[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
paf-digest V2000 #12
paf-digest Tuesday, February 15 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 012
In this issue:
Re: [PAF] File check in Paf 4.0
[PAF] Re: paf-digest V2000 #11
Re: [PAF] dumb move
[PAF] Female lines
Re: [PAF] File check in Paf 4.0
[PAF] The line between paranoia and privacy
See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the PAF
or PAF-Digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 11:05:28 -0800
From: "Richard N. Simonsen" <simonsen@slip.net>
Subject: Re: [PAF] File check in Paf 4.0
PAF 4.0 does a more complete check. Download the latest version which is dated
2/2/2000 and you will get all the fixes and enhancements which there has been
many. A lot of them in the file checking area.
Richard
Alice Harris wrote:
> I remember reading that there was a problem with the file check program
> in 4.0 when it first came out. Does anyone know if it was ever fixed?
>
> I ran a check last night and it showed that I had 9 errors when it was
> "checking Other names" It gave me messages such as
> "Name 2347122 greater pointer (2348247) is not greater" Which I can't
> begin to understand. It suggested that I restore the file with a clean
> back up (guess I should ck more often because I don't know when this
> occurred). It also says PAF could try to fix some problems but a loss of
> data is possible. Real encouraging, right?
>
> Anyway, I decided to run a check using 3.01M this AM and it says the
> records are OK.
>
> Does Paf 4.0 check for things Paf 3 doesn't or is there still a problem
> with 4.0? And if it is accurate does anyone know how to find a
> name/number list so I can tell who the problems are with?
>
> Thanks, Alice Harris
> ============================================================================
> For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> ============================================================================
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 12:17:31 -0700
From: "John L. Inman" <jinman@mcn.net>
Subject: [PAF] Re: paf-digest V2000 #11
Alice,
I had your exact same problem and worked with PAF Support and they told
me
that the new PAF 4.0 does a lot more checking than 3.0m did. They had me
send my whole database to them on BU. Fits on 6 floppies as have 40,000
names. What they did to fix it was to export and import it back in
GEDCOM
twice and them it cleared the errors. Have not seen any problem with it
since but do run record check in 4.0 every few days and then copy it
into a
sub directory so I always have a backup only a few days old. I still
like
3.0m so use for most all my functions.
Hope this helps,
John L. Inman
Havre, MT
At 08:08 PM 02/13/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>paf-digest Sunday, February 13 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 011
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
> [PAF] PAF 4.0 and Family Search interface
> Re: [PAF] PAF 4.0 and Family Search interface
> [PAF] dumb move
> Re: [PAF] PAF 4.0 and Family Search interface
> Re: [PAF] dumb move
> Re: [PAF] dumb move
> Re: [PAF] dumb move
> Re: [PAF] dumb move
> [PAF] File check in Paf 4.0
>
>See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the PAF
>or PAF-Digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:03:05 -0800
>From: Rob & Heather Williams <will7370@tao.sou.edu>
>Subject: [PAF] PAF 4.0 and Family Search interface
>
>I need some help or suggestions with the PAF 4.0 internet interface. As
>some of you may already know, you can highlight any individual in PAF 4.0,
>then go up to the tool bar and click "Tools". When that window drops
>down, click on "Family Search Internet
>Genealogy Service" and it will immediately launch your web browser, dial
>in, then go to the Family Search web site and search for the person you
>had highlighted in PAF 4.0.
>
>This has always worked well for me, but when I tried to show a friend how
>it works on their computer, it failed. I think it is because they use AOL
>(America On-Line) for their internet. A window pops up and says it cannot
>connect to the service. Does anyone
>know how to make the PAF 4.0 Family Search interface work with AOL?
>
>Regards,
>
>Rob Williams
>Ashland, Oregon
>
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 17:57:58 EST
>From: Mehmail@aol.com
>Subject: Re: [PAF] PAF 4.0 and Family Search interface
>
>In a message dated 02/11/2000 10:11:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>will7370@tao.sou.edu writes:
>
><< I need some help or suggestions with the PAF 4.0 internet interface. As
>some of you may already know, you can highlight any individual in PAF 4.0,
>then go up to the tool bar and click "Tools". When that window drops down,
>click on "Family Search Internet
> Genealogy Service" and it will immediately launch your web browser, dial
> in,
>then go to the Family Search web site and search for the person you had
>highlighted in PAF 4.0.
>
> This has always worked well for me, but when I tried to show a friend
> how it
>works on their computer, it failed. I think it is because they use AOL
>(America On-Line) for their internet. A window pops up and says it cannot
>connect to the service. >>
>
>I am a very frustrated AOL subscriber that has monumental problems with their
>service. !@$#@&$#*&%! Yet, I do not have the problem you describe above.
>PAF 4.0 Family Search pops up satisfactorily for me. But, who knows what
>will happen tomorrow?
>
>@#%#@&^%*
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1972 18:09:45 -0500 (EST)
>From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
>Subject: [PAF] dumb move
>
>I found a major mistake in a line, so I created a GED of 74 people (RINs
>20081 thru 20154), then did a block-del on those folks. Edited the GED,
>and pulled them back in.
>
>I innocently *assumed* that it would put these 74 people into those same
>RINs.
>
>So, now I've got 74 empty records.
>
>I know I can GED everyone out and back into an empty database. However,
>I've still got reports coming in that USE the RINs and taking everyone
>out and back will muck that up nicely. Is there another way to get rid
>of the blanks?
>
>Gad, won't we all be GLAD when I finally send this blasted thing to the
>printer?! (g)
>
>Cheryl
>
>
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:57:13 -0500 (EST)
>From: Timothy Laswell <tlaswell@erols.com>
>Subject: Re: [PAF] PAF 4.0 and Family Search interface
>
>Internet connections can be set to automatically dial up or only dial up
>when you click on the dial icon. It looks like in the first case you have
>it set to automatically dial. It sound like the AOL system is not set
>that way. I would recommend making AOL dial up then minimize the AOL
>screen(s) before firing up PAF and requesting a Search.
>
>Tim in Columbia MD
>
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 Mehmail@aol.com wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 02/11/2000 10:11:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> > will7370@tao.sou.edu writes:
> >
> > click on "Family Search Internet
> > Genealogy Service" and it will immediately launch your web browser,
> dial in,
> >
> > This has always worked well for me, but when I tried to show a friend
> how it
> > works on their computer, it failed. I think it is because they use AOL
>
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 18:14:00 EST
>From: Mlharline@aol.com
>Subject: Re: [PAF] dumb move
>
>In a message dated 2/11/00 3:07:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>csinghal@CapAccess.org writes:
>
> > I know I can GED everyone out and back into an empty database. However,
> > I've still got reports coming in that USE the RINs and taking everyone
> > out and back will muck that up nicely. Is there another way to get rid
> > of the blanks?
> >
>I guess you are using PAF4 because PAF 3 would have reused the RINs while PAF
>4 gives you a choice not to reuse. There is a way to put people into those
>RINs, but it isn't easy and I'm not sure just how it would work in this case.
> Using the procedure that the RIN of the last record deleted is the first
> RIN
>to be used, add an individual and give it just the first name of the person
>whose RIN that used to be, and then merge the two -- the new record into the
>original RIN. This isn't as straight forward as it was in PAF 2 because you
>don't the see the RIN you are adding until it is added. (It shows as 0 until
>added.) You would have to do all of them before doing the merge because the
>RIN deleted during the merge would be the next one to be used.
> I usually come up with the hardest possible way to solve a problem. You
>will probably be better off to just map the new RINs to the old, and forget
>replacing them.
>Mary Lou
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:50:52 +0000
>From: "Alice Harris" <akh@molalla.net>
>Subject: Re: [PAF] dumb move
>
>Cheryl,
>
>The older Paf versions put new people in the most recently deleted Rins.
>I think it was Paf 3 ( maybe 2.31) that allowed you to choose if you
>wanted to use those deleted Rins when you imported.
>
>The last Rin deleted was the first Rin to be used when adding new
>people. So if you since you don't know the order they came out for
>sure. You'd probably have to use the "Let me choose which records"
>selection when you imported and unless you are smater than I am, you'd
>probably have to do it 74 times to put each person when you wanted them.
>But it is a possiblity.
>
>Good Luck,
>Alice Harris
>
> > I found a major mistake in a line, so I created a GED of 74 people (RINs
> > 20081 thru 20154), then did a block-del on those folks. Edited the GED,
> > and pulled them back in.
> >
> > I innocently *assumed* that it would put these 74 people into those same
> > RINs.
> >
> > So, now I've got 74 empty records.
> >
> > I know I can GED everyone out and back into an empty database. However,
> > I've still got reports coming in that USE the RINs and taking everyone
> > out and back will muck that up nicely. Is there another way to get rid
> > of the blanks?
> >
> > Gad, won't we all be GLAD when I finally send this blasted thing to the
> > printer?! (g)
> >
> > Cheryl
> >
> >
> >
> ============================================================================
> > For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> > ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> >
> ============================================================================
> >
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 21:13:32 -0700
>From: "Jim Almquist" <jim-almquist@email.msn.com>
>Subject: Re: [PAF] dumb move
>
>I *really* hate to mention this - BUT, how about using a Back-Up copy to
>restore
>as things were before the "dumb move"?
>I'm afraid I know the answer, but thought I'd just mention it ;-)
>Jim
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: Alice Harris <akh@molalla.net>
>To: paf@innernet.org <paf@innernet.org>
>Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 8:57 PM
>Subject: Re: [PAF] dumb move
>
>
>Cheryl,
>
>The older Paf versions put new people in the most recently deleted Rins.
>I think it was Paf 3 ( maybe 2.31) that allowed you to choose if you
>wanted to use those deleted Rins when you imported.
>
>The last Rin deleted was the first Rin to be used when adding new
>people. So if you since you don't know the order they came out for
>sure. You'd probably have to use the "Let me choose which records"
>selection when you imported and unless you are smater than I am, you'd
>probably have to do it 74 times to put each person when you wanted them.
>But it is a possiblity.
>
>Good Luck,
>Alice Harris
>
> > I found a major mistake in a line, so I created a GED of 74 people (RINs
> > 20081 thru 20154), then did a block-del on those folks. Edited the GED,
> > and pulled them back in.
> >
> > I innocently *assumed* that it would put these 74 people into those same
> > RINs.
> >
> > So, now I've got 74 empty records.
> >
> > I know I can GED everyone out and back into an empty database. However,
> > I've still got reports coming in that USE the RINs and taking everyone
> > out and back will muck that up nicely. Is there another way to get rid
> > of the blanks?
> >
> > Gad, won't we all be GLAD when I finally send this blasted thing to the
> > printer?! (g)
> >
> > Cheryl
> >
> >
> >
> ============================================================================
> > For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> > ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> >
> ============================================================================
> >
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>
>
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1972 10:29:33 -0500 (EST)
>From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
>Subject: Re: [PAF] dumb move
>
>Yeah, you SHOULD hate to mention it. (g) And finally, Mary Lou gave me a
>hint that pointed me in a profitable direction: I restored from BU,
>doctored the GED to leave in only enough to ID each person AND the fix,
>imported 'em then did match/merge. I've still got 74 empty used records,
>but now they're at the end and my RINs still match the copy-editors' copy.
>
>Thanks everyone!
>
>Cheryl
>
>On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Jim Almquist wrote:
>
> > I *really* hate to mention this - BUT, how about using a Back-Up copy
> to restore
> > as things were before the "dumb move"?
> > I'm afraid I know the answer, but thought I'd just mention it ;-)
> > Jim
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alice Harris <akh@molalla.net>
> > To: paf@innernet.org <paf@innernet.org>
> > Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 8:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PAF] dumb move
> >
> >
> > Cheryl,
> >
> > The older Paf versions put new people in the most recently deleted Rins.
> > I think it was Paf 3 ( maybe 2.31) that allowed you to choose if you
> > wanted to use those deleted Rins when you imported.
> >
> > The last Rin deleted was the first Rin to be used when adding new
> > people. So if you since you don't know the order they came out for
> > sure. You'd probably have to use the "Let me choose which records"
> > selection when you imported and unless you are smater than I am, you'd
> > probably have to do it 74 times to put each person when you wanted them.
> > But it is a possiblity.
> >
> > Good Luck,
> > Alice Harris
> >
> > > I found a major mistake in a line, so I created a GED of 74 people (RINs
> > > 20081 thru 20154), then did a block-del on those folks. Edited the GED,
> > > and pulled them back in.
> > >
> > > I innocently *assumed* that it would put these 74 people into those same
> > > RINs.
> > >
> > > So, now I've got 74 empty records.
> > >
> > > I know I can GED everyone out and back into an empty database. However,
> > > I've still got reports coming in that USE the RINs and taking everyone
> > > out and back will muck that up nicely. Is there another way to get rid
> > > of the blanks?
> > >
> > > Gad, won't we all be GLAD when I finally send this blasted thing to the
> > > printer?! (g)
> > >
> > > Cheryl
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ============================================================================
> > > For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> > > ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> > >
> ============================================================================
> > >
> >
> ============================================================================
> > For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> > ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> >
> ============================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ============================================================================
> > For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
> > ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
> >
> ============================================================================
> >
>
>
>
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:06:24 +0000
>From: "Alice Harris" <akh@molalla.net>
>Subject: [PAF] File check in Paf 4.0
>
>I remember reading that there was a problem with the file check program
>in 4.0 when it first came out. Does anyone know if it was ever fixed?
>
>I ran a check last night and it showed that I had 9 errors when it was
>"checking Other names" It gave me messages such as
>"Name 2347122 greater pointer (2348247) is not greater" Which I can't
>begin to understand. It suggested that I restore the file with a clean
>back up (guess I should ck more often because I don't know when this
>occurred). It also says PAF could try to fix some problems but a loss of
>data is possible. Real encouraging, right?
>
>Anyway, I decided to run a check using 3.01M this AM and it says the
>records are OK.
>
>Does Paf 4.0 check for things Paf 3 doesn't or is there still a problem
>with 4.0? And if it is accurate does anyone know how to find a
>name/number list so I can tell who the problems are with?
>
>Thanks, Alice Harris
>============================================================================
>For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
>ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
>============================================================================
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of paf-digest V2000 #11
>***************************
>
>To unsubscribe to PAF-Digest, send the following command to
>majordomo@innernet.org:
>unsubscribe paf-digest
>
>At this point there is no direct method to receive back issues other than
>to email ed.rogers@innernet.org. Happy PAF'ing!
John L. Inman
HC 30 Box 313
Havre, MT 59501-9716
406-395-4427 Home
406-395-4877 Home FAX
406-265-4375 Office
406-265-5698 Office FAX
406-949-2432 Cellular
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 16:35:09 -0600
From: "Fredrich J. Cruse" <fcruse@nemonet.com>
Subject: Re: [PAF] dumb move
It didn't work to tell it "reuse numbers?" I'm still happy with my 2.31,
so what do I know.
Fredrich J. Cruse
fcruse@nemonet.com
"A person never stands taller than when they stoop to help a child."
> I found a major mistake in a line, so I created a GED of 74 people (RINs
> 20081 thru 20154), then did a block-del on those folks. Edited the GED,
> and pulled them back in.
>
> I innocently *assumed* that it would put these 74 people into those same
> RINs.
>
> So, now I've got 74 empty records.
>
> I know I can GED everyone out and back into an empty database. However,
> I've still got reports coming in that USE the RINs and taking everyone
> out and back will muck that up nicely. Is there another way to get rid
> of the blanks?
>
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:37:19 -0600
From: "Leonard J. McCown" <mccown@gte.net>
Subject: [PAF] Female lines
Yea Joan,
Thank you for your opinion. I too feel it odd that some genealogy books do not
include the female lines as if they were not part of the family! Thanks. Leonard.
- --
Leonard J. McCown -- Irving, Texas -- mccown@gte.net
Researching McCown, Beasley & Skates -- http://home1.gte.net/mccown/
People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to
their ancestors. -- Edmund Burke, 1790
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:34:42 -0700
From: "Steven Cannon" <CannonSM@ldschurch.org>
Subject: Re: [PAF] File check in Paf 4.0
PAF 4 checks more things than PAF 3. Make sure you are using PAF 4.0.4 and then run check/repair to fix these problems.
>>> "Alice Harris" <akh@molalla.net> 02/13 3:06 AM >>>
I remember reading that there was a problem with the file check program
in 4.0 when it first came out. Does anyone know if it was ever fixed?
I ran a check last night and it showed that I had 9 errors when it was
"checking Other names" It gave me messages such as
"Name 2347122 greater pointer (2348247) is not greater" Which I can't
begin to understand. It suggested that I restore the file with a clean
back up (guess I should ck more often because I don't know when this
occurred). It also says PAF could try to fix some problems but a loss of
data is possible. Real encouraging, right?
Anyway, I decided to run a check using 3.01M this AM and it says the
records are OK.
Does Paf 4.0 check for things Paf 3 doesn't or is there still a problem
with 4.0? And if it is accurate does anyone know how to find a
name/number list so I can tell who the problems are with?
Thanks, Alice Harris
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1972 15:38:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheryl Singhal <csinghal@CapAccess.org>
Subject: [PAF] The line between paranoia and privacy
Good grief, here she is AGAIN.
I received some information for the massive family database, with the
request that it be suppressed from print because the individuals were
still living and there too many for the sbumitter to try to contact 'em all.
OK, I was still trying to figure out how to keep track of these folks
without putting them where they belong, when I noticed that several of
them were already in the database. They got in there because they had
been printed in the 1987 edition. I have NO way of knowing who sent them
in in 1987 and the man most likely to know is dead (which is why he's not
doing the 2000 edition -g-).
It doesn't make *sense* to delete material already in print, but then
again, I did say I would honor the request.
I have already alerted the submitter that I was finding some of the
unusual names in the data, but when I told her that, I had no idea how
extensive the overlap was. Now I do. :(
Somebody reassure me that I'm not forswearing myself by leaving this
stuff in.
Cheryl
============================================================================
For assistance and help for the PAF Mailing List please contact
ed.rogers@innernet.org or http://www.innernet.org/paf/
============================================================================
------------------------------
End of paf-digest V2000 #12
***************************
To unsubscribe to PAF-Digest, send the following command to
majordomo@innernet.org:
unsubscribe paf-digest
At this point there is no direct method to receive back issues other than
to email ed.rogers@innernet.org. Happy PAF'ing!