TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-08 > 1123302065


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Statistical Report - Part 2
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:23:59 -0400
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050805195826.043bb9e8@mail.bellsouth.net><!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAaklsBZ+7zhG8IACqAFw2TMKAAAAQAAAARoKCyceChU6BluepVp1IgQEAAAAA@sbcglobal.net>
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAaklsBZ+7zhG8IACqAFw2TMKAAAAQAAAARoKCyceChU6BluepVp1IgQEAAAAA@sbcglobal.net>


Kevin Sholder wrote:
>I know that this probably is not very important, but it does tend to lead to
>false conclusions. And without "removing" that tag my values will never be
>"correct." (Or closer to correct)

Yes, you will get the false conclusions just like you get false conclusions
with the Audit report. The reason is to let you look at the situation and
for _you_ to decide if the situation is correct of not.

This is one of the minor consequences of allowing for non-Primary
Relationship Tags. And as I said, you really don't have to have them if
you use the Adoption and similar Custom Tags. TMG doesn't calculate the
relationships this way, but then again technically there is no _biological_
relationship to calculate -- it is a social relationship albeit using the
same terms. I have a 2nd cousin that I do consider a relative but she is
technically not related in that she was adopted when she was about six
months old. I call her a second cousin as that is what she would be if she
were not adopted.


Lee Hoffman/KY
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)


This thread: