TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-09 > 0999387781


From: Richard Brogger <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Step children
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 18:43:01 -0500
References: <MPBBIHKABPIFJBGOECLHCEPNDEAA.guitarman@surfbest.net><4.2.0.58.20010901174915.0487be90@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com>


Bob Velke wrote:
>
> Richard said:
>
> >My opinion is that you should be able, at your option, to include
> >step, adopted, foster and other non-biological relationships and
> >have them clearly marked as what they are.
>
> You can, as I have responded to Dennis.
>
> >Bob insists that any report or chart that contains non-biological
> >relationships not look like any existing genealogy report or chart.
>
> You've misrepresented my position. If I insist anything, it is that if the
> user records a person as a non-primary parent, then TMG will not produce a
> report which reflects (by the nature of the report) that the relationship
> is a biological one. That's what some people wanted to do in the
> discussion to which you are referring (i.e., to have one primary father and
> one non-primary father and then have a report option that will cause TMG to
> use the non-primary one for reports without any further action on the part
> of the user.)
>
> That's not Dennis' situation. He has recorded Doug as the primary father
> of the children. Doing so communicates to TMG that you want to use him as
> "the" father for the sake of relationship calculations (e.g., calculating
> "descendants"), despite the fact that you have recorded for your own
> records that he is really the stepfather, adoptive father, etc. If that's
> not the behavior that you want, then you shouldn't link the father as primary.
>
> >Since your report looks like any other Descendants Journal Narrative and
> >contains
> >non-biological relationships there is, IMO, a major flaw in TMG.
>
> Well, then, the flaw is allowing the user to have enough control to do as
> he likes.
>
> -Bob

Hi Bob,

I don't think the flaw is allowing the user to have enough control.
The flaw is that it is too easy to put the right tag on a
relationship and have it treated as a biological relationship when
it is not biological. Primary or not, a stepfather is not an
ancestor. If someone wants to pretend otherwise, make them work to
do it. Let people, like Dennis, take the easy path and still get it
recorded correctly. I still believe that non biological
relationships belong in a group separate from biological
relationships.

It is easy to get the idea that primary is the father who is filling
the role of father. IMO, Dennis' Descendants Journal Narrative
should not have printed without warning him that it would include
other relationships and would not be labeled as a Descendant
report. It may be my opinion only but a spouse of a descendant is
not a descendant. He or she may be a descendant outside of marriage
but not through marriage. Yet I think that the spouse should be
included. I am sure that most people seeing a spouse in a
Descendants Journal Narrative do not assume they are biological
descendants so they do not need labels. If the non biological
spouse has children, they may be listed but only with proper
labels. Those labels should not be something Dennis has to add.
Only if Dennis does not want them should he have to take some
action.

Dennis took the obvious path and had non biological relationships
printed without any hint that they were not biological. Call it
what you will but to me that is a major flaw in TMG and I hope it
will not exist in TMG5. I hope TMG5 will still allow the user to
have enough control to get the report without labels like the one
that Dennis got but the user would have to work to get it, not take
the obvious path.

Richard Brogger

This thread: