TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2000-09 > 0968281535

From: "fran jacobowitz" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Point of Reference
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 19:05:35 -0400
References: <> <> <>

Some of us who have never used any program but TMG really enjoyed the
exchanges about source and repository. I certainly did. For me, I learned
things about the program, about improving my own genealogical skills, and
about record keeping.

Yes, it would be nice if UFT'ers put it in the subject line so it's easy to
delete -- but even if they don't -- keep those cards and letters coming.
You never know where the answer to a question that's been in your mind might
come from. And, there are plenty of questions about TMG from TMG only users
that I delete because I'm just not interested.

This is an open forum for the exchange of ideas about how to use a
particular software program. Sometimes we have other enlightening
discussions (like the very long thread about typefaces -- or marriage -- or
others) that don't really have to do with TMG -- but they are a part of the
topic of genealogy, and interesting enough so that some people respond.

If you don't want to read it, just delete. Oh, it takes five more minutes,
but that's the price of the open exchange of ideas.
----- Original Message -----
From: "frosty" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: [TMG] Point of Reference

> My two cents. I agree with Don and Mary Lou. I have used TMG for a
couple of
> years, having imported my data from FO with no problems. I came on the
list to
> learn more about TMG but, what do I find, all the UFT refugees who seem
to be
> asking the same questions over and over, who don't seem to know the
> between source and repository. But, I have been busy . . . deleting and
> deleting. Hopefully one of these days the "refugees" will think through
> problems more thoroughly before coming on the list, or will first go to
> archives for answers.
> I'd like to hear more about TMG, not UFT.
> June Buller
> Mary Lou Bailey wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2. For UFT conversion related questions, prefix the subject with
> >
> > I agree with Don that it would be helpful to prefix UFT questions with
> > appropriate prefix. I returned from a 2 1/2 day Labor Day camping trip
> > had 261 messages on TMG, the vast majority of which dealt solely with
> > There have been times on this list when we've gone through the
> > of establishing "other TMG lists" for special interests, but they never
> > survived long, and basically, we're all in this program together now.
> > started with Roots 3 and Roots 4, I have some understanding of the
> > predecessors to UFT, but I bailed out long ago and laboriously
> > pre-Genbridge from R4 to TMG. Therefore, having nothing to contribute to
> > UFT import questions, it would be helpful to separate those questions,
> > problems, and comments from questions about TMG itself.
> >
> > > Am also thinking that some of the "extensions" made to accommodate the
> > > UFT system I don't really want to do; don't ask me to qualify this, it
> > > just a feeling I have. But given enough time to let these contrived
> > > coding convention become normal (covered by enough posts for a long
> > > enough time) they just may become the vogue to do as new user have
> > > very little else. This bothers me greatly. I don't know if I should
> > > concerned here or not.
> > >
> >
> > Also agree with Don's philosophic concerns and feelings here. Some of
the UFT
> > folks call themselves "UFT refugees", but I've begun to feel like a "TMG
> > refugee", grappling with features from another program that I chose to
> > behind when I switched to TMG. Although I think there are some instances
> > which things like the roles may enhance TMG, I'm moving with caution on
> > adapting changes into my dataset under an "If it ain't broke, don't fix
> > and keep it simple philosophy. Many of the "extensions" or
> > have been made, in my opinion, to accomodate our new group of users, and
> > it possible for them to import their datasets. I'm not sure yet if they
> > significantly to an established TMG dataset.
> > I would be interested in whether and how other long time TMG users are
> > the new additions.
> > Mary Lou Bailey

This thread: