TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-09 > 0999409611


From: Bob Velke <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Step children
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 01:49:06 -0400
References: <MPBBIHKABPIFJBGOECLHCEPNDEAA.guitarman@surfbest.net><4.2.0.58.20010901174915.0487be90@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><4.2.0.58.20010901202608.0487ad60@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><4.2.0.58.20010901231612.0238b930@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com>
In-Reply-To: <3B91ACB9.E48B70F3@infoave.net>


Richard said:

> > >When I select a man as the primary father it is because I want him to
> > >appear at the bottom of the Person View with the primary mother. If
> by doing so I
> > >will have step children appearing in charts and reports as
> > >biological children, I consider that a flaw.
>
><snip>
>
>Maybe it is because we are all too dumb to use
>the program as designed but I prefer to consider it a TMG flaw.

Neither you nor Dennis is too dumb to use it as designed, Richard, and it
isn't fair to suggest that I'm saying so. Even if you didn't know as a new
user, we've had this conversation before and you know how the primary
designation on parents is designed to be used. I appreciate when users try
to help by giving each other advice, even if it turns out later that they
were wrong. But you _choose_ to use the feature in a way for which it
wasn't designed (even knowing the effect it has) and then you advise others
to do the same while blaming the effect on a flaw in the program.

You want to make this into a conversation about whether or not the program
should or could be harder to make mistakes. My point is that, to what ever
extent you believe that to be a problem, you only compound it by advising
people to use the program contrary to its design.

I prefer not to speculate about what Dennis might know. I simply gave him
the answer. But what he does or doesn't know is immaterial insofar as
whether or not your advice to him or your characterization of my position
were appropriate.

-Bob

This thread: