JIm, Sure... I do it all the time, but I was not talking about marriage status.
I was talking about the checkbox "This person was never married and has no children" which is the subject of this thread. I know that a user can decide that the word "married" in that checkbox can mean whatever they want it to mean, but I hallucinate that most users assume it means just what it says "married" - formal ceremony with "binding" contract assumption. But, with the checkbox being a combination of two attributes and no way to identify what means married, the use of the checkbox will be, in my opinion, inconsistent or ambiguous between various users. john. At 02:39 PM 4/7/2015, Jim Terry/Support wrote: >John, > >Legacy users are free to create whatever Marriage Status they want and >create whatever wording options they want to handle the majority of the >most bizarre, unlikely relationships or non-relationships they can think >about. > >Jim >Legacy Technical Support > > >-------- Original Message -------- > > From: "John Lisle" <leg...@johnlisle.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:30 AM > > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > > > Jim, > > > > I agree but... > > > > I think that this most people think of this attribute of "Never > > Married" as being no formal marriage event, not no relationships. > > > > Further, even were it to mean No Relationships, unless we have > > perfect knowledge of the person's life, we would have to say "No > > KNOWN Relationships" and, of course, that attribute could also mean > > no known marriages. > > > > More fuel to why those attributes need to be split. (I still think > > those attributes need to be combines with Child Status items as > > described earlier.) > > > > If a man was a sperm donor, he likely has children although he may > > not know who they are. And, unless one of those children later > > determines his/her biological paternity, that passing on of genes > > will never be known. > > > > Of course, there is the other case of surrogate motherhood. It can > > either be based on placing fertilized egg in surrogate or it could be > > that surrogate mother provides the egg. > > > > Did you know that 3 of Mitt Romney's son Tagg's children were from a > > surrogate mother? > > > > Modern science and 21st century laws are making relationships much > > more complex... :-) > > > > john. > > > > At 11:10 AM 4/7/2015, Jim Terry/Support wrote: > > >In a case of in vitro fertilization there is a father and he is Unknown. >We > > >haven't started cloning people yet, so for now there is still a >biological > > >father and biological mother. > > > > > >Jim > > >Legacy Technical Support > > > > > > > > >-------- Original Message -------- > > > > From: "MikeFry" <emjay...@gmail.com> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:50 AM > > > > To: legacyusergroup@LegacyUsers.com > > > > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Any Way to Mark a PERSON as Never Married? > > > > > > > > On 2015/04/07 00:19 AM, Kelly Booth wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have a in vitro fertilization in my tree - she never married but >I > > >can't check > > > > > that box because it includes "no children" and that is not the >case. > > > > > > > > That's still a "relationship". Even if the father is unknown, as is > > >likely in > > > > that case. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > Mike Fry (Jhb) > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://support.legacyfamilytree.com Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
