TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012909525


From: Bob Velke <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 06:45:41 -0500
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020204225939.056140d0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020204210622.00a0f330@pop.sprynet.com><021401c1ad6d$012dbde0$895132d2@good><3C5C47B0.1830.B27A9C@localhost><5.1.0.14.2.20020202071024.0d30fdb0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202022259.00a0d590@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202205107.00a10900@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020203104056.00a3fec0@pop.sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020205035511.00a03510@pop.sprynet.com>


Darrell said:

>I am honestly sorry that you think I have misrepresented your position.
>
>You said on February 1, found in the TMG-L archives at:

Yes, I did. I also said that narratives about witnesses in a NOTE (which I
don't consider "witness data" but you do) can be exported. So you aren't
justified in suggesting that witness data could go into a NOTE and then say
"However, Bob V. has made it clear that TMG witness data will not be
exported via GEDCOM." That's exactly opposite of what I said. The
disagreement is about who should put it in the NOTE, not whether or not it
will export from there.

Enough already. Please stick to asserting your own position and not mine
so that I don't have to keep coming back into this thread to repeat
myself. Is that too much to ask?

-Bob

This thread: