Terry Reigel

What were you doing when it happened? If you try it again, do you still get it? Without knowing what you were doing there's not much we can suggest.

The List of Events report will do it, with a filter like: Principal 1 ... Sentence (Local) Is Not Empty AND Principal 2 ... Sentence (Local) Is Not Empty END But that will not distinguish which Role is in use. But why would you want to? Nothing has changed in them until (unless) you now change the local sentence. In other words, while they now have separate local sentences, they are both the same. You don't need to pay any attention to this new feature until you 1) create a new tag, or edit an existing one, and 2) edit a local sentence for the role of "Principal" in a tag with two persons entered as Principal. It's already happened for existing tags. I'd think Bob was talking about a feature that would apply to new tags, and/or perhaps tags you might edit in the future.

I don't commonly use the citation memo, but in brief tests, I find that F3 brings up the most recently used memo. Could you offer more detail about what you are doing and how it goes wrong?

Pierce, I think that the "Primary only" method of controlling which tags are printed is just too rudimentary to be useful. It requires the use of silly work-arounds like you describe. When it comes to most reports (excepting charts, which have limited space) there is a much better method. Set the report definition to "All Events" then control what gets printed by the use of the "Selected tag types" control. Using this method requires some discipline in entering the tag information, but so does the primary method. The key is to establish different tag types for events you don't what to print, and for events you might sometimes not want to print. Then you select or not those tag types to include or exclude them. Details are described in my web article on Primary Tags and Printing, and pp 118-120 of GTMOOTMG.

Kenny -- If you posted this to the Support Forum rather than in the Cruise forum you would be more likely to get a helpful response - I just happened to see it here. > The error message you are getting is usually Word's rather strange way of saying the file has too many endnotes. I'd assume that you have created a Journal with lots of generations and lots of source notes, right? If so, possible solutions are: 1. Use fewer generations. 2. Try the "combined" feature on the source notes, so that all cites for each tag are combined into only one note. 3. Use "unique" endnotes, so each note appears only once - these notes are not in Word's endnote format, so Word sees them as plain text. 4. Some users have reported better results in this case if they specify an older Word format in the "File Type" drop-down. 5. You might experiment with the Master Document feature on the Publication Tools tab of options and see if that allows you to open the file.

In addition to the two articles that Jim recommeded, I'd suggest looking at the linked article on Copying People - since you only want some of the people copied, you may find that rather than merging the entire Data Sets, it would work better for you to copy specific people from the imported data set to your working one.

They are called "Item tips" - you turn them on and off with the right-click menu. Right-click in the tag box and choose "Show item tips in the Person view." Preferences are backed up when you choose a Backup configuration that includes "customizations." The specific customizations to be backed up are selected at Step 3 of the backup wizard.

You're welcome, Neil. Terry

The Journal reports offer "Spouse Events" as an option, which will include all the events for the spouses. Beyond that there is no easy way. There are no options to do it automatically. You could do it manually in a couple of ways, but they are a lot of work, and don't not necessarily provide just what you want: 1. You could enter the focus person as a Witness in the spouse's birth tag, which would allow you to create a statement about the birth of the spouse in the focus person's narrative. But it would be sorted at the date of the spouse's birth, probably not where you want it. 2. You could manually add the spouse's birth dates to the memo of the marriage tag, and modify the sentences of that tag to add it to the output. This would produce better output, but would require adding the dates manually to each marriage tag.

First, before any sort of major surgury on your data, make a backup. Then: 1. Restore the laptop project to the PC. 2. Merge the two projects, choosing A & B so that the laptop project is "unchanged." This puts the data sets from both projects in your PC project, but the data sets remain separate. 3. Collect all the extra people from your laptop data set in a Focus Group, or select them in the Project Explorer. Then use Copy Person(s) on the Add menu to copy them from the laptop data set to the PC data set. 4. After you have verified you have everyone, delete (in Data Set Manager) the laptop data set from the project on the PC. For more details, read the articles on Projects and Datasets, Merging Projects & Data Sets, and Copying People on my website - link below.

Yes. I do some of both, depending on the nature of the issue. Minor issues, especially when I think one source is probably just wrong, I usually document in the CD for the citation of that source. If it's a bit more complex, I note in each citation what that source says, then cite a special "conclusions" source in which I write up the whole thing in the CD. Note that these methods put the issues in the footnotes, which is where I think they generally belong. But if it's really important, I put the discussion in the memo of a tag. I have a custom "Research Notes" tag for documenting and discussing significant conflicts in sources, especially conflicts in parent/child links. All this is discussed more fully in my article on Conflicting Information on my website.

Sorry - didn't realize why you re-stated it. My answer was something along the lines of it indeed seems to be a bug, and it's been reported. I'd expect it to be fixed in the next release. You're welcome.

I still don't know what caused it, but I'm glad you fixed it.

As Les says, you can download the trial version and unlock it, which is the fastest way, especially if you have a high speed Internet connection. If you install from the CD, you have to update in two steps - first to 5.15 (assuming that's not what's on your CD), then to the current version of TMG 6.

This is a known bug and should be fixed in the next release. You can't check that box with the mouse, as you discovered, but you can with the keyboard. Tabbing to the checkbox (Shift-tab takes you there in one step after you open the screen) and press the spacebar to check the box.

John, I'm a bit surprised at the sudden interest in this issue, since the Report Definition screens have not changed, so far as I know, since the introduction of TMG 6 last December or thereabouts. We are talking about the Report Definition Screen, right? It's the same for all the Narrative reports, and those are taller than the corresponding screen for the box charts and most of the other reports. I think I see the problem - at my preferred size, those screens run around 545 pixels high, which would be pretty tight on an 800 x 600 screen.

I'd guess because you have a Sentence that includes: at age Perhaps if you told us more about the tag that's producing the double phrase, we could be more specific.

Yes, this is known issue - see this topic. Because the primary name is "hard wired" in as the first thing in each narrative report. If the first tag includes the [P] variable as the first term, the duplicate name that would otherwise appear is surpressed. I don't know that I know why it's done that way, but it is.

For two data sets within a single project, probably the easiest way to copy tag types is to create a person, attach a tag of that type, and copy the person to the other data set. Likewise, one can attach a citation using the source type, and do the same. The trouble it takes to do this as one creates new tag and source types is one of the major reasons I don't recommend keeping separate working data sets.

I use the back arrow (not actually - I use the mouse gestures in Opera) to get back to the list of topics. After reading all the topics I care to, I click the orange icon for the folder, which marks the folder and all it's messages as "read." Works well for me.

What happened to the gifs that were at: http://www.whollygenes.com/forums200pf2/st...der_post_icons/ I referenced them in a post (in the TMG Users' Genealogy Web Sites forum, so its supposed to be a "permanent" topic) and they no longer work.

They were linked via the img function to serve as bullet points in my post. I originally uses icon11, which was probably some other icon at the time - don't know why I'd use the smilie with the shades as a bullet. Terry

And especially note the check box for "Is daylight savings time in effect" -- unlike Windows, the forum does not automatically change the time on the appropriate date - you have to turn it on and off as required.

You'd better believe it! My wife sends out meeting notes for a local group to about 100 members who have asked for it. We recently got a warning from our ISP to stop sending SPAM! Turns out one of the members had used her work e-mail address. She left that employer without giving us a new e-mail address, and apparently someone there clicked on the "this is SPAM" button rather than reply to us and ask to be removed. Apparently AOL doesn't read the supposedly offensive message, but simply reports it to the sender's ISP. Our ISP threatened to cut off our e-mail, saying they can't afford be "blacklisted" by AOL, even though they read the message and recognized it had been requested. They advise not allowing anyone with an AOL address to sign up on any mailing list. Is that crazy or what?

So it is. Thanks.