I'm just a bit curious about your marriage sentences (using Sutton/Cassada)
"John W. Sutton and Eliza Jane Cassada were married. John W. Sutton"
Why does the first of the spouses appear by him/herself after the sentence?

Glenn
There have been 74 items by Glenn (Search limited from 13-December 18)
Posted by
Glenn
on 18 January 2013 - 03:04 PM
in
Discussion
Posted by
Glenn
on 17 January 2013 - 12:00 PM
in
Issues
Hi Alfred, I had to borrow your "Oops" expression. I did see "central" but it just went flying by into the next century, 117 years from now!As of Jan 11, 2130 central, it still lists the latest upgrade as RootsMagic 6.0.0.3 Installer at:http://www.rootsmagi...tes/RootsMagic/
Posted by
Glenn
on 25 December 2012 - 11:08 AM
in
Discussion
Posted by
Glenn
on 23 December 2012 - 09:35 PM
in
Discussion
Great ideaI am trying very hard to eliminate the source with the person as I have found over the years of using RM it is not a good process for me to use.
Posted by
Glenn
on 21 December 2012 - 10:56 PM
in
Issues
Sure! Census enumerators and intake interviewers at Ellis Island and other ports of entry wrote down what they heard.==== Hmmm, John Dow could be a distant cousin of John Doe, you know how these name get misunderstood at times
===
Posted by
Glenn
on 04 December 2012 - 05:47 PM
in
Issues
Posted by
Glenn
on 24 November 2012 - 01:17 PM
in
Discussion
Wouldn't that leave just yourself red and just your father blue, etc?. . .For instance, color yourself and all your ancestors red.
Color your father and all his ancestors blue
Color your paternal grandmother and all her ancestors green
Color your maternal grandfather maroon. . .
Posted by
Glenn
on 24 November 2012 - 01:00 PM
in
Issues
Is this enough of an issue to consider switching web browsers, or is IE "quick on the fix" like the Roots Magician?I have seen this issue with the overlapping pictures, and as far as I know it only appears in Internet Explorer. I'll be looking into this next week, so hopefully you'll be seeing an update next week or the week after with this resolved.
Posted by
Glenn
on 23 November 2012 - 10:26 PM
in
Discussion
I made a copy of RM5 to keep the original intact and named the copy: gpw V5 to open with V6 (COPY A) .You can open RootsMagic 4 & 5 databases directly in RM6 and it will convert the file format. Once you have converted to RM6 the only way to go back to RM4 or 5 is through a GEDCOM. That is why it's especially import to create a backup of your database before converting.
Posted by
Glenn
on 23 November 2012 - 10:05 PM
in
RootsMagic Wish List
Posted by
Glenn
on 22 November 2012 - 12:12 PM
in
RootsMagic Wish List
Posted by
Glenn
on 22 November 2012 - 11:28 AM
in
Discussion
Posted by
Glenn
on 21 November 2012 - 11:25 PM
in
Discussion
Posted by
Glenn
on 09 November 2012 - 12:53 PM
in
Discussion
Thanks, Laura, for this bit of news. I've been working on a duplicate-email message-problem, but I was wondering why I hadn't been getting their standard messages about surnames of interest.Ancestry is working and has been working fine for me in RM 5.0.4.1. Right now Ancestry Message Boards is returning a Check Back Soon message from Ancestry.
Posted by
Glenn
on 07 November 2012 - 08:32 PM
in
RootsMagic Wish List
Your sentence is only a week late for Halloween, poor thing!. . .you could costumize the sentence. . .
Posted by
Glenn
on 07 November 2012 - 05:45 PM
in
Discussion
This is probably a case of semantics, but wouldn't you want to merge the file with the least "verified primary sources" [Martin] into the one with more? That could be offset if the Martin file had "a ton" more records than the Thacher file: i.e.:I would like to see the ability to take different files and merge them into a master file if a common ancestor is found in both files. For example, I have a Thacher file and a Martin file. Both have a Hezekiah Gorham with identical birth, marriage and death dates. The biggest difference is the the Thacher file has more verified primary sources in it than the Martin file. I would like to merge the Thacher file into the Martin file.
Posted by
Glenn
on 20 October 2012 - 10:06 AM
in
General Messages
Thanks, Romer for the clarification.Prior versions are still supported -- they're just no longer updated.
Renee:We would much rather not have to support older versions of the software.
Posted by
Glenn
on 18 October 2012 - 11:47 AM
in
General Messages
Posted by
Glenn
on 13 October 2012 - 04:13 PM
in
FamilySearch Family Tree
By submitting User Provided Content to Ancestry, you grant Ancestry, its parent company and all of its affiliates, a transferable license to use, host, sublicense and distribute your submission to the extent and in the form or context. . .Your understanding of Ancestry.com is incorrect. It is your responsibility, as a user, to read the Terms and Conditions of every website you access. By doing so, you educate yourself with the facts, right from the source, and you prevent yourself from assuming, or spreading, mis-truths and half-truths. For Ancestry.com, that means clicking the appropriate link at the bottom of any Ancestry web page.
SorryAs for ACDC, I can assure you that there is no relationship between an Australian heavy-metal band and the LDS church.
Posted by
Glenn
on 11 October 2012 - 04:42 PM
in
FamilySearch Family Tree
Posted by
Glenn
on 11 October 2012 - 02:51 PM
in
FamilySearch Family Tree
Posted by
Glenn
on 10 October 2012 - 11:15 AM
in
Discussion
Posted by
Glenn
on 09 October 2012 - 03:46 PM
in
Discussion
Hi Laura:You can create a person, APPENDIXES:. Link this person as the last child of the beginning person.
Link children to APPENDIXES:
Appendix A - Smithville, James County, Arkansas. [Put your notes in the person [General] note]
Appendix B - First Baptist Church, Smithville, James County Arkansas
Then save the Narrative report as a .rtf or text file and clean up the Appendix part of the report.
Posted by
Glenn
on 05 October 2012 - 12:05 PM
in
RootsMagic Wish List
Sentence:
[Husband] and [Wife] were married< [desc]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place]>< [Date]>.
Description:
by common-in-law
Posted by
Glenn
on 22 September 2012 - 03:10 PM
in
Discussion
Much agreed with your assessment. It didn't take that long with my new blank No-GED-Facts DB. So, it should be just as quick with my main DB -- Maybe quicker if my memory is correct and I've never changed any switches.I don't think so.
But, it isn't too much of a chore to down arrow through the fact list while watching the right pane under Include to see if a "No" ever shows up.