TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-08 > 1155258871


From: "Excalibur131" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Question
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:14:31 -0400
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060810150706.025047e8@online.no> <200681093913.056679@Terry3> <7.0.1.0.2.20060810154523.03532640@online.no> <44DB5410.90001@verizon.net> <009e01c6bc9f$461a52b0$8ff6b146@TOM> <44DB9AED.7010600@verizon.net>


Sorry again bob, I can make up all the roles I want and have or not have a
person attached to them. As for a person being in my data, I thought that
was what genealogy was all about.

Maybe the best way to look at it is that a role or witness is not a person,
but a definition for a person IF it is used. Even a Principal is a role -- a
main role -- but a role none-the-less. A person added to your data has to be
added as "something," but that something does not have to include being in a
role (other than Principal) or as a witness.

So again, I don't see that using roles requires anyone to add any
unnecessary people.

Tom
Royalty to Rogues
http://www.l-dunaway.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob gillis" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TMG] Question


> Whether you use roles or witnesses, the person has to be in your data.
>
> bob gillis
>
> Excalibur131 wrote:
>> Sorry bob, I don't see that using roles requires anyone to add any
>> unnecessary people. Can you explain your statement?
>> Tom
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob gillis"
>> <>
>> To: <>
>> Using roles requires that you add lots of unrelated and IMO unnecessary
>> people that just clutter up your data.
>> bob gillis



This thread: