APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2006-12 > 1165850498


From: "Helen S. Ullmann" <>
Subject: [APG] Analyzing evidence
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:21:38 -0500
References: <mailman.2881.1165814948.19072.apg@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2881.1165814948.19072.apg@rootsweb.com>


Much ado. I figured Elizabeth and others would take issue with things I
said. I'm not going to argue about the complexities of Register vs. NGSQ
style in this message. (I think it's been years since NGSQ published a
multi-generation genealogy where a child was carried forward.). That's
not the point. Though if I confused people about certification
requirements, I apologize.

I was trying to simplify the picture. The point was and still is that
word processing is a much more flexible tool than a genealogy database.
Yes, one can generate a word-processing document from a database, but it
takes far more than "tweaking" to polish it. And I have a feeling that
most people don't bother to go to that stage in their work. They just
try to think about problems while looking at the database itself. I find
that extremely difficult.

My point is that discussing an issue by using word-processing is very
helpful, and one can end up with a user-friendly finished product.

And it's important to print it out and read it on paper. Maybe if I'd
done that yesterday I'd have seen some of the typos in my original
message! :)

Helen Ullmann


This thread: