APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2008-02 > 1203536511
Subject: Re: [APG] Re; FTM and natural
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:41:51 -0600
> And some once said the same thing about typewriters ... and probably
> papyrus for that matter.
I can assure you, Bob, I never wrote on papyrus; and I haven't used a
typewriter since 1980, when I bought the first of 27 computers I've owned
since then. But every task has its own tools for its own needs:).
> It seems that you've shifted your argument (from the days of my $10k
> challenge) from supposed impossibilities in the output to a personal
> discomfort with the process.
Nope. I haven't shifted at all. And I'm still waiting for *you* to produce a
genealogical compilation to support your position <g>.
> On the former, however, I will merely offer immediately following my
> signature an eloquent piece of prose which was entered in TMG, output
> to a word processor, and then cut/pasted into this email. I believe
> that it is fair use in this context and I'm certain that you will
> tell us if even a comma is out of place.
Umh, the "eloquent piece of prose ... *entered* in TMG, output to a word
processor, and then cut/pasted into this email" got lost somewhere in the
(The following also addresses Terry R.'s thoughts....)
No one argues that we cannot write/enter/insert an "eloquent" passage in
software. Most software has capability for entering free-form discussions
where we can say anything we please. It's the integration of all those
individual passages and sentences into a cohesive, analytical, well
organized, and properly-written whole that is the challenge.
Saying that we can import our database narrative into a word processor and
edit it is no solution, because the genie won't then go back into the
bottle. The only way to transfer the editing back into the database is to go
back and ferret out all the individual sentences and passages to revise each
of them, then add in all the changes and all the new bridges between
thoughts that we did in the word processor--an extremely time consuming
process if we did a decent job of editing. Even then, we're at a loss to
make the software properly organize events into *concepts* rather than a
chronological recital of the events. And every time we need a new printout
after add new material to the database, we have to go through all this all
I really do use gen software, Bob. I'm just not publicly announcing whose
program I use. I have, in fact, used all the major ones--and used them for
this task--and I've yet to find one whose programmers have solved the
problem. But I'm optimistic. We have some smart programmers in our midst.
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
APG Member, Tennessee
|Re: [APG] Re; FTM and natural by <>|