone with OS X. And I find that pretty much all its
arguments in favor of partitioning are seriously flawed. That's not
to say that partitioning isn't right for some, but not for the
reasons cited there, especially on newer systems.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: L230j
Subject: RE: Partitioning (Followup)

In regard to the following post:

langf2@xxxx_net wrote:

> First of all read and study this:
>
> http://www.sciencequest.org/support/computers/mac/topics/partitioning.html

There is a lot of very useful information at this URL I appreciate
being made aware of it.

But when I got to the bottom of the page I saw the reason some of it
did not appear to make sense.

It is way out of date; five years is a long time in computer land!

> Article last revised on: 14 August 1999
> Author: Frederico
> Editor: WebClub '99

Today's hard drives are much bigger and faster than they were five
years ago.

The first sentence in the article however is still true:
"Partitioning drives is a topic of much dispute, endless
heated-debate, and can appear quite daunting to a new Mac owner."

The point of my earlier post is that partitioning is NOT necessary in
order to install and run both OS 9 and OS X on a hard drive.
Partitioning not only "can appear quite daunting to a new Mac owner"
it actually is!

However, if one first reads and studies the referenced article and is
able to understand and properly update it then it might be possible to
benefit from creating and using partitions.

Just remember to make at least one (and maybe more) reliable backup of
anything you cannot afford to lose--which I assume includes all your
Reunion files and data.

John M. Leggett

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: Listpig
Subject: Gedcom posting

Judith wrote:

> I had a cousin post private information on Ancestry/WorldConnect as
> well, so I sympathize with your dismay. For me, the outcome was ok, as
> the material was removed, as far as I can tell. Since Ancestry "owns"
> the data we post, as do other commercial services, it may not be
> possible to totally undo the damage.

Um, no. If you read the AUP, you'll note that user-contributed data
(i.e., user's webpages, WC, etc.) remains the property of the poster,
who can edit or remove it at any time. That's also why HelpDesk will
tell you to first take it up with the poster before they'll get
involved at all.

Having said that, you do not own and cannot copyright facts about your
ancestors. People do not have to prove they're kin to your kin to post
information about them. There's no rule in law or elsewhere that says
you can only research your own relatives.

In theory, the reason people post their genealogy is to share, no? So
it should not be that the information is there that is an issue, but
whether proper credit is being given. (Accuracy counts too; there are
several "swiped from me" files on WorldConnect, and the ones that
really irk me are the ones who copied stuff *incorrectly*.)

Some folks do get into projects of how folks in a given community or
county are interrelated; I've got one of those going myself, although
it's not online. And once you start doing that, yes, you do tend to
refer to other folks' work who are direct line to those folks quite a
bit. (Some of us, however, are rather picky about crediting the
files/webpages/researchers it comes from.)

Anyhow, back to WorldConnect: from a copyright standpoint, you can't
own the people, their vital statistics, their relationships. If you
really don't want anybody else to have what you've discovered about
that, don't share it. Don't post it. Once you share it, the
presumption is that it's there *for* sharing. Even if you tell cousin
Betty not to share it, she's going to forget; take that as a given.

You do own notes of your own composition. (Note: this means if you
wrote about how Uncle Ed came to town, worked at the drug store for
ten years and then bought it, the person has to have swiped what you
wrote. Them noting "Ed owned drug store" is not a copyright
violation.) If someone has taken your notes without your permission
and without crediting you, then it's time to file a complaint with
RootsWeb.

--pig, RootsWeb HelpDesk volunteer & former RW/Ancestry staffer

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: Bellthorpe
Subject: Re: a bit of a problem

John M. Leggett wrote:

> As I understand it, unless data posted publicly is copyrighted anyone
> may use it in almost any way they wish...

Not so. There is a popular myth that anything published on the
Internet is in the public domain unless there's a notice of copyright.
However, under current copyright legislation a work is considered to be
copyright protected the moment it is fixed in a tangible medium of
expression such as a letter, a book, or a webpage. The copyright
notice is optional; thus, since March 1, 1989, even when a work does
not display a Copyright © notice, that work is still fully protected
by your copyright. If you post your work on your webpage and someone
copies it or posts it to another site without your express permission,
they are guilty of copyright violation. Hope this clarifies.

Regards,

Don Bell

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: Paul S.Boyer
Subject: Asian babies

Mary wrote: "Asian babies are 1 at birth because they are in their
first year of life. When we say a baby is 1, they say 2, in its second
year of life."

I think that this is because in some of the Asian lands, they were very
aware that the baby was alive before birth. It is easy to determine
the day of birth, but not so easy (even with the latest technology) to
tell exactly when conception took place. To get over this problem, and
to make things simple, they simply "credited" the baby with a year of
age at birth.

I wonder what they did with the age at birth of the great philosopher
Lao Tzu, whose mother is supposed to have carried him for 95 years.
The story is that he was born speaking!

------------------------------

Date: October 11, 2004
From: R. T Carruthers
Subject: Census Forms

When searching and printing census forms from Ancestry.com my G3
800MHz iBook running OS 10.3.5 with and Reunion 8 frequently
goes crazy and Census quits responding completely.

My test is to run Freecell - if the cards move jerkily and slowly the
computer has packed up and it is not just a broken connection to the
'net. I have to Restart to clear it. So far it is mostly irritating,
but occasionally the iBook will freeze altogether and nothing works
until I restart. Any ideas as to what I am doing or not doing????

Dick Carruthers

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: Frank Mitchell
Subject: Re: I have a family under the wrong parents

Lola Angell <angell@xxxxxxxxxxx_net> asked:

> I really goofed. I have a son and his wife attached to the wrong
> parents. They both have the same surname, but I have the wife under
> the husband's parents. How do I correct this??? And what will it do
> to the other ancestors? I don't know who the parents of the wife are,
> I thought I had it right, but have been proven wrong.
>
> Please make it simple, and help me. I hope I have made my problem
> clear.

Go to the family card showing the husband and wife.

Drag either of the wife's incorrect parents to the Clipboard (top right
hand corner). The other parent will follow.

Open the Clipboard and drag the parents out and into the husband's empty
parent area.

Hope that's simple enough 8^)

Nothing else in your file will be affected.

-- Frank Mitchell, Scottsdale, Arizona

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: Kenbower
Subject: Classic 9.2 and New Macs

The New Macs (G5s) will NOT allow installation of 9.2.2. On OS 10 can
be loaded on to the new Macs. The Disk can NOT be partitioned for 9.2
and 10.3.

Ken Bower

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: ann
Subject: Re: a bit of a problem

Thanks to all who responded to my situation. I received lots of good
advice and sympathy, both in this digest and via personal emails.
It's nice to know there are some understanding and helpful fellow
Reunion users out there, and lots of people who appreciate the value
of honest, hard and careful research.

The 2 issues that bothered me the most was the publishing of the
names of living people and the use of our family photos. My husband
was very angry to see photos of his parents and grandparents on
someone else's site, especially when we're not related to anyone in
his line of research. He hadn't linked his site to ours or to our
photos; he just copied them from our site and used them on his. He
even altered one by taking a photo of 2 people and creating 2
separate photos out of it.

I don't believe he copied it; I know he did. Every thing was the
same, right down to a mistake in someone's date of birth.

This person did respond to my request that he reomve it. He wasn't
terribly cooperative to begin with, but he finally agreed to do it.
So our names and family photos are no longer on his site or on
Ancestry/RootsWeb.

The only remaining problem is that though he uploaded it via World
Connect/RootsWeb, because of the relationship between RootsWeb and
Ancestry, it was cross-posted on Ancestry. Ancestry has now included
info from his files into their new One World Tree. So we're all in
there. Bummer!!! I've written to Ancestry and we'll see if they do
anything about it. The removal request may have to come from him as
he was the one who originally posted it.

I had used the privacy filter with the default settings so our full
names were listed with (Private) but with no dates or locations. Why
he didn't realize we were still alive from that, I haven't a clue. Of
course since he had no dates, RootsWeb's privacy filter didn't catch
it. I changed the privacy options to read (Private) [last name] and
re-uploaded our site last night. Hopefully that will keep others from
copying info on living people.

I also added copyright info in the footer. Technically, once
something is published, in any format, it's automatically
copyrighted. We also own our domain name so anything that's published
on our site is ours. Despite what people think, everything that's on
the internet is not fair game. However, we know how much people
respect copyright laws these days, what with sharing MP3s all over
the 'net, and copying and sharing/using of all kinds of stuff they
find online.

We all understand that sharing is an important part of genealogy
research. Without it we'd all know a lot less about our families.
Sharing is one thing but copying whole chunks of people's files is
another. I know many of us also utilize family trees we find online.
I know I have. But I only use them as clues or leads and as a
starting point for my own research. If can substantiate what I find,
I'll add it to my files; if I can't, I don't. As an example, there's
a lot of info out there about a couple of my husband's ancestral
lines, but much of it is conflicting info. As I haven't been able to
substantiate it as yet, it's not in our files. I'll keep working on
it and when I find something I feel I can rely on, only then will it
go into our files.

Ann Griffee
www.griffee.net

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: John Hill
Subject: Re: The Answer Is Still Zero.

Otto <otto@xxxxxxxx_com> wrote :

> Zero has no value. It is a placeholder.
> It stands in line until a real number comes along.

What a curious idea! Then why is 1/0 equal to infinity, and why is 0!
(factorial zero) equal to one?

Zero is a concept without which mathematics would not work. For
example, the whole of calculus is based on the idea of values of 0/0.

But are we not wandering off topic here?

John (Bournemouth)

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: R. T Carruthers
Subject: Zero

I've tho't of the day after the last day of the BCE as the first day of
the first month of the first year of the Common Era - 1-1-01. It's as
close to zero as I can get.

Dick Carruthers

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: Dr. Gary Alan Dickey
Subject: How to change report address

I don't know whether this needs to go on Reunion Talk, but I was wondering
how I change the address information for me that appears on the various
reports. I went through the online manual and tried all the buttons I could
think of. It must be something simple. Would appreciate the tip to do so.

Thank you,

Gary Alan Dickey

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: L230j
Subject: RE: Reunion 9

May I comment on the discussion concerning the forthcoming Reunion V.
9 with respect to OS X and OS 9 and earlier OS versions.

Personally, I believe that the Leister folks will do what appears to
be best for them and all of us.

As I understand it, the current version (8.05) will run under either
OS 9 or OS X (at least it can run in OS X data files made in OS 9).
That may or may not be possible in Reunion 9; I don't know.

But I would NOT expect Leister to forego providing many of the new
features we are all requesting in order to retain compatibility with
OS 9. It is not unreasonable to expect those of us to wish to continue
with OS 9 to continue with latest version of Reunion 8. That is what
Apple and most software publishers are doing.

Where would we be if all of us who began with the Apple II had
insisted that everything written for the Mac be compatible with the
Apple II and Apple had tried to do so?

Although I still have my IIgs (equipped with almost everything
available for it) the "Apple II Forever" push was doomed from the
start and "OS 9 Forever" is also.

So should Leister decide that continued compatibility with OS 9 is not
best, I will thank them for continuing to support and improve Reunion
rather than complain that it won't run on my Iigs.

I do hope it will run on my B&W G3 or my iBook but if it doesn't, then
it's time to upgrade.

John M. Leggett
1133 Sawyer Way
Sun Prairie WI 53590-4440
608-825-6761

"The first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide
what you want."- Ben Stein

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: Bill Abbott
Subject: Re: Classic 9.2 and new Macs

Ken Bower wrote:

> The New Macs (G5s) will NOT allow installation of 9.2.2.

I am not sure what "new Macs" means. I can report that Classic is installed
and runs fine on my G5 PowerMac, which cannot boot in 9.2.2 but that's a
different matter.

All the best,

Bill Abbott

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: L230j
Subject: RE: a bit of a problem

Don Bell wrote:

> John M. Leggett wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, unless data posted publicly is copyrighted
> > anyone may use it in almost any way they wish...
>
> Not so. There is a popular myth that anything published on the
> Internet is in the public domain unless there's a notice of
> copyright. However, under current copyright legislation a work is
> considered to be copyright protected the moment it is fixed in a
> tangible medium of expression such as a letter, a book, or a
> webpage. The copyright notice is optional; thus, since March 1,
> 1989, even when a work does not display a Copyright (c) notice, that
> work is still fully protected by your copyright. If you post your
> work on your webpage and someone copies it or posts it to another
> site without your express permission, they are guilty of copyright
> violation. Hope this clarifies.

Perhaps I should have said "is LIKELY TO use it almost any way they
wish..." as that is what I meant. I did not mean to imply that it is
in the public domain but simply that it will be regarded as such by
many people.

Some people respect the copyright laws and that MAY deter them from
stealing but it seems like many people today feel that if something is
available to them, THEY have a right to it. When challenged a common
response is "everybody is doing it" which does not mean it is right or
"I don't see where it hurts anybody" which is simply not true.

The point I was making is that posting anything publicly exposes it to
being used by others without your permission and from a practical
standpoint the only way to prevent this kind of theft is not to make
it available to just anyone.

Even the entertainment industry with its deep pockets is having a hard
time with this kind of thing.

John M. Leggett

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: Melinda Elmore
Subject: Re: Bit of a Problem

Ann Griffee wrote:

> The only remaining problem is that though he uploaded it via World
> Connect/RootsWeb, because of the relationship between RootsWeb and
> Ancestry, it was cross-posted on Ancestry. Ancestry has now included
> info from his files into their new One World Tree. So we're all in
> there. Bummer!!! I've written to Ancestry and we'll see if they do
> anything about it. The removal request may have to come from him as
> he was the one who originally posted it.

I thought Rootsweb promised people their info would "never be burned
onto a CD." Is that promise down the tubes now?

Melinda

------------------------------

Date: October 12, 2004
From: Steven Willott
Subject: Re: The Answer Is Still Zero.

John Hill <john@xxxxxx_freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> What a curious idea! Then why is 1/0 equal to infinity, and why is
> 0! (factorial zero) equal to one?

Yes, this is off topic, but it may close this particular topic, so I hope
the monitors let it through. 1/0 is not infinity-- it is undefined. 1/x
as x gets CLOSE to 0 approaches infinity. There's a big difference
between those. 0! is DEFINED to be 1. I explain the 0! thing to my
H.S. students as the case where we want to count the number of ways of
arranging 0 things in order. There's only 1 way to do this-- we don't.

Steven Willott
web page: http://fhn.fhsd.k12.mo.us/swillott

------------------------------

Date: October 13, 2004
From: Tom Robinson
Subject: Re: Classic Problem

Al Langford wrote:

> I would advise anyone buying a new Mac. to partition it. You can
> then install OS 9.2 in one of them and have OS x. in one of the
> others. I have 4 partitions of about 10 GB each. One is OS 10.2.6.,
> one is OS 10.2.8., one is OS 9.2.2., and the other is called
> Swap/Temp. Everything works fine.

Unless you're keen on running multiple versions of OS X, I'd advise the
opposite!

This was useful when Macs could still boot OS 9, but new machines lost
that ability around the beginning of this year (not sure on exactly
when).

OS 9 (as Classic) and OS X reside quite happily on the same volume, and
by partitioning your volume you can end up spending a lot of time
juggling space between them.

Note to the uninitiated: to partition a volume you first need to
initialise it (i.e. all files on the hard disc are deleted). To change
the size of a partition you need to delete it (i.e. all files on that
partition are deleted).

Cheers

------------------------------

Date: October 13, 2004
From: Henry Oddie
Subject: Re: Partitioning

One of the most useful things about partitioning is that you can keep
files, applications, etc in one partition together with a stripped down
OS, and in the other =96 your work space =96 have your fully fledged OS
version.
This means that if you run into problems, as say updating your OS (this
happened to me when upgrading to OSX 10.3.5) it is not only possible to
restart on your other partition but you can completely erase the
problem partition and start afresh.

There is a good section in Joe KISSELL's ebook Take Control of
Upgrading to Panther ($5 from TidBITS)
Check it out at:

http://www.tidbits.com/takecontrol/panther/upgrading.html

There is lots of other good Panther stuff in this inexpensive book -
worth its weight in gold!

Henry

------------------------------

Date: October 13, 2004
From: Kevan & Shirley Yuck
Subject: Re: How to change report address

Gary Alan Dickey wrote:

> I don't know whether this needs to go on Reunion Talk, but I was
> wondering how I change the address information for me that appears
> on the various reports. I went through the online manual and tried
> all the buttons I could think of. It must be something simple. Would
> appreciate the tip to do so.

Go to Options>Reports>Return Address and set the address that you wish to
appear in your reports.

------------------------------

Date: October 13, 2004
From: Listpig
Subject: RE: a bit of a problem

Melinda Elmore <mkelmore@xxx_com> wrote:

> I thought Rootsweb promised people their info would "never be burned
> onto a CD." Is that promise down the tubes now?

Nope, and I don't quite see what in the original post led you to a leap to
burning CDs at all.

Ancestry has never burned CDs of users' information either, so it's not
quite clear to me how the two being related would lead to the conclusion of
"oh, now RootsWeb's going to do it."

--pig

------------------------------

Date: October 13, 2004
From: John Goodman
Subject: RE: a bit of a problem

Don Bell wrote:

> John M. Leggett wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, unless data posted publicly is copyrighted
> > anyone may use it in almost any way they wish...
>
> Not so. There is a popular myth that anything published on the
> Internet is in the public domain unless there's a notice of
> copyright. However, under current copyright legislation a work is
> considered to be copyright protected the moment it is fixed in a
> tangible medium of expression such as a letter, a book, or a
> webpage. The copyright notice is optional; thus, since March 1,
> 1989, even when a work does not display a Copyright (c) notice, that
> work is still fully protected by your copyright. If you post your
> work on your webpage and someone copies it or posts it to another
> site without your express permission, they are guilty of copyright
> violation. Hope this clarifies.

My son is an Intellectual Property Lawyer and he has "sort of" told me
the same thing. He is quick to point out that that the absence of a
copyright symbol does not mean it's actually copyrighted. I think the
new law is designed to protect somebody that publishes, and their
copyright application is in progress or is being contemplated. That
protection is assumed, but not a fact. For instance, if the creator
never sues, then how could he/she ever say that their copyright was
violated? Since there are no "copyright cops" the court is the only
venue.

We should also keep in mind that the work may fail to qualify if the
author tries to copyright it. I could easily extract some little known
works of Shakespeare and use them as lyrics for a song. I could put the
"c" on it and nobody would ever question it - or would they? What if
another artist knocked off my lyrics and I sued? Would I win? Not if
they could show I plagiarized Shakespeare.

Our real problem here is that some low-life did a wholesale copy of
somebody's labor of love and used it as their own. Yes, she could sue,
but it would be a small, and expensive, victory. My question is: where
was it published? If it's on RootsWeb, then ask them to remove it - and
him. If it's being sold, then get a lawyer and go for the money. If
your notes are extracts of public record, then did he properly footnote
you? It's a shame that slimeballs like him exist, but I would publish
his name - far and wide - if I were her.
My opinion....

John

------------------------------

Date: October 13, 2004
From: ann
Subject: Re: Bit of a Problem

Melinda Elmore <mkelmore@xxx_com> wrote:

> I thought Rootsweb promised people their info would "never be burned
> onto a CD." Is that promise down the tubes now?

No, RoostWeb isn't burning anything onto CDs.

What's happening is that since Ancestry owns RootsWeb all trees
posted to RootsWeb, are cross-posted to Ancestry.com

Ancestry has taken all the trees posted to their sites and created
what they call OneWorld Tree. In order to view this, you have to pay
extra on top of your Ancestry membership,. If you're already a member
it costs you $40 per year.

This is what Ancestry claims about OneWorldTree

~~~~~~~~~~
What is OneWorldTree?

Exclusive to Ancestry.com, OneWorldTree gathers family trees and
family history records for millions of people, analyzes the birth,
death and marriage data and then displays the most probable matches
for your ancestors.

You can still view the free trees on Ancestry which are the same ones
that are on RootsWeb.

How does OneWorldTree work?

OneWorldTree scours family trees submitted by other genealogists as
well as original documents, such as census records, and displays the
collective data in a tree format.
~~~~~~~~~

Obviously they didn't search any original documents when they put our
names up on that thing.:-\n
Ann Griffee
www.griffee.net

------------------------------

Date: October 14, 2004
From: Dirk Ch.Brandt
Subject: RE: How to change report address

Gary Alan Dickey wrote:

> I don't know whether this needs to go on Reunion Talk, but I was
> wondering how I change the address information for me that appears
> on the various reports. I went through the online manual and tried
> all the buttons I could think of. It must be something simple. Would
> appreciate the tip to do so.

Probably this is where you are looking for:

Options -> Reports -> Return Address

------------------------------

Date: October 14, 2004
From: Lola Angell
Subject: I now have 2 GGG Grandpa's in one file

Recently, I ask how to link a person to their parents. I did that, and
now have a GGGG Grandfather and a 5th G Grandfather with the same
parents. Can this be??? I have not at this time ran a new
"relationship," (if you know what I mean), and am afraid to.

Please help me, I'm afraid I've really messed up my files.

Lola

p.s. I am using v. 7.05

------------------------------

Date: October 14, 2004
From: Listpig
Subject: One World Tree

Ann Griffee wrote:

> Ancestry has taken all the trees posted to their sites and created
> what they call OneWorld Tree. In order to view this, you have to pay
> extra on top of your Ancestry membership,. If you're already a member
> it costs you $40 per year.

And what Ancestry is charging for is the search engine, not the data. The
data is still fully accessible for free.

If it's worth $40/year to you to have a program go thru all the gedcoms and
say "OK, this Abe Jones here looks to be your Abe Jones", go for it. Me,
I'd rather trust my own brain and eyeballs on it than a search engine
anyhow, so OWT is irrelevant to me.

--pig

------------------------------

Date: October 14, 2004
From: Melinda Elmore
Subject: Re: Bit of a Problem

Listpig <listpig@xxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> Melinda Elmore <mkelmore@xxx_com> wrote:
>
> > I thought Rootsweb promised people their info would "never be burned
> > onto a CD." Is that promise down the tubes now?
>
> Nope, and I don't quite see what in the original post led you to a
> leap to burning CDs at all.
>
> Ancestry has never burned CDs of users' information either, so it's not
> quite clear to me how the two being related would lead to the
> conclusion of "oh, now RootsWeb's going to do it."

Dear pig:

I quote:
"MyFamily.com, Inc. provides the largest and most popular collection of
online information for connecting families with their histories and
with one another. .... The MyFamily network of web-based products
includes MyFamily.com, Ancestry.com, Genealogy.com, and RootsWeb.com.
The company also publishes Family Tree Maker®, the #1 selling family
tree software, Ancestry Magazine, Genealogical Computing Magazine, over
50 book titles, and numerous databases on CD-ROM."

They didn't all start out being owned by the same corporation, and now
they are.

FamilyTreeMaker has been burning and selling family tree CD's for
years. GenForum and Ancestry have both collected user-submitted family
info. Genealogy is big-money big-business. I don't think Rootsweb is
going to do it, I think it is going to be done to Rootsweb. Call me
cynical, but I am waiting for the corporate shoe to finish dropping
onto the neck of Rootsweb (a noble dream), and all the people who have
submitted their precious family info. The temptation to make a profit
off this data will be be just too much to resist despite what Ancestry
promised. Convince me this will never happen, please.

Melinda

------------------------------

Date: October 14, 2004
From: James E Bradley
Subject: In the matter of OneWorldTree

Listers,

Just today (Thur, 14th Oct) I received an e-mail saying that they may
have found one of my ancestors. When I clicked on the links provided to
whet my appetite. What I found was information I had shared with a
relative. This relative sent it to Ancestry/Roots Web and it ended up in
OneWorldTree. So if I were to subscribe I would be paying for access to
my own data provided in a sense of sharing with a relative.
Just my 2 pennies worth.

Jim Bradley
jamesb@xxxxxx_net

------------------------------

Date: October 14, 2004
From: IoneJones
Subject: camera/tripod legs

In Reunion archives on this subject I found the following note of May 25,
2004, from Bud Swendner:

> I've noticed quite a few notes on this subject .... enuf to prompt
> me to examine MY equipment. I found that I had an ancient (about 10
> years old) Vivitar Tripod, Model 1101. The Camera holding head can
> be EASILY be reversed (removed & reinserted in opposite end of
> threaded tube) so as to extend well below and in between the Tripod
> legs. The object to be photographed can be placed on any suitable
> mounting surface and can be lighted as needed. Very stable.

I however, have not been able to do this on my Vivitar Model
#1200. l m stumped! The other end of the threaded tube has a hook
(for hanging) that doesn't seem to want to come out. Anyway I
would appreciate any further help on this procedure. Maybe I am
overlooking something? Thanks.

Ione Jones

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: Linda Saifman
Subject: Re: Same family member

How do I show the same family member in two family histories without
having to duplicate (retype) all of the information?

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: A.W. Neef
Subject: Re: Classic Problem

I'm still running under OS-9, but expect eventually to go OS-X. So I
read with interest the problems users report. Just yesterday, on
IOMUG.YahooGroup, Randy Singer tried to clear up the confusion.

Randy wrote:

> We are getting into the common problem of confusing OS 9 booting
> with being able to use Classic to run older applications.
>
> Here is a list of Mac models (all recent) that cannot boot (startup)
> into OS 9:
>
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=86209
>
> However *all* of these models come with, and can run, Classic
> (installed or not).
>
> What is Classic? It is OS 9 running as a process on top of OS X.
> That is, Classic is OS 9 running as if it were just another OS X
> application.
>
> Apple has said nothing about discontinuing the ability of OS X to
> run Classic. Indeed, given the large number of Mac users who still
> run OS 9 (who will most likely be migrating to OS X at some point,
> along with their libraries of OS 9 software) and the huge amount of
> legacy OS 9 Mac software, it would be silly for Apple to kill
> Classic.
>
> Randy B. Singer
> Co-Author of: The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th and 6th editions)

-- Bill Neef Grass Lake, MI, USA <bneef@xxxxxxxxx_com>
"What this country needs is a good 5 cent cigar." - W.C. Fields

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: martha
Subject: copyright laws

I think it would be a good idea, if you are concerned about copyright
issues, to go to the US government site. They have a series of .pdf
files that you can download and study.

http://www.loc.gov/copyright

You will see that the issue is far from cut and dried and each .pdf
file there contains nuances which makes it differ from the others.
Their site covers internet issues as well as photos and intellectual
property.

Martha in Israel

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: Joshua Bobbitt
Subject: Source info

Hello listers!

Here's my conundrum. I want to use a book for a source. However, it
appears I would need a whole new source for each page. Is this
true? I should like to use just one source per book, then for each
little usage, then change the page number to reflect where the info
has come from. Thanks for the help!

~Josh Bobbitt
Beaverton, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: Ruth Ann Edney
Subject: Linkage problem

I've happily used Reunion since about 1999 when I started by
genealogical research, and have had only one unusual event. At home I
use OSX and Reunion 8.05 on my Imac. When traveling, I have a
Wallstreet which necessitates OS9 and Reunion 8. I was talking last
week with a 100 year old cousin, and typing in additional information
on her family. I showed her the photos I've scanned of her parents and
family. The next day, when I wanted to add some notes to her brother's
info, I found that in the index and on the family card his information
for birth and death was the same as that of his father. Both have the
same name, but the son did have a nickname on his card. How this change
occurred, I have no idea. When I click on the son on the parent's child
card, nothing happens. I finally went to the son's wife, whose
information was still correct. I added him as her spouse and linked him
to the father thinking this would now correct the problem. I am still
unable to go from the parent's card to this child. All others work
fine. The son, with correct information, still isn't in the index.
Since I'd added some information on the trip, my plan was to copy the
updated file to my Imac and replace the "old" file. Given this problem,
I don't want to do that now. Has anyone else experienced such a
problem? Is there a fix which would allow me to repair the link and
thus be able to put this newer file on my Imac? I've already tried the
repair function of Reunion, but that didn't help.

Thanks in advance, Ruth

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: I now have 2 GGG Grandpa's in one file

Lola Angell <angell@xxxxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> Recently, I ask how to link a person to their parents. I did that, and
> now have a GGGG Grandfather and a 5th G Grandfather with the same
> parents. Can this be??? I have not at this time ran a new
> "relationship," (if you know what I mean), and am afraid to.
>
> Please help me, I'm afraid I've really messed up my files.
>
> Lola
>
> p.s. I am using v. 7.05

Lola,

I'm not sure if you've done anything wrong or not (it sounds like you
really didn't), but I can tell you for sure that the relationships
displayed on your family cards will not be updated until you get
Reunion to update them. Use the List Relatives menu item, then use
the Identify tab to choose yourself (assuming you're the current
source) and click the Identify button. No need to get the list. But
this will update the displayed relationships you see. And it
shouldn't do any harm elsewhere in your file.

This hasn't changed, except for how it looks, between Reunion 7 and
8, as I recall, so that should cover it.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: Christina
Subject: re: I now have 2 GGG Grandpa's in one file

Lola Angell <angell@xxxxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> Recently, I ask how to link a person to their parents. I did that, and
> now have a GGGG Grandfather and a 5th G Grandfather with the same
> parents. Can this be??? I have not at this time ran a new
> "relationship," (if you know what I mean), and am afraid to.
>
> Please help me, I'm afraid I've really messed up my files.
>
> Lola
>
> p.s. I am using v. 7.05

You are descended from two of this man's children? If yes, then it is
very possible that he could be both a 4G and 5G grandfather.

I have the same problem. Except in a few cases, I'm descended from 3 of
the kids.

Christina

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: Kathleen Much
Subject: Re: In the matter of OneWorldTree

Way back at the dawn of time, somebody who had bought a Family Tree
Maker CD got in touch with me about some of my ancestors (she had
found me through RootsWeb when it was still all-volunteer). She had
some seriously flawed information that included a couple of very
distinctive errors I had made years before and shared with another
relative WITH MY COPYRIGHT NOTICE PROMINENTLY ATTACHED.

When I got in touch with WFT to see about correcting the mess, I was
told I would have to buy the CD in order to see what was on it and
then they wouldn't promise they would make any corrections. They
didn't care that my copyright had been violated and wouldn't even tell
me who had submitted the information to WFT so I could object.

Of course I declined their generous offer and decided that anybody
silly enough to trust their stolen materials deserved to have dreck.

My advice: Don't waste any money on WFT. It's even more hopelessly
bungled than the Mormons' Ancestral File, which is no great shakes
either but at least doesn't cost anything.

Trust only genealogical materials that come with sources attached, and
CHECK THOSE SOURCES.

Kathleen Much
The Book Doctor

------------------------------

Date: October 15, 2004
From: Listpig
Subject: Ancestry

Melinda wrote:

> FamilyTreeMaker has been burning and selling family tree CD's for
> years. GenForum and Ancestry have both collected user-submitted family
> info. Genealogy is big-money big-business. I don't think Rootsweb is
> going to do it, I think it is going to be done to Rootsweb. Call me
> cynical, but I am waiting for the corporate shoe to finish dropping
> onto the neck of Rootsweb (a noble dream), and all the people who have
> submitted their precious family info. The temptation to make a profit
> off this data will be be just too much to resist despite what Ancestry
> promised. Convince me this will never happen, please.

Melinda, nobody's watched that closer than those of us who used to be
staff. Yes, genealogy.com does and has done that, and with that
acquisition we were watching very closely.

Here's what I've seen:

MF (myfamilyinc.com, the parent corp) very much wants Ancestry and
genealogy.com to keep functioning as competitors, not partners. Having
to compete against each other keeps them on their edge. It also means
they're not sharing policies or technology. That's both good news and
bad news: it means that the most abysmal census search on the planet
(genealogy.com) isn't being improved to Ancestry's standard, but it also
means that Ancestry isn't changing its standard of never selling data
that's user-provided for free.

(From Ancestry's standpoint, there are three kinds of data: free,
one-time cost (purchase or processing, as in the census scans/indexing),
and ongoing cost (some databases are essentially shared by the copyright
holder in return for royalties).

When Ancestry acquired RootsWeb, and some of us were flown to Utah, we
had a lot of questions ourselves in that direction. We were assured
that Ancestry had no intention of putting RW data behind a subscription
wall, ever. Everything I've seen since then has backed that up.

What it's cost RootsWeb, to a great extent, is that there's not as much
development effort going into producing anything *new* at RW, because
there's no tangible return. But other than that, it's pretty much
business as usual.

--pig

------------------------------

Date: October 16, 2004
From: Judy Pickett
Subject: Changing a record and keeping the data

Even using the manual I cannot figure out how to change a relationship.
Long after I logged in the data I tracked down a census record, located
the vital record and discovered that in a subsidiary line a Grt
grandfather was a step grandson. The great grandmo had a child by
another man before she married. I have the birth record, the father's
name, and note entered into the note field but I cannot figure out how
to insert the correct father leaving all the rest of the data intact.

------------------------------

Date: October 16, 2004
From: Margaret DAVIDSON
Subject: Accessing notes in a family file

I want to make a printout of my family- preferably in the form of a Family
History report. However, when I create one, this very important part is
missing- the note field. I'm sure there is a way of showing this, but I
can't find out how from Help.
Anyone know how??
Margaret Davidson

------------------------------

Date: October 16, 2004
From: John Hair
Subject: Re: camera/tripod legs

> I however, have not been able to do this on my Vivitar Model
> #1200. l m stumped! The other end of the threaded tube has a hook
> (for hanging) that doesn't seem to want to come out. Anyway I
> would appreciate any further help on this procedure. Maybe I am
> overlooking something? Thanks.

Not al tripods have this ability, in some cases it is only certain
models in a range. If you check vivitar.com you will see they now
show only three models in their pro Line, these all have this
ability. It looks like the only way you can get this feature is by
buying another tripod. There is another alternative, an item called a
copy stand. Kodak has a portable one that clamps to a desk ( Item
8901779). You can check this out by going to kodak.com and following
Accessories/Gear/Other/Copy Stand. Other companies should also have a
similar item. There are also camera stands that are similar to an
enlarger mount that holds the camera on a sliding mount over a base
but this isn't good for taking to locations away from home.

John

------------------------------

Date: October 18, 2004
From: Brian Columbus
Subject: How to record only one known parent

I've recently come across the obituary of my great-uncle and discovered
another child (or seemingly) of his. This man already has 7 children
and 3 step-children between himself and his two wives--both marriages
produced children; his 2nd wife had children from a previous marriage
too. Currently, all the children are correctly linked; both parents'
have multiple marriages with the correct children associated. My
problem is that I don't know if this newly discovered daughter belongs
with his first or second wife. I suspect it's the second wife, as I'm
fairly confident about the first marriage's children, but I can't be
positive. No matter how I try to add this "new" daughter, I'm forced to
choose a mother for her. Without creating yet another marriage for my
great-uncle, is there a way I can add this new cousin, and link her
only to her father? I'd rather not associate her with a "supposed"
mother, and only note the dilemma in her record.

Thanks in advance.
Brian

------------------------------

Date: October 18, 2004
From: Kathleen Much
Subject: Re: Changing a record and keeping the data

In an earlier message Judy Pickett wrote:

> Long after I logged in the data I tracked down a census record, located
> the vital record and discovered that in a subsidiary line a Grt
> grandfather was a step grandson. The great grandmo had a child by
> another man before she married. I have the birth record, the father's
> name, and note entered into the note field but I cannot figure out how
> to insert the correct father leaving all the rest of the data intact.

The simplest way is to go to the great-grandmother's card and add a
New Husband (marking "Unmarried" on the marriage card). Then choose
Existing Male Child and select the name from the Index that pops
open. You will be asked whether to Move the child or Duplicate
him. Click Move. Open Edit Spouses on the lady's card and move the man
you just entered to the first position (above the husband you already
had in there). You're done.

Kathleen Much
The Book Doctor

------------------------------

Date: October 18, 2004
From: Listpig
Subject: Re: Changing a record and keeping the data

Judy wrote:

> Even using the manual I cannot figure out how to change a relationship.
> Long after I logged in the data I tracked down a census record, located
> the vital record and discovered that in a subsidiary line a Grt
> grandfather was a step grandson. The great grandmo had a child by
> another man before she married. I have the birth record, the father's
> name, and note entered into the note field but I cannot figure out how
> to insert the correct father leaving all the rest of the data intact.

Judy, let me see if I understand this correctly: (substituting hypothetical
names)

You have Ed listed as the son of Sally and Joe, but you have discovered that
he's really the son of Sally and Mark.

1) add Mark as an additional spouse to Sally (you can tweak the settings
after you do that if Sally wasn't ever actually married to Mark.) Use new
spouse if he isn't already listed; existing spouse if he is.

2) While looking at Ed, grab the drop down menu by the plus sign and click
"Existing mother". Choose Sally.

Since she now has more than one spouse, you'll get asked which spouse of
hers he should be under. Choose Mark. You'll then get something that asks
you (I don't recall exact phrasing) whether to make that an additional
listing or to move him. Choose move.

--pig

------------------------------

Date: October 18, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Accessing notes in a family file

Margaret Davidson <mriver@xxxxx_net> wrote:

> I want to make a printout of my family- preferably in the form of a
> Family History report. However, when I create one, this very
> important part is missing- the note field. I'm sure there is a way of
> showing this, but I can't find out how from Help. Anyone know how??

Margaret,

Most of Reunion's reports work the same way for this, which is to say
that you select the fields you want to include when defining the
layout for the report.

If you choose to create a Family History Report, you'll see a
selector there for which layout to use. You can create new ones
copied from existing layouts, define new ones on the fly, etc.
You'll find there a set of items to let you choose which fields to
include for a person, family, etc. (depending on the particular
report). For the Family History Report, you can include the "Misc.
Notes" fields for both the person and the family.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 18, 2004
From: Dirk Ch.Brandt
Subject: RE: Source info

Joshua Bobbitt <jbobbitt919@xxxxx_com> wrote:

> Here's my conundrum. I want to use a book for a source. However, it
> appears I would need a whole new source for each page. Is this
> true? I should like to use just one source per book, then for each
> little usage, then change the page number to reflect where the info
> has come from. Thanks for the help!

Make a new source of the Type: Book
Don't use the last line of the Field that says Page or even Delete that
line from the Edit Source Window.

Using this source, you place the pagenumber in the Detail section at
the right side of the Source Citation by every usage of this Source,
and you can automatically put the cursor in the Detail field
immediately after you add source citations. To do this, choose Options
- -> Display and click in that window the bottomline-button: Select
Detail Field (after adding a source).

To study this read the Manual: Help-> Contents, and look in the left
column for: Source Documentation. In that chapter click the second
topic: What are citations and Detail?

There you find exactly where you are looking for (specially the three
words here.

Dick Brandt

------------------------------

Date: October 18, 2004
From: Christina
Subject: Re: Source info

Joshua Bobbitt <jbobbitt919@xxxxx_com> wrote:

> Here's my conundrum. I want to use a book for a source. However, it
> appears I would need a whole new source for each page. Is this
> true? I should like to use just one source per book, then for each
> little usage, then change the page number to reflect where the info
> has come from. Thanks for the help!

No, you don't. If the whole book (or much of it) is a source, then the
standard bibliography entry is enough.

If you are using only a couple of pages, then the usual bibliography
entry and the specific pages is plenty. Example: if for person A you
used pages 7-10 and for person B pages 22-23, ideally they would be a
separate entry--and for publication in a journal, yes you would need two
separate entries.

In Reunion (at least in (8.05) there is a spot in *Detail* that can be
different for each time you list the source. So you can use the same
source listing--but in the detail column put page numbers.

Christina

------------------------------

Date: October 19, 2004
From: John Hill
Subject: Re: Changing a record and keeping the data

Judy Pickett wrote:

> Even using the manual I cannot figure out how to change a relationship.
> Long after I logged in the data I tracked down a census record, located
> the vital record and discovered that in a subsidiary line a Grt
> grandfather was a step grandson. The great grandmo had a child by
> another man before she married. I have the birth record, the father's
> name, and note entered into the note field but I cannot figure out how
> to insert the correct father leaving all the rest of the data intact.

Give great grandmo a new spouse - with the correct father's name in if
you know it. Go to the "add children" button in the children section of
the family window, Add Existing Child, and select the child you want to
move. You will be asked if you want to move him completely or leave a
link in the old family - this is useful for adopted children but
inappropriate here.

John (Bournemouth)

------------------------------

Date: October 19, 2004
From: John Hill
Subject: Re: Source info

Joshua Bobbitt <jbobbitt919@xxxxx_com> wrote:

> Here's my conundrum. I want to use a book for a source. However, it
> appears I would need a whole new source for each page. Is this
> true? I should like to use just one source per book, then for each
> little usage, then change the page number to reflect where the info
> has come from. Thanks for the help!

I had this problem, and used one source for the book - the page number
goes in the source detail field for each usage.

I use exactly the same technique for census references, references to
FreeBMD, etc.

John (Bournemouth)

------------------------------

Date: October 19, 2004
From: Joe Swann
Subject: Re: Source Info

Joshua Bobbitt <jbobbitt919@xxxxx_com> wrote:

> Here's my conundrum. I want to use a book for a source. However, it
> appears I would need a whole new source for each page. Is this
> true? I should like to use just one source per book, then for each
> little usage, then change the page number to reflect where the info
> has come from. Thanks for the help!

What I've done is create one source record for the book. Then
everywhere I cite it in my family file I put the page number(s) in the
detail field.

Joe Swann
Computer Technician & Webmaster
Robertson County Schools

http://www.robcoschools.org/

------------------------------

Date: October 19, 2004
From: robert mcalear
Subject: generation label change

When my own family card appears upon opening my Reunion file, I am
shown as "father." My son is labeled as "source." His son, in turn, is
labeled "son." Seems to me that my card should be "source." How to
change?

Bob, in northern California.

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: Jack Ferman
Subject: Case where father is unknown

At one point, the children of the mother carries her surname because the
father is only known as an "unknown seaman." How can I make Reunion give
her children her surname instead of an empty father's name field?

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: Kenbower
Subject: Re: Case where father is unknown

Jack Ferman <ferma001@xxx_edu> wrote:

> At one point, the children of the mother carries her surname because
> the father is only known as an "unknown seaman." How can I make
> Reunion give her children her surname instead of an empty father's
> name field?

Just go in and Re-Type the Surname for each child!

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: Warren White
Subject: Re: generation label change

Bob Maclear wrote:

> When my own family card appears upon opening my Reunion file, I am
> shown as "father." My son is labeled as "source." His son, in turn,
> is labeled "son." Seems to me that my card should be "source." How
> to change?

Bob, I have had problems with this also, but the fix is simple.
Navigate to the family card that shows you and your wife. Go to
"Find > Relatives" Under the "identify" tab, select your name and
click the "identify" button. That makes you the 'source person.'

There may be other ways to navigate to this solution, but that works.

Warren (also in Northern California)

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: Joe & Vicki Swann
Subject: Re: generation label change

Bob Maclear wrote:

> When my own family card appears upon opening my Reunion file, I am
> shown as "father." My son is labeled as "source." His son, in turn,
> is labeled "son." Seems to me that my card should be "source." How
> to change?

1. Navigate to your card.
2. Go to the Find menu and choose Relatives...
3. Make sure the radio button by your name is selected.
4. Click the Identify button.

That will do the trick!

Joe

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: Bob & Dee Carroll
Subject: Re: generation label change

Bob Maclear wrote:

> When my own family card appears upon opening my Reunion file, I am
> shown as "father." My son is labeled as "source." His son, in turn,
> is labeled "son." Seems to me that my card should be "source." How
> to change?

If you really want to change, while on your card, use Find ->
Relatives... select you as source.
To set opening, drag the one you want to the "home" icon.

I use a son as "source" since then relatives of both my wife and me are
labeled. If referring to her relatives, I just take off one G.
Relationships are thus OK for our kids. I add a G when describing to
grandchildren.

Bob
Bob & Dee Carroll. Westport, NY, on Lake Champlain
Relations of Bob & Dee
http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?db=rcarroll

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: generation label change

Bob Maclear wrote:

> When my own family card appears upon opening my Reunion file, I am
> shown as "father." My son is labeled as "source." His son, in turn,
> is labeled "son." Seems to me that my card should be "source." How
> to change?

Bob,

When you open your family card and have your own card on display, go
to the Find menu and choose Relatives. There you can choose to find
all blood relatives of yourself, your spouse, or any other individual
currently designated as "Source". So choose yourself and click
Identify. When it's done, the opposite tab will become active to let
you list them, which isn't needed. Simply identifying the relatives
will change all the relationships displayed so that yours becomes
Source, your son's will say Son, and so on.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: ikemura
Subject: Re: generation label change

Bob Maclear wrote:

> When my own family card appears upon opening my Reunion file, I am
> shown as "father." My son is labeled as "source." His son, in turn,
> is labeled "son." Seems to me that my card should be "source." How
> to change?

This is copied directly from Reunion's help menu -

Click back to your family card and choose Find -> Relatives.

Select the button next to your name and click Identify. Then click Close.

Reunion will figure out how you're related to all of your blood
relatives and display the relationships (like father, 1st cousin, etc.)
just above the names on family cards. As you click through the family
cards in your family file, you'll see, at a glance, how your blood
relatives are related to you.

------------------------------

Date: October 20, 2004
From: robert mcalear
Subject: Re: generation label changes

I have been overwhelmed by the response to my query. Listees have
shown me the advantages and disadvantages of making my own family card
the home card. I am playing with the various options, but haven't made
up my mind which way I want to go. To all those who responded: thanks
for the many suggestions. You have taught me how to manage one more
feature of this great program.

Bob, in northern California.

------------------------------

Date: October 21, 2004
From: B&B Miner
Subject: More Source Problems

Since we have been on the topic of sources, I too have a problem, but
of a different nature. When I print out the entire Register Report to
Word, the source numbers are incorrectly printed. There does not seem
to be any consistency in the way they are incorrectly listed. This
occurs in the events. memos and in the notes. I am preparing to
publish my family history in the near future and of course, I do not
want errors. Can anyone please help me?

Thanks,
Beverly in Ohio

------------------------------

Date: October 21, 2004
From: ROMAD
Subject: Re: Page Resize

Ken Bower wrote:

> Is there any change that in the future Reunion software that there may
> be a way to make the screens larger?  I have a 20 inch monitor, but I
> can only pull the Reunion screen out to about 16 inches wide.

Ken, the monitor size is the diagonal measurement, so the width of a
standard (1:1.33 aspect ratio) 20" monitor is 16" and the height is
12" Also, if this is a CRT monitor, then the VIEWABLE numbers are less
than those above because CRTs are measured bare. An LCD monitor is
almost entirely viewable so a 15" LCD monitor has about the same
viewable area as a 17" CRT monitor. So, for a CRT your maximum
viewable width is just under 16" while it is 16" for an LCD monitor.
Now, if you have a widescreen monitor, you'll have to determine the
aspect ratio by dividing the width by the height; for example a 16 x 9
monitor is about 1:1.78 (16/9 = 1.777777...) I don't know what are
Apple's monitors ratios

Sincerely,
Dennis B. Swaney

------------------------------

Date: October 22, 2004
From: mary kerr
Subject: Generations on one page

Question:

How to place several generations on one page. In the old versions of
reunion this was done nicely and automatically. I can do it manually,
but that involves way too much work for each page. Thank you.

------------------------------

Date: October 22, 2004
From: Donald A. Sage
Subject: Printing Medical and Military Notes

Back on 9/25/04 in the archives there was a discussion on the
recording of health and medical issues in the Reunion Program.
Martha, outlined the procedure which I have followed up to the point
of printing out these optional note issues. The family card that I am
showing is that of my father, yet the medical note list shows my
Grandfather and his health history not the health history of my
father. Also, on the screen that shows the conditions (Medical) and
the box showing "Has citation" there is a large box on the same line
where the cursor is flashing: what do I fill in here? Thank you.

Don Sage

------------------------------

Date: October 24, 2004
From: ERobin6886
Subject: Re: Source info

Josh Bobbitt wrote:

> Here's my conundrum. I want to use a book for a source. However, it
> appears I would need a whole new source for each page. Is this
> true? I should like to use just one source per book, then for each
> little usage, then change the page number to reflect where the info
> has come from. Thanks for the help!

Josh, I use the basic information in my source but use "various" for
page. Then I add the page number just after the source number in the notes
section.

Works for me.

Nancy in CA

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: Gary & Debby Sparbel
Subject: printing charts

When I create any type of chart or a family group sheet and then try to
print it, I get a box that says FaxPrint in the upper left corner. I
have printed charts many times in the past, but now I can't figure out
how to get away from this FaxPrint box and have no idea why it is
suddenly started appearing.

Any suggestions on how to get back to a normal print command that goes
directly to my printer? Thanks.

Deb S.

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: Christopher K. Philippo
Subject: finding relationships by marriage?

Is there any simple way to find relationships by marriage? If I'm
looking for a relationship between X and Y, rather than being told
"These two people have no blood relationship," I'd rather be told, e.g,
that X is the 2C5R of Z; Z is the 3C4R of Y.

Thanks.

Chris

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: Paul M. Daly
Subject: Ages, Events, and Perspective Sets in one report/chart ?

I'm not sure if this question is going to make any
sense, but is it possible to generate a report, list,
or a timeline for an individual that combines ages,
events, and perspective sets?

I often find myself looking at all three to get a
perspective on an individual's life and it would be
really neat to have either a timeline chart that shows
all three or an option to add events and perspective
sets to the ages list.

Paul Daly

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: User195037
Subject: RED AND GREEN IN FAMILY

I DID SOMETHING IN MY FAMILY CARD THEY ALL SHOW RED AND GRREN LETTERS
WITH DIFFERENT HEADINGS. HOW DO YOU GET IF OFF????

BLAIR WHEELER

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: RogerKIWI
Subject: Re: Feature requests

Susan Patton <spatton@xxxxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> Also it would be extremely helpful to be able to mark a person from
> within the Edit Person  or Family Card.

You can do this now - just click the wee box at lower right of the
individual's part of the Family Card where it says "Mark:" to toggle
the Mark on or off.

In case you don't have this showing, go to Options ------> Define
------> Views, and for the view(s) you work in check the box beside
"Include Little Status Bar".

Cheers

Roger

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: Kathleen Much
Subject: Re: Feature requests

Susan Patton <spatton@xxxxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> Also it would be extremely helpful to be able to mark a person from
> within the Edit Person or Family Card. Having to go to the Index to
> do that is time consuming and an extra step. I don't want to include
> living individuals on my site and mark those who are deceased in order
> to be able to do that.

You can mark someone on his Family card. Just look at the bottom of
the card (below the Notes space) on the right hand side. You'll see
"Mark:". To mark your person, just click that box. A check mark will
appear. To Unmark someone who is already checked, just click on the
box to make the check disappear.

Kathleen Much
The Book Doctor

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Feature requests

Susan Patton <spatton@xxxxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> I'd like to request a few features to be added to the next release of
> Reunion.

[ snip ]

> Also it would be extremely helpful to be able to mark a person from
> within the Edit Person or Family Card. Having to go to the Index to
> do that is time consuming and an extra step. I don't want to include
> living individuals on my site and mark those who are deceased in order
> to be able to do that.

Susan,

With a family card on display, you can mark either individual in one
of two ways. Look on the Find menu for Mark, and to its right you'll
see choices that include the names of the two individuals on the
family card. If you're going to reach for the mouse, you can click
next to the word "Mark" at the lower right of each person's card
instead.

Hope this helps.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: Bruce Roy
Subject: Re: Feature requests

Susan Patton <spatton@xxxxxxxxx_com> wrote:

> I'd like to request the ability to attach a cascading style
> sheet to the HTML files generated when creating web family cards. I'd
> like to be able to customize the fonts, sizes and colors at the very
> least. Having the ability to attach a css file would provide that and
> much more. It bugs me to have a disconnected look for the web cards on
> my site. Manually editing thousands of HTML files is not a realistic
> option.
>
> The ability to add includes to the HTML files would also be great. I'
> like to be able to add site wide navigation to my site without having
> to have the pages exist in frames.

I would support more flexibility from within Reunion itself but you can
achieve some of these things without manually editing every file. You
need a program that will edit multiple files. I use Adobe GoLive. I
have not until I read your note considered using this feature to insert
a css file - I'll play with that! Need to do it soon as I am due to
release a family CD next month.

But I have inserted a CD wide master menu at the top of every page. You
need to be careful to find a search string that is not replicated
throughout a file. For the css link your search string will probably
include <HEAD> or </HEAD> so that should be a safe bet! With the
inserted menu I had to do three passes, one for family web cards, one
for person sheets, and one for the index. I used <BODY etc> as the key
search string but because each of these had different "etc" it required
the three passes. Contact me if you need more info.

---
Bruce Roy
broy@xxxxxxx_net.au
Wollstonecraft NSW Australia

------------------------------

Date: October 25, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: OS X

Beryl Renton <berylrenton@xxxxxxx_com.au> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have never taken any notice of information on OS X because I never
> intended upgrading.
>
> However, I have a camera and also a mini Ipod - both of which I won in
> the last couple of weeks - but both need OS X to install.
>
> What I need to know is if I do get the upgrade, can I still keep all
> the information from the OS9, and should I upgrade from Reunion 7 to
> higher.
>
> Also, if I were to purchase the new IMac which comes with OSX - can I
> put my OS9 information and programmes on that?
>
> Thanks in advance for your reply.

Beryl,

Not to fear. Making the move to OS X doesn't have to be difficult or
traumatic, and you'll find that virtually everything you currently
use in OS 9 will still function via the Classic environment in OS X.
While you could certainly benefit from the new features and
improvements in Reunion 8 (including a native OS X version), your
copy of Reunion 7 will still work just fine under Classic.

Your existing OS 9 "System Folder" will remain as it is. You would
be able to install OS X right alongside it without any problems,
provided you've got a reasonably recent system and a good amount of
free disk space. In OS X's preferences, you would need to point out
your existing System Folder as the one to use for Classic. When you
first attempt to launch any OS 9 app, OS X will put some files in
your OS 9 System Folder (it'll get your OK first) that it needs, but
you can still boot into OS 9 if you need to do so. The only programs
from OS 9 that positively will NOT work are those which require
hardware access, such as disk optimization programs and some device
drivers. All access to the hardware under OS X must go through the
OS, so only those OS 9 programs which can abide by this rule will
work. Most do.

As for a new iMac, the one thing you lose is the ability to boot into
OS 9. But Apple has some information in its Knowledge Base on how to
install OS 9 on systems that need it if it didn't come preinstalled,
or following a restore from backup. I don't know if the new G5 iMac
models still have it installed or not, but it surely can be.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 26, 2004
From: John Pritt
Subject: Re: Features Request

In response to Susan Patton's suggestion for CSS support in Reunion, and
other includes in the HTML files, this can already be done outside of
Reunion. True, it does mean putting together your own web site, and
probably means using frames, but I think that most browsers these days
can support frames OK these days.

I've already done this on my own site. The layout is pretty simple: just
2 horizontal frames, the top one for the naviagation bar and the second,
larger, one below it for the text and images. The site itself has its
own CSS. I have a separate folder where I store the Reunion generated
files, and a link from my own navigation bar to the Reunion index file.
The Reunion pages then appear in the big frame.

I've only just started using Reunion, so there are probably some tips
and tricks that I need to pick up. Right now, I use BBEdit to remove
some of the superfluous code from the Reunion files. For example, I
don't want the home card or contact links appearing (I already have a
contact page), so use a batch search and replace to remove them. I
haven't done so yet, but will also use BBEdit to add in the link to the
CSS.

Agreed, it's a bit messy, but it can be automated using, for example,
Applescript. That's next on my list of things to do,

Having said this, it would be nice to be able to make some basic
modifications to the web template from within Reunion. I'd suggest
include/exclude buttons for an external CSS reference, as well as the
links and navigation features that appear at the bottom of each page.

John Pritt
http://homepage.mac.com/johnpritt/prgl

------------------------------

Date: October 26, 2004
From: Joe Swann
Subject: Re: Mac OS X

In response to Beryl Renton's question regarding Mac OS X:

I converted to Mac OS X (v 10.1) several years ago. Given my job I knew
I needed to stay up on this. I think the thing you will be most pleased
with in upgrading is that Mac OS X is simply very hard to crash. My
wife has managed to crash it once in three years.

Yes, all the Mac OS 9 programs you have can run under Mac OS X,
including Reunion 7. (I have had 1 or 2 of my kids games that wouldn't
work right, everything else does fine.) When you are in Mac OS X and
you launch one of these Classic applications (as they call them) for
the first time you will actually see Mac OS 9 boot up in its own
window. They call this Classic mode. Basically you are running an
emulation of the old operating system kind of like those who run
Virtual PC on their Mac to make it a Windows machine as well.

Classic applications work very well with Mac OS X (at least in my
experience). You can copy and paste between them, use the printer, etc.
As long as you have a way to transfer your files from one computer to
another then you should be able to operate smoothly (if you get a new
unit that is).

As to whether or not upgrade Reunion, that's your call. Reunion 7
should work fine. For me, it is mighty nice to not have to wait the
extra time for Classic to boot up when I want to launch Reunion.

NOTE: Classic mode does not have to boot up each time you launch a
classic app, just once per work session (unless you manually shut it
down). If you turn on you computer you can launch Reunion 7 (which
launches Classic mode), quite Reunion 7, open other classic apps, come
back to Reunion 7, etc. all with only one launching of Classic mode.
Now if you log out of your account or shut down the computer then
Classic mode shuts down as well.

Joe Swann
Computer Technician & Webmaster
Robertson County Schools

http://www.robcoschools.org/

------------------------------

Date: October 26, 2004
From: John Hill
Subject: Re: OS X

Beryl Renton wrote:

> I have never taken any notice of information on OS X because I never
> intended upgrading.
>
> However, I have a camera and also a mini Ipod - both of which I won in
> the last couple of weeks - but both need OS X to install.
>
> What I need to know is if I do get the upgrade, can I still keep all
> the information from the OS9, and should I upgrade from Reunion 7 to
> higher.

Provided that you enable Classic within OSX then you will be able to
stay with Reunion 7 (I still use it, as do many others) and all your
OS9 data and applications will be OK. But I DO MOST STRONGLY advise you
to back up all your important data first, in case it all goes
pear-shaped!

> Also, if I were to purchase the new IMac which comes with OSX - can I
> put my OS9 information and programmes on that?

Yes - this is easy if you first back up to CD from your existing Mac
(you don't mention what it is but I assume that it probably does have
CD-write capability). You can then copy from the CD(s) to the new
machine.

If you don't have CD-write on your current Mac, it's more difficult,
but there are ways of doing it - for example if you have USB on the
current Mac (and I think you must have if you are contemplating
upgrading it to OSX) you can buy a USB external drive, save to that,
and then copy from the drive to the new iMac. It won't be wasted - you
can keep using it for regular back-ups.

If you are still perplexed, I suggest you subscribe to one of the
Macintosh newsgroups (e.g. comp.sys.mac.misc, uk.comp.sys.mac or maybe
aus.computers.mac) and ask advice there.

Rut other readers of ReunionTalk may be better qualified to help you,
anyway :-)

John (Bournemouth)

------------------------------

Date: October 26, 2004
From: William Taber
Subject: Re: OS X

Beryl Renton <berylrenton@xxxxxxx_com.au> wrote:

> I have never taken any notice of information on OS X because I never
> intended upgrading.
>
> However, I have a camera and also a mini Ipod - both of which I won in
> the last couple of weeks - but both need OS X to install.
>
> What I need to know is if I do get the upgrade, can I still keep all
> the information from the OS9, and should I upgrade from Reunion 7 to
> higher.
>
> Also, if I were to purchase the new IMac which comes with OSX - can I
> put my OS9 information and programmes on that?

Beryl,

OS X includes an OS9 Classic environment for you to run nearly all of
your OS9 applications on, including Reunion 7 for OS9. There are a
small number of applications built for OS9 that won't work this way,
but it is a very small number. One in particular is the HP ScanJet
software for OS9, and for the purpose of operating my HP ScanJet
5370c, there is another commercial solution, Vuescan, which I use.

So, if you do either option that you suggested, you will still be
able to use your current Reunion 7 for OS9. I certainly recommend
you go to OS X. I am extremely happy with it (running OS X 10.3.5)
and it is certainly Apple's most stable and secure OS ever.

William Taber, Indianapolis

------------------------------

Date: October 26, 2004
From: John Pritt
Subject: Re: OSX

In (partial) reply to Beryl Renton, if you do upgrade to OSX, you still
have the ability to run OS9 applications under "Classic". In effect, OSX
launches OS9 as a separate applciation, and you can then launch all your
old OS9 applciations. If/When you upgrade, I'm pretty sure that all of
your OS9 applicaitons will be moved to a separate folder. Obviously, it
would be better to take a back up of all your applciaitons and data. But
the risk of your not being able to use anything is very low. If you're
using OS9.2 now, you'll still be using it under Classic mode.

If you decide to buy a new Mac, be aware that it will not be able to
start up in OS9, only in OSX. This may or may not be important to you.
It is to me, for example, because my online banking application only
runs in OS9, and only if I boot up in OS9 -- it will not run under OSX
in Classic mode. Apart from the fact that I can't really afford a new
Mac right now, this is the major reason that stops me changing my
current Mac (a 500mhz iBook) for a more recent model.

I moved to OSX quite early, and found the switch no more difficult than
any other change to the OS that Apple has made in the past.

John Pritt

------------------------------

Date: October 26, 2004
From: Donald Kauffman
Subject: RE: Red and Green in Family

Blair Wheeler wrote:

> I DID SOMETHING IN MY FAMILY CARD THEY ALL SHOW RED AND GREEN LETTERS
> WITH DIFFERENT HEADINGS. HOW DO YOU GET IF OFF????

Those of us who collect "farm toys" recognize this problem. There are
some family members who collect only green miniature tractors ---
usually John Deere, and there are others who collect only red miniature
tractors --- usually International/Farmall.

If in your family history you end up with people like that, there is
seldom anything that can be done about it, personal preferences being
what they are. In Reunion go to OPTIONS/SET FLAGS and create a flag
named something like "Tractor color" and you will forever more be able
to sort your people based on their miniature tractor color preference.

Hope this helps!

------------------------------

Date: October 26, 2004
From: elizabeth byerly
Subject: Re: OSX and Reunion

Beryl Renton wrote concerning OSX and Reunion.

> I have never taken any notice of information on OS X because I never
> intended upgrading.
>
> However, I have a camera and also a mini Ipod - both of which I won in
> the last couple of weeks - but both need OS X to install.
>
> What I need to know is if I do get the upgrade, can I still keep all
> the information from the OS9, and should I upgrade from Reunion 7 to
> higher.
>
> Also, if I were to purchase the new IMac which comes with OSX - can I
> put my OS9 information and programmes on that?

Beryl,

I want to encourage you to move to OS X exclusively. I began with
Reunion 7 on an earlier Mac OS, but once I had a Mac with both OS 9 &
OS X installed, I soon decided to move to using OS X only, and almost
never go to OS 9 now. As others have noted, OS X is very stable, a
great feeling, and nicer to use once you make the mental shift to it.

In addition, I upgraded to Reunion 8, and was very impressed with the
fresh, clean look to the software. The Reunion 8 software moved all
the data I had in OS 8 into both 9 and X with little fuss. The
installation had to be made separately to each OS, but I remember no
troubles at all in so doing.

I'm busy talking up Reunion 8 to our local Mac users and genealogy
club members.

Lil

------------------------------

Date: October 27, 2004
From: Mr S G Hill
Subject: Drag and drop from iPhoto

Is it possible to drag and drop from the iPhoto gallery into Reunion?

If so how.

cheers

steve hill

------------------------------

Date: October 27, 2004
From: John Pritt
Subject: Re: Features Request

Just to follow up on my repsonse yesterday to Susan about the CSS. I
added the link to my own CSS yesterday evening, using BBEdit to do a
multiple file search and replace.

All I did was search for </HEAD><-- and replaced that with<link
rel="stylesheet" href="path/stylesheet.css"
type="text/css"></HEAD><!--D><--

Remember to include the crrect path to your stylesheet, with either
absolute or relative folder paths. The only complication, if that's the
right wrd, comes from the fact that if, like me, you use the data
output from Reunion "as is", the path to the stylesheet is not the same
for the main page as for the idx... and wc.. files if you are using
relative addressing (e.g., ../../ etc).

Now, everything on my site uses the same stylesheet, and I'm happy!


John

------------------------------

Date: October 27, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Features Request

John Pritt <johnpritt@xxx_com> wrote:

> Just to follow up on my repsonse yesterday to Susan about the CSS. I
> added the link to my own CSS yesterday evening, using BBEdit to do a
> multiple file search and replace.
>
> All I did was search for </HEAD><-- and replaced that with<link
> rel="stylesheet" href="path/stylesheet.css"
> type="text/css"></HEAD><!--D><--
>
> Remember to include the crrect path to your stylesheet, with either
> absolute or relative folder paths. The only complication, if that's the
> right wrd, comes from the fact that if, like me, you use the data
> output from Reunion "as is", the path to the stylesheet is not the same
> for the main page as for the idx... and wc.. files if you are using
> relative addressing (e.g., ../../ etc).
>
> Now, everything on my site uses the same stylesheet, and I'm happy!

John,

Given that style sheets are usually pretty small in size anyway, some
might prefer to eliminate the worries about what path to use in the
HTML references and simply put a copy of the CSS file into each
directory.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 27, 2004
From: Tom Sykes
Subject: Re: OS X

Barbara C. Martin <barbaramn@xxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> Steve Jackson wrote:
>
> > I don't know if the new G5 iMac models still have it installed or not,
> > but it surely can be.
>
> I have one of the new G5 Imacs, as of about three weeks ago. OS 9 was
> not pre-installed, but the disc was in the package for my own
> installation. Once installed, you can opt to have OS 9 open
> automatically at startup. Once done, you don't have to give it a further
> thought. Whichever OS is needed for a program will open easily. I love
> this new computer!

I feel a point of clarification is needed in response to Barbara's post
about running OS 9 on a new Mac. Around January 2003, Apple began
shipping new Macs that were no longer capable of running OS 9 natively.
However, recognizing that many users would need to run legacy OS 9
programs until developers were able port or rewrite their programs to
run natively in OS X, Apple included with OS X the "Classic" mode
environment.

All new Macs include the option to add OS 9 drivers - hence the OS 9 CD
Barbara mentioned that came with her new Mac.

As Barbara has discovered, a new Mac's default startup may even be set
to boot up a new Mac into what appears to be OS 9.2.2. However, this
does not mean the Mac is running OS 9 natively - it is merely emulating
the OS 9 system.

Running Classic under OS X involves the emulation of an entire operating
system with the net result of memory and CPU requirements being much
higher.

I just didn't want people to have the impression that new Macs will
allow installation of a native OS 9 operating system and that the OS 9
which runs in OS X as "Classic" is really running in an emulated
environment. It does give the distinct feeling of being in OS 9 but in
fact it is not.

Tom

------------------------------

Date: October 27, 2004
From: Charles Judy
Subject: Family medical history report

Consider this Mayo Clinic link for information on your family medical
history record.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?objectid=385FC65E-F961-49BA-99B799A3A0D
AF885&locID=

------------------------------

Date: October 28, 2004
From: Mr S G Hill
Subject: RE: Drag and drop from iPhoto

I asked, in Reunion forum, about drag and drop from iPhoto to Reunion.
Chris Varinek confirmed that drag and drop works.

I tried one randomly selected picture and it went into Reunion from
iPhoto, but I cannot make any of others go in. Unfortunately as the one
that went in was a random try and I cannot remember which on it was I
cannot try it again.

However, randomly trying across the iPhoto gallery gives no joy. Is
there some kind of cache/memory area that needs purging in Reunion or
the eMac?

I ask because when I cmd+? in Finder the Help window flashes up then
disappears, but does not do so in Reunion.

I switched off the eMac and waited then switched on again (shades of
aunty Mabels sure fire cure for warts) still no joy.

I've dragged and dropped a picture from iPhoto into Photoshop Elements
2 and it worked.

mystified as always

cheers

steve hill

------------------------------

Date: October 28, 2004
From: ral
Subject: Re: OS X

Barbara C. Martin <barbaramn@xxxxxxxxx_net> wrote:

> I have one of the new G5 Imacs, as of about three weeks ago. OS 9 was
> not pre-installed, but the disc was in the package for my own
> installation. Once installed, you can opt to have OS 9 open
> automatically at startup. Once done, you don't have to give it a further
> thought. Whichever OS is needed for a program will open easily. I love
> this new computer!

I want to get a new Imac soon but have a 6400 performa running on OS 9
and have a zip drive. I don't know how to get my documents on a new
Imac. Would I have to buy a new USB zip drive and would my disc then be
read by the new computer? Can't afford to update all my programs right
away but just a few at a time. I would love to have the Reunion 8 soon
but getting my programs on a new computer is what is holding me back
from getting the new Imac. I also have Epson Expression 636 scanner, 600
Espon color printer and Apple personal laser printer 320 and doubt if I
could use them with the new Imac. Another thing is I use Netscape
communicator 4.70 for my email and would like to save my genealogy email
to the new computer. Look forward to upgrading to Reunion 8 or waiting
for the next version as I am running Reunion 6 now and don't think I
have enough memory for the Reunion 8. Think getting anew computer will
be very expensive.Thanks Barbara for the info about OS 9 on a disc on
the new G5 Imac.

Ruth

------------------------------

Date: October 28, 2004
From: John Wood
Subject: Re: Drag and drop from iPhoto

Steve Hill wrote:

> Is it possible to drag and drop from the iPhoto gallery into Reunion?

Because Reunion has a restriction of 12 folders to link pictures and
the way iPhoto organizes it's files into numerous nested folders, this
is not possible (yet). But I suspect Mr Leister being a master
programmer of this excellent software is working on it.

But what you can do is drag and drop from the iPhoto gallery to the
folders selected in the mutimedia window options and then drag and drop
them from that folder onto the live buttons in the family window. The
problem with this is that you make a duplicate of the file which of
course gobbles up hard drive real estate. To regain your hard drive
real estate you can delete the original by navigating the torturous
hierarchy of iPhoto and trashing it. Quicker would be to search
(Command F) and trash it from the search window. It's all Mac operating
system stuff really but even experienced users are continually finding
things they should have known years ago. Including me.

I don't like iPhoto & iTunes because they install files where they have
to, not where I want them. Hope this helps.

John Wood

------------------------------

Date: October 28, 2004
From: Steve W. Jackson
Subject: Re: Drag and drop from iPhoto

Steve Hill wrote:

> I asked, in Reunion forum, about drag and drop from iPhoto to Reunion.
> Chris Varinek confirmed that drag and drop works.
>
> I tried one randomly selected picture and it went into Reunion from
> iPhoto, but I cannot make any of others go in. Unfortunately as the one
> that went in was a random try and I cannot remember which on it was I
> cannot try it again.
>
> However, randomly trying across the iPhoto gallery gives no joy. Is
> there some kind of cache/memory area that needs purging in Reunion or
> the eMac?
>
> I ask because when I cmd+? in Finder the Help window flashes up then
> disappears, but does not do so in Reunion.
>
> I switched off the eMac and waited then switched on again (shades of
> aunty Mabels sure fire cure for warts) still no joy.
>
> I've dragged and dropped a picture from iPhoto into Photoshop Elements
> 2 and it worked.

The Reunion manual includes "Drag and Drop in Reunion" in its
appendices (look at the online manual's contents). It shows what
drag and drop actions are supported in Reunion. It says that you can
drag and drop pictures from the Finder to the multimedia window, for
instance. Whether there's some special handling that has to be done
by the Reunion developers for dragging from other applications, I
can't say, but I suspect that's the case.

The Help Viewer problem sounds like your eMac has problems elsewhere
(assuming you're talking about OS X here). You can't compare to
Reunion because it doesn't use the Help Viewer application; it uses
its own built-in help system instead. You might try other programs
that do use the Help Viewer (like Safari, Mail, etc.) and see if they
exhibit the same problem to help narrow down where the problem really
lies.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama
http://homepage.mac.com/stevejackson/

------------------------------

Date: October 28, 2004
From: Barbara C. Martin
Subject: Re: OS X

Ruth wrote:

> I want to get a new Imac soon but have a 6400 performa running on OS 9
> and have a zip drive. I don't know how to get my documents on a new
> Imac.

I worried about the same thing, for weeks. Then I learned that I could
use the ethernet cable connecting my old G3 iMac and my DSL modem.

Quoting the iMac G5 User's Guide that came with the new machine:

You can create a small Ethernet network by connecting an Ethernet cable
from your iMac G5 to another computer's Ethernet port. For more
information, open Mac OS Help and search for "Connecting two
computers". (p. 20)

This is what OS Help says:

Connecting two computers using Ethernet

You can use an Ethernet cable to connect two Macintosh computers and
share files or play network games.

1. Connect an Ethernet cable from the Ethernet port of one computer to
the Ethernet port on the other.

2. Open Sharing preferences on both computers and turn on Personal File
Sharing. Note the Computer Name for the computers.

3. On one of the computers, choose Go > Connect To Server and then
click Browse.

4. Double-click the other computer in the window and enter your
password, if necessary.

------------------------------

Date: October 29, 2004
From: Steven Thomas
Subject: Re: OS X

Ruth wrote:

> I want to get a new Imac soon but have a 6400 performa running on OS 9
> and have a zip drive. I don't know how to get my documents on a new
> Imac. Would I have to buy a new USB zip drive and would my disc then
> be read by the new computer? Can't afford to update all my programs
> right away but just a few at a time. I would love to have the Reunion
> 8 soon but getting my programs on a new computer is what is holding me
> back from getting the new Imac. I also have Epson Expression 636
> scanner, 600 Espon color printer and Apple personal laser printer 320
> and doubt if I could use them with the new Imac. Another thing is I
> use Netscape communicator 4.70 for my email and would like to save my
> genealogy email to the new computer. Look forward to upgrading to
> Reunion 8 or waiting for the next version as I am running Reunion 6
> now and don't think I have enough memory for the Reunion 8. Think
> getting anew computer will be very expensive.Thanks Barbara for the
> info about OS 9 on a disc on the new G5 Imac.

Ruth,

I just looked up the specs on the 6400, and ethernet is an option on
that machine. If you have an ethernet card installed, you can network
the two computers with a crossover cable between the two ports, or
you can use two regular cables and a hub or switch. A USB zip drive
might be handy for data backups, and if you are using the old 100Mb
disks, the old drives are available at a decent price various places
on-line. You might even try putting a firewire card in the 6400 and
putting one machine or the other into target disk mode. Boot holding
down the T key. When they are connected, the other computer will see
the target computer as an external drive.

Hope this helps!

Cordially,

Steven Thomas
CKLS Automation Services

--
Steve Thomas |Automation Services | Us hungry,
www.ckls.org/~sthomas/ |Central Kansas Library System| need food,
sthomas41(a)cox.net Hme|1409 Williams | Lots of books
sthomas(a)ckls.org Wrk|Great Bend, KS 67530-4090 | Hmmm...
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail
/ - against Microsoft attachments

------------------------------

Date: October 29, 2004
From: John Hill
Subject: Re: OS X

Tom Sykes wrote:

> As Barbara has discovered, a new Mac's default startup may even be set
> to boot up a new Mac into what appears to be OS 9.2.2. However, this
> does not mean the Mac is running OS 9 natively - it is merely emulating
> the OS 9 system.
>
> Running Classic under OS X involves the emulation of an entire
> operating
> system with the net result of memory and CPU requirements being much
> higher.
>
> I just didn't want people to have the impression that new Macs will
> allow installation of a native OS 9 operating system and that the OS 9
> which runs in OS X as "Classic" is really running in an emulated
> environment. It does give the distinct feeling of being in OS 9 but in
> fact it is not.

At the risk of keeping an off-topic thread running, I would like to
point out that I have to install a System 9.2.2 System Folder with all
its standard contents (Preferences, Extensions, etc.) in order to run
the Classic environment under 10.2.8. Classic applications use this
System and some aspects of the Finder, and keep their preferences and
use the extensions there. In particular, if I print from a Classic
application it uses the System 9 printer drivers. This was brought home
strongly to me the other day when I tried to print a document from an
OSX application while another was still printing from a Classic one. It
got into a right muddle! (Epson 740 printer - perhaps later ones can
cope).

This is hardly emulation! And BTW, in my experience Classic applications
run just as fast under OSX as they do when I boot into System 9.2.2 - my
G4 permits this.

Maybe this is not so with the later Macs that cannot boot into System 9?

I never cease to be amazed that most applications from the days of the
very first Macs can still be used on the very latest ones. I regularly
play Seahaven Towers, written in 1988 for Macs when they still used a
680*0 CPU. I still use ClarisDraw (1994). What's more, my 1901 census
decoder (which some of you use) is compiled for the same generation of
machine.

John (Bournemouth)

------------------------------

Date: October 29, 2004
From: Agnes
Subject: Re: mac os x 10.2.3 - aol 9.0 - ancestry.com

Janeice Crosson <jcrosson@xxxxxx_net> wrote:

> You can access the census records, however. Some are indexed, some not.
> If you want the 1880's go to the LDS website. It is free.

The 1880 census is also free on ancestry.com and is easier to use, the
index is better and you get to see the original not somebody's idea of
what it says.

Or better yet you can forget Ancestry and use Genealogy.com. Their census
is the same, the indexes are more reliable if not yet as complete and they
actually like MAC folks, and the biggie -- the census is much easier to use
and to print out.

Agnes C.

------------------------------

Date: October 30, 2004
From: Donald McIlhagga
Subject: AN EXTRA SPOUSE

I need to rectify the mistake of giving an ancestor a second wife! I
have linked the 'second' wife's children and descendants to the
'first' wife (which is where they belong). I now need to erase the
second wife, but if I mark her and go to 'Delete People' I will lose
all the children and descendants I've transferred to wife 'one'! Help
please!

------------------------------

Date: October 30, 2004
From: Steve Johnson
Subject: Re: mac os x 10.2.3 - aol 9.0 - ancestry.com

Joan wrote:

> I have been very unhappy with ancestry.com in the past. I have never
> been able to "TRY ANCESTRY.COM FREE" although I have tried numerous
> times.
>
> I installed AOL 9.0 Optimized recently on my "new" compuer - I've had
> AOL for 8-9 years and like it because you can always reach a live
> person! Also with the installation I received an oportunity to "TRY
> ANCESTRY.COM FREE" (TACF) by talking to (I assume) ancestry. So I
> did.

AOL has both good and bad. On a MAC the bad probably outweighs the good.

I subscribe to ancestry.com and genealogy.com. They complement each
other. While both work best with a windows computer, I have great
success with my MAC (G5, OSX10.3.5) genealogy.com has indexed the 1900
census and others as shown below.

For printing, you might use cmd-shift-3 and cmd-shift-4. Also check out
a program called MacMagic, http://www.macease.com. Also, it is usually
best to print from the ancestry or genealogy window rather than the Mac
file menu.

This is not the whole story but hope it helps.
Steve Johnson

------------------------------

Date: October 30, 2004
From: Gay Castle
Subject: Re: mac os x 10.2.3 - aol 9.0 - ancestry.com

Don't forget that you can use Ancestry.com and the databases found
there for free at a LDS Family History Center.

Gay

------------------------------


End of October 2004 archives.
176 messages.