Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [S-R] attention Debbie...

Expand Messages
  • deeellessbee
    Larry, thank you. I am e-mailing you to ask further about the use of FTM for this miscellaneous data. I need a bit more clarification. Thanks! Debbie
    Message 1 of 38 , Jun 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry, thank you. I am e-mailing you to ask further about the use of FTM for this miscellaneous data. I need a bit more clarification.

      Thanks!
      Debbie

      --- In SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com, lkocik@... wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Debbie
      >
      >  A ctually when I jumped into the thread you started that ended up talking about software I had your original post in mind. The thread had already morphed by then.
      >  I was talking about how I use my family tree maker software to store all my misc data.
      >
      >
      >
      >   Like you I had notes and bits of data all over the place, usually on scrap paper, planninig on one day putting it all in some logical order.
      >
      >  
      >
      >  Anywho it became overwhelming and almost impossible to work with.
      >
      >  Since entering all that scattered data into the software in a family tree format, I just enter a name and everything I have on that person pops right up. The way the software is set up it shows how the person fits into my lineage, or if they don't.  I use this as a data base and I can then transfer what I need into my actual family tree.
      >
      >  Larry
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      >
      >
      > From: "deeellessbee" <deeellessbee@...>
      > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 7:50:23 PM
      > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
      >
      > Gee, I got home from work and was all excited to see so many answers to my post!  But then realized you guys had started talking about software, lol!  Oh well.  At least it was an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
      >
      > Thanks!
      > Debbie
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com, lkocik@ wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > I'd like to clarify my post about "family tree maker".
      > >
      > >  The data base concept... I'm sure would work with any other software.
      > >
      > >  Truthfully I'm not too pleased with family tree maker being bought out by Ancestry.com.
      > >
      > >   Ancestry has a very aggressive marketing team and I find it annoying to be pestered continually to buy upgrades or new software.
      > >
      > > larry
      > >
      > >  I also meant to mention that the data base concept works well with entering data from the cluster genealogy approach of researching.
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > >
      > >
      > > From: lkocik@
      > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:07:38 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Julie
      > >
      > >  with family tree maker [and others] you can build multiple trees.
      > >
      > >  I have one I designate as a data base...I enter all people of interest related or not. It's basically a file in tree format instead of having notes all over the place.
      > >  I can pull data from this data base to build or add to my other trees.
      > >
      > >     larry
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > >
      > >
      > > From: "Julie Mark" <jkmark@>
      > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:42:39 AM
      > > Subject: RE: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
      > >
      > > I use Family Tree Maker, have for years.  It’s a good program, but does not allow for unmarried unions that produce children (which I just find interesting).  I just have to put the couple in as if they were married and make a note that they were not.  
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > > Sue â€" I think the reason no one mentioned genealogy in that discussion about spreadsheets/databases is because we are talking about non-confirmed family info.  I don’t put stuff in my Family Tree Maker unless I’m quite certain they are really in my family tree.  So when searching the old country records and trying to piece together who is who, it is useful to keep your notes together in an electronic file so you can easily sort and determine family relationships based on names/ages/godparents etc.
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > > Just my two cents!
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > > Julie
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > > From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of htcstech
      > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 6:53 AM
      > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
      > >
      > >  
      > >
      > >   
      > >
      > > Any recommendations for Genealogy software? Pros and cons? I'm not sure
      > > about using it.
      > >
      > > Peter M.
      > >
      > > On 25 June 2012 23:32, Sue Martin <martin@ <mailto:martin%40skmassociates.net> > wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I'm surprised that no one has mentioned software expressly made for
      > > > genealogy. I use Personal Ancestral File (PAF), which is available at no
      > > > cost from the LDS. It has all sorts of fields that allow you to track
      > > > sources, notes, etc., as well as creating your family tree.
      > > >
      > > > Sue
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > From: "Julie Michutka" <jmm@ <mailto:jmm%40pathbridge.net> >
      > > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:26am
      > > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
      > > >
      > > > Debbie, it's possible that the church has its own copy of the register.
      > > > You could email them, but another option (the one that I choose for my own
      > > > research) is to hire a knowledgeable local researcher. You could request
      > > > that they first contact the parish to see if they do in fact have records
      > > > for the time period you are missing, and if so, have your researcher make
      > > > arrangements to search the records for you (probably would be nice to
      > > > budget a donation to the church as a way of thanking them and keeping them
      > > > amenable to this type of thing).
      > > >
      > > > re: Access vs spreadsheets: While spreadsheets are designed for
      > > > calculations, many genealogists use them for keeping track of info. Access
      > > > has a steeper learning curve; info from a spreadsheet can be imported into
      > > > Access when you are comfortable with that piece of software. Don't overlook
      > > > the option of tables in Word; if you're not familiar with creating tables,
      > > > it's simple enough that you can learn from the help files or from someone
      > > > showing you how to make and work with them. Some people find it easier to
      > > > sort using tables, compared to Excel. One of the things that I like about
      > > > Excel spreadsheets is the workbook arrangement, where I have multiple
      > > > worksheets for one project (search log, lists of associates, timeline for
      > > > the family, correspondence record, and list of documents with notes and a
      > > > citation for each) on one screen and accessible with just the tiniest mouse
      > > > movement and click.
      > > >
      > > > One thing you have not mentioned (perhaps I missed it, or you're doing it
      > > > but not mentioning it) is keeping track of godparents and marriage
      > > > witnesses, as well as house numbers. Also look for your people as
      > > > godparents and witnesses for baptisms and marriages of other families. None
      > > > of those guarantees blood ties, but sometimes you see clear patterns that
      > > > make you go "hmmmm...."
      > > >
      > > > Good luck!
      > > >
      > > > Julie Michutka
      > > > [mailto:jmm%40pathbridge.net] jmm@ <mailto:jmm%40pathbridge.net>
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 6:07 PM, deeellessbee wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > Thank you all for your input!
      > > > >
      > > > > I will check the 1869 census - I'm thinking I had checked it for my
      > > > villages but they were not available. But I should check again. And I MUST
      > > > keep better records of what I've checked already and what I haven't. Scrap
      > > > pieces of paper and old envelopes with scribbling on the backs are just not
      > > > cutting it!
      > > > >
      > > > > In my research, I do make note of the family names when I see them, even
      > > > if I don't recognize the person. In this way, I have a few possible
      > > > connections. However, reading the answers here I'm thinking I should create
      > > > some kind of spreadsheet, or a document of some sort, that will track and
      > > > record these folks (see above note about the scrap paper!). I have found
      > > > though that house numbers seem to jump around from year to year for the
      > > > same family, so I'm not sure how much importance to place on the numbers.
      > > > >
      > > > > In the particular case I mentioned - the lack of a birth certificate for
      > > > my g'g'grandmother - I do have her parents names from her death
      > > > certificate, and I do believe I have found a marriage record for them - I
      > > > found a marriage record for those two names in 1844, which is 18(-/+) years
      > > > before her birth. What I find unusual is that if these are her parents, I
      > > > would think they would have had several kids before her in those 18 years,
      > > > but I have not found any birth (or death) records for chidren of these two
      > > > parents. Perhaps they moved to another village nearby??? I don't know.... I
      > > > have seen marriage records for people with her same last name, who seem to
      > > > be the right age to be siblings, but I have no way of knowing as the
      > > > records don't include parents' names. It's not an uncommon name - Guman -
      > > > and so it's hard to tell who are siblings, or cousins, etc. And I have not
      > > > found a marriage record for my g'g'grandmother (I'm not sure off the top of
      > > > my head, but this might be f
      > > > > rom one of those missing-year gaps also).
      > > > >
      > > > > But additionally, there are other records (marriage, death) which are
      > > > just not available because the years are not available for the time frame I
      > > > need. They don't seem to be available on-line or on film at FHCs. And those
      > > > are the ones I wonder about. Maybe I should contact the administrative
      > > > center in Bratislava as Peter suggested.
      > > > >
      > > > > But, thinking out loud here, there must be a certain point where one
      > > > just can't get back any further, I suppose? I would think once you get into
      > > > the 1700's the records must become very scarce... what, if anything, does
      > > > one do then...?
      > > > >
      > > > > Thank you all for your help!
      > > > > Debbie
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com]
      > > > SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> , htcstech <htcstech@> wrote:
      > > > >>
      > > > >> Excellent post! Cluster genealogy sure has its twists and turns. And you
      > > > >> really can't figure on re-marriage or base things on house numbers as
      > > > in my
      > > > >> instances, I saw two different house numbers 54 and 53 for the same
      > > > family,
      > > > >> eventually realising that they were renting!
      > > > >> I look at it like visual mathematics, plotting births, deaths and
      > > > marriages
      > > > >> - reducing the number of possibles, thinking of things I might have
      > > > missed
      > > > >> etc. Yet every problem is unique.
      > > > >> I'm doing it now, although some people may not think it's cluster
      > > > genealogy
      > > > >> though. I have death records that 'penetrate' calculated birthdates back
      > > > >> through time (no birth records), trying to reconstruct 3 families, all
      > > > with
      > > > >> the same family name. The family starts in 1697 with the birth of 2 boys
      > > > >> and the only records I have are the deaths of random ancestors from 1777
      > > > >> with the barest of information, thanks to the priest and/or church
      > > > rubric.
      > > > >> Working out the birthdates, placing them in generations and villages
      > > > makes
      > > > >> so many assumptions. That's why I ask on this group all these almost
      > > > >> off-topic questions about names and religions, Turkish tax records,
      > > > naming
      > > > >> conventions around 1700 and names of twins and so on.
      > > > >> With local naming conventions, a Martinus (1700) would name one of his
      > > > sons
      > > > >> Martinus (1712) - but that can't be. So there should be a Martinus who
      > > > >> would be able to father the Martinus of 1712. So his father was born
      > > > about
      > > > >> 23 years earlier (average age of marriageable grooms+1) in 1689. You
      > > > can do
      > > > >> this for all of your earliest ancestor(s) and you 'find' another
      > > > >> generation. Just getting more out of the data by inferring.
      > > > >> To go on: I have a record of a Martinus who was an "Eskudt" (Council
      > > > man)
      > > > >> in 1769 - 8 years before church records began.
      > > > >> Was this the Martinus of 1700? or the 1712 one? Would you vote in a 69
      > > > year
      > > > >> old into this position? Or a 57 year old? Eskudts were voted in by the
      > > > >> community, so the Martinus had to be liked and his extended, God fearing
      > > > >> family, respected. How long does a family have to live in a community
      > > > >> before they are trusted with a public position? 3 generations? 2? How
      > > > does
      > > > >> that fit in with the birth data?
      > > > >> To cap this off, I find a particularly attractive Elisabetha Moravko
      > > > who,
      > > > >> born in 1747, was later taken wife by a noble! So, in 1767 when she
      > > > marries
      > > > >> and gets a bit more powerful, asks him for a favour and gets Martinus
      > > > the
      > > > >> job. But which Martinus? Who would you pick?
      > > > >> There are so many nuances, tiny clues and hypotheticals. It's sort of
      > > > fun
      > > > >> though.
      > > > >>
      > > > >> Also I've found Elisabetha and Catharina as the most popular female
      > > > names
      > > > >> between 1700 and 1800 in my neck of the woods.
      > > > >>
      > > > >> Peter M.
      > > > >>
      > > > >> On 24 June 2012 19:15, <david1law@> wrote:
      > > > >>
      > > > >>> **
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> Dear Peter:
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> I definitely agree that with cluster genealogy approach, and it can
      > > > >>> sometimes help solve certain dilemmas and certain "brick walls" that a
      > > > >>> person may
      > > > >>> encounter in their genealogical research. It can be very time
      > > > consuming,
      > > > >>> but in the end, I love the cluster genealogy approach as it gives a far
      > > > >>> greater perspective of the family clan within a village, church parish,
      > > > >>> etc.
      > > > >>> The cluster genealogy is a very exhaustive approach, and I found it
      > > > >>> extremely helpful in my family search, and it gave me a greater
      > > > picture of
      > > > >>> my
      > > > >>> family. Sometimes, we are left with making educated guesses, but when
      > > > that
      > > > >>> is
      > > > >>> the case, I would recommend making specific note of that fact and leave
      > > > >>> the
      > > > >>> conclusion tentative instead of drawing an absolute conclusion. The
      > > > reason
      > > > >>> why I say this is because the reason why started to use the cluster
      > > > >>> genealogical approach in the first place was because of distant cousin
      > > > of
      > > > >>> mine
      > > > >>> did genealogical research and made an educated guess as to the
      > > > identity of
      > > > >>> our great, great grandparents, and I later discovered through
      > > > additional
      > > > >>> research that my distant cousin's educated guess was plainly wrong, and
      > > > >>> the
      > > > >>> cluster genealogy research further confirmed the identity of my actual
      > > > >>> great,
      > > > >>> great grandparents.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> I would be careful with any groupings. I definitely understand about
      > > > >>> trying to group people within a family clan together, and I have done
      > > > it
      > > > >>> myself. In one family clan in a parish, I did group the various family
      > > > >>> members
      > > > >>> according to village and house number. While I do keep my raw data for
      > > > my
      > > > >>> cluster genealogy arranged according to year, and it may often hint at
      > > > >>> possible relationships and family connections, grouping according to
      > > > age
      > > > >>> or
      > > > >>> presumptive generation may be problematic. The reason why I say this is
      > > > >>> several
      > > > >>> fold. First and foremost, sometimes even if people live in the exact
      > > > same
      > > > >>> house, the relationship between the people may not be what one first
      > > > >>> thinks. I'll give one great example. When I was researching my paternal
      > > > >>> grandmother's side of my family, my great grandfather JAN HRONEC
      > > > (married
      > > > >>> to
      > > > >>> MARIA HARENCAR) lived in the same home as his grandfather, also named
      > > > JAN
      > > > >>> HRONEC (married to CATHERINA KREDATUS) in what is now STARY SMOKOVEC.
      > > > At
      > > > >>> first,
      > > > >>> I thought that the elder JAN HRONEC was his father, as both even shared
      > > > >>> the
      > > > >>> same profession -- a forester. But when I did further research --
      > > > >>> tracking down the godparents who were from another village in the SPIS
      > > > >>> region, I
      > > > >>> discovered the records to my HRONEC and HARENCAR ancestors and learned
      > > > >>> that
      > > > >>> the younger JAN HRONEC was the son of another JAN HRONEC (married to
      > > > ANNA
      > > > >>> HARBALY/HORBALY) in the village of DOMANOVCE and their marriage was
      > > > >>> witnessed a MICHAEL KREDATUS. The evidence all added up. I learned in
      > > > the
      > > > >>> process
      > > > >>> to follow every little detail because the details are clues, and to be
      > > > >>> careful about assumptions, because sometimes the assumptions may be
      > > > wrong.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> Second, with regard to grouping my presumptive generation, I would
      > > > also be
      > > > >>> very careful because a generation within a family may be greater than
      > > > we
      > > > >>> realize. In one instance, one of my great, great grandfathers had 17
      > > > >>> children between two wives. His first wife (my great, great mother)
      > > > died
      > > > >>> when
      > > > >>> she was 38 and he remarried. And a number of children died at an early
      > > > >>> age.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> In researching, I would definitely add a word of caution for all
      > > > >>> researchers. Follow the actual evidence of what you find, and be very
      > > > >>> careful about
      > > > >>> making presumptions, educated guesses, etc., and pay attention to the
      > > > >>> details -- the house numbers, the names and village of origin of the
      > > > >>> godparents
      > > > >>> or the witnesses to a marriage, etc. Sometimes, in the end, after a
      > > > very
      > > > >>> exhaustive cluster genealogical research and no more written records to
      > > > >>> research, we are still left with questions and some mysteries. In one
      > > > >>> case,
      > > > >>> another researcher and I realized that we are distant cousins, as our
      > > > >>> ancestors lived in the exact same house, but because the written
      > > > records
      > > > >>> still
      > > > >>> left some questions, we were not able to identify the precise
      > > > relationship
      > > > >>> (though we both realize that it is within one or two generations).
      > > > Perhaps
      > > > >>> some further research may help, but for now I've learned to be content
      > > > >>> with
      > > > >>> some of the mysteries in genealogical research.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> Best regards,
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> David
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> In a message dated 6/24/2012 12:39:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      > > > >>> htcstech@ writes:
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> You do have a problem and you may have to resort to bridging the gap
      > > > in a
      > > > >>> creative way.
      > > > >>> If your family name is unique in the town/village, you can continue on
      > > > >>> backwards, creating charts from those. The gap you have is 6 years and
      > > > you
      > > > >>> may be able to make an educated guess of who the likely GP is for her.
      > > > >>> She could have had later siblings, sisters and brothers from the same
      > > > >>> parents. That means that you can make an educated guess of who the
      > > > brothers
      > > > >>> and sisters are by grouping them as a 'generation' - all those males
      > > > who
      > > > >>> marry between the ages of 22-25 and females that marry around 18-20
      > > > would
      > > > >>> be in that generation. Looking back on their marriage records will
      > > > give you
      > > > >>> their parents who *might* be your GGG mother's parents. So
      > > > 1863+18=1881 -
      > > > >>> start looking at marriages from there and note the male and female
      > > > family
      > > > >>> line of their parents.
      > > > >>> Now if a set of parents had 4 surviving children (confirmed from
      > > > baptism or
      > > > >>> death records) till marriage, and you found all of them, then those
      > > > parents
      > > > >>> are not your GGG mother's. In this way you can find likely suspects.
      > > > You do
      > > > >>> not know how many siblings she (the mother) had within that gap.
      > > > Taking 10
      > > > >>> months between births, a mother can have 6-7 children within 6 years
      > > > not
      > > > >>> accounting for twins. If you find a pile of marriages around 1880
      > > > onwards
      > > > >>> with with no birth records like your GGGmother's then you have found
      > > > her
      > > > >>> parents if they are listed as the parents of the groom/bride in these
      > > > >>> marriages. Conversely, you count back 20-25 years from 1860 and start
      > > > >>> looking at likely fathers from birth records. If a male was born
      > > > between
      > > > >>> 1835-1845, then he could be her father. Trace his marriage and
      > > > children who
      > > > >>> would be of similar age to your GGGMother.
      > > > >>> It's not impossible to do, but a lot more work than finding the actual
      > > > >>> record.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> Other than that, I would find out which city the civil records are
      > > > kept at.
      > > > >>> There's a major administrative centre of records in Bratislava where I
      > > > got
      > > > >>> enough info by emailing them in English and translated Slovak. This
      > > > first
      > > > >>> find was free, but they requested money for further research. Even
      > > > though
      > > > >>> these are civil archives, they do have the original books of Slovakia
      > > > and
      > > > >>> those missing years just might be there. I would most certainly do that
      > > > >>> next. In my part of Slovakia, the local records are kept for 25 years
      > > > >>> before they are archived in one of these major administrative centres.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> If in the end you can't find any records, you'll have to be content
      > > > with
      > > > >>> that and do some creative genealogy.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> Peter M.
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> On 24 June 2012 13:17, deeellessbee <_deeellessbee@_ <mailto:_deeellessbee@_%0b>
      > > > >>> (mailto:deeellessbee@) > wrote:
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>>> **
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>> I have a question about where to turn next once the church record have
      > > > >>>> been studied. I have several ancestors who I cannnot find for a few
      > > > >>>> reasons. For instance, my g'g'grandmother was supposedly born in
      > > > 1862; I
      > > > >>>> don't see her baptism record in her town in 1862 or onward. The
      > > > baptism
      > > > >>>> records go up to 1856 and then skip to 1862, so its likely she is
      > > > >>> somewhere
      > > > >>>> in that gap. But how do I find her?
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>> I have others who were married a few years before the records of their
      > > > >>>> town start, so I can't find the marriage records. Same for some death
      > > > >>>> records. I've done page by page searches, sometimes several times for
      > > > the
      > > > >>>> same town, because I have noticed records out of chronological order,
      > > > as
      > > > >>>> well as say, baptism records mixed in with death records. But I think
      > > > >>> I've
      > > > >>>> looked pretty thoroughly. The new indexing has not turned up any new
      > > > >>>> records for me.
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>> So, what are my options? Is there any other place I can find some
      > > > kind of
      > > > >>>> record, or is that it? I have searched earlier in the records and have
      > > > >>>> found some family names but without those missing records to bridge
      > > > the
      > > > >>> gap
      > > > >>>> I can't reliably connect those I know about with the earlier records.
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>> I'm hoping there is some other way. I'd hate to think I've reached the
      > > > >>> end
      > > > >>>> of the line (literally, lol!).
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>> Thanks for any help.
      > > > >>>> Debbie
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>>
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>>
      > > > >>
      > > > >>
      > > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >>
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ------------------------------------
      > > > >
      > > > > PLEASE STAY ON-TOPIC (GENEALOGY). OFF-TOPIC ITEMS WILL BE BLOCKED.
      > > > >
      > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > > > [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS/%5d
      > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS/
      > > > >
      > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, go to [
      > > > http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS%5d
      > > > http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS -or- send blank email to
      > > > [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.comYahoo]
      > > > SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@ <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.comYahoo> ! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • deeellessbee
      Larry, thank you. I am e-mailing you to ask further about the use of FTM for this miscellaneous data. I need a bit more clarification. Thanks! Debbie
      Message 38 of 38 , Jun 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Larry, thank you. I am e-mailing you to ask further about the use of FTM for this miscellaneous data. I need a bit more clarification.

        Thanks!
        Debbie

        --- In SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com, lkocik@... wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Debbie
        >
        >  A ctually when I jumped into the thread you started that ended up talking about software I had your original post in mind. The thread had already morphed by then.
        >  I was talking about how I use my family tree maker software to store all my misc data.
        >
        >
        >
        >   Like you I had notes and bits of data all over the place, usually on scrap paper, planninig on one day putting it all in some logical order.
        >
        >  
        >
        >  Anywho it became overwhelming and almost impossible to work with.
        >
        >  Since entering all that scattered data into the software in a family tree format, I just enter a name and everything I have on that person pops right up. The way the software is set up it shows how the person fits into my lineage, or if they don't.  I use this as a data base and I can then transfer what I need into my actual family tree.
        >
        >  Larry
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        >
        >
        > From: "deeellessbee" <deeellessbee@...>
        > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 7:50:23 PM
        > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
        >
        > Gee, I got home from work and was all excited to see so many answers to my post!  But then realized you guys had started talking about software, lol!  Oh well.  At least it was an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
        >
        > Thanks!
        > Debbie
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com, lkocik@ wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > I'd like to clarify my post about "family tree maker".
        > >
        > >  The data base concept... I'm sure would work with any other software.
        > >
        > >  Truthfully I'm not too pleased with family tree maker being bought out by Ancestry.com.
        > >
        > >   Ancestry has a very aggressive marketing team and I find it annoying to be pestered continually to buy upgrades or new software.
        > >
        > > larry
        > >
        > >  I also meant to mention that the data base concept works well with entering data from the cluster genealogy approach of researching.
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > >
        > >
        > > From: lkocik@
        > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:07:38 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Julie
        > >
        > >  with family tree maker [and others] you can build multiple trees.
        > >
        > >  I have one I designate as a data base...I enter all people of interest related or not. It's basically a file in tree format instead of having notes all over the place.
        > >  I can pull data from this data base to build or add to my other trees.
        > >
        > >     larry
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > >
        > >
        > > From: "Julie Mark" <jkmark@>
        > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:42:39 AM
        > > Subject: RE: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
        > >
        > > I use Family Tree Maker, have for years.  It’s a good program, but does not allow for unmarried unions that produce children (which I just find interesting).  I just have to put the couple in as if they were married and make a note that they were not.  
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > > Sue â€" I think the reason no one mentioned genealogy in that discussion about spreadsheets/databases is because we are talking about non-confirmed family info.  I don’t put stuff in my Family Tree Maker unless I’m quite certain they are really in my family tree.  So when searching the old country records and trying to piece together who is who, it is useful to keep your notes together in an electronic file so you can easily sort and determine family relationships based on names/ages/godparents etc.
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > > Just my two cents!
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > > Julie
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > > From: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of htcstech
        > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 6:53 AM
        > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com
        > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
        > >
        > >  
        > >
        > >   
        > >
        > > Any recommendations for Genealogy software? Pros and cons? I'm not sure
        > > about using it.
        > >
        > > Peter M.
        > >
        > > On 25 June 2012 23:32, Sue Martin <martin@ <mailto:martin%40skmassociates.net> > wrote:
        > >
        > > > **
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > I'm surprised that no one has mentioned software expressly made for
        > > > genealogy. I use Personal Ancestral File (PAF), which is available at no
        > > > cost from the LDS. It has all sorts of fields that allow you to track
        > > > sources, notes, etc., as well as creating your family tree.
        > > >
        > > > Sue
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: "Julie Michutka" <jmm@ <mailto:jmm%40pathbridge.net> >
        > > > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:26am
        > > > To: SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com>
        > > > Subject: Re: [S-R] Info not in the church records - what next?
        > > >
        > > > Debbie, it's possible that the church has its own copy of the register.
        > > > You could email them, but another option (the one that I choose for my own
        > > > research) is to hire a knowledgeable local researcher. You could request
        > > > that they first contact the parish to see if they do in fact have records
        > > > for the time period you are missing, and if so, have your researcher make
        > > > arrangements to search the records for you (probably would be nice to
        > > > budget a donation to the church as a way of thanking them and keeping them
        > > > amenable to this type of thing).
        > > >
        > > > re: Access vs spreadsheets: While spreadsheets are designed for
        > > > calculations, many genealogists use them for keeping track of info. Access
        > > > has a steeper learning curve; info from a spreadsheet can be imported into
        > > > Access when you are comfortable with that piece of software. Don't overlook
        > > > the option of tables in Word; if you're not familiar with creating tables,
        > > > it's simple enough that you can learn from the help files or from someone
        > > > showing you how to make and work with them. Some people find it easier to
        > > > sort using tables, compared to Excel. One of the things that I like about
        > > > Excel spreadsheets is the workbook arrangement, where I have multiple
        > > > worksheets for one project (search log, lists of associates, timeline for
        > > > the family, correspondence record, and list of documents with notes and a
        > > > citation for each) on one screen and accessible with just the tiniest mouse
        > > > movement and click.
        > > >
        > > > One thing you have not mentioned (perhaps I missed it, or you're doing it
        > > > but not mentioning it) is keeping track of godparents and marriage
        > > > witnesses, as well as house numbers. Also look for your people as
        > > > godparents and witnesses for baptisms and marriages of other families. None
        > > > of those guarantees blood ties, but sometimes you see clear patterns that
        > > > make you go "hmmmm...."
        > > >
        > > > Good luck!
        > > >
        > > > Julie Michutka
        > > > [mailto:jmm%40pathbridge.net] jmm@ <mailto:jmm%40pathbridge.net>
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > On Jun 24, 2012, at 6:07 PM, deeellessbee wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Thank you all for your input!
        > > > >
        > > > > I will check the 1869 census - I'm thinking I had checked it for my
        > > > villages but they were not available. But I should check again. And I MUST
        > > > keep better records of what I've checked already and what I haven't. Scrap
        > > > pieces of paper and old envelopes with scribbling on the backs are just not
        > > > cutting it!
        > > > >
        > > > > In my research, I do make note of the family names when I see them, even
        > > > if I don't recognize the person. In this way, I have a few possible
        > > > connections. However, reading the answers here I'm thinking I should create
        > > > some kind of spreadsheet, or a document of some sort, that will track and
        > > > record these folks (see above note about the scrap paper!). I have found
        > > > though that house numbers seem to jump around from year to year for the
        > > > same family, so I'm not sure how much importance to place on the numbers.
        > > > >
        > > > > In the particular case I mentioned - the lack of a birth certificate for
        > > > my g'g'grandmother - I do have her parents names from her death
        > > > certificate, and I do believe I have found a marriage record for them - I
        > > > found a marriage record for those two names in 1844, which is 18(-/+) years
        > > > before her birth. What I find unusual is that if these are her parents, I
        > > > would think they would have had several kids before her in those 18 years,
        > > > but I have not found any birth (or death) records for chidren of these two
        > > > parents. Perhaps they moved to another village nearby??? I don't know.... I
        > > > have seen marriage records for people with her same last name, who seem to
        > > > be the right age to be siblings, but I have no way of knowing as the
        > > > records don't include parents' names. It's not an uncommon name - Guman -
        > > > and so it's hard to tell who are siblings, or cousins, etc. And I have not
        > > > found a marriage record for my g'g'grandmother (I'm not sure off the top of
        > > > my head, but this might be f
        > > > > rom one of those missing-year gaps also).
        > > > >
        > > > > But additionally, there are other records (marriage, death) which are
        > > > just not available because the years are not available for the time frame I
        > > > need. They don't seem to be available on-line or on film at FHCs. And those
        > > > are the ones I wonder about. Maybe I should contact the administrative
        > > > center in Bratislava as Peter suggested.
        > > > >
        > > > > But, thinking out loud here, there must be a certain point where one
        > > > just can't get back any further, I suppose? I would think once you get into
        > > > the 1700's the records must become very scarce... what, if anything, does
        > > > one do then...?
        > > > >
        > > > > Thank you all for your help!
        > > > > Debbie
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com]
        > > > SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS%40yahoogroups.com> , htcstech <htcstech@> wrote:
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Excellent post! Cluster genealogy sure has its twists and turns. And you
        > > > >> really can't figure on re-marriage or base things on house numbers as
        > > > in my
        > > > >> instances, I saw two different house numbers 54 and 53 for the same
        > > > family,
        > > > >> eventually realising that they were renting!
        > > > >> I look at it like visual mathematics, plotting births, deaths and
        > > > marriages
        > > > >> - reducing the number of possibles, thinking of things I might have
        > > > missed
        > > > >> etc. Yet every problem is unique.
        > > > >> I'm doing it now, although some people may not think it's cluster
        > > > genealogy
        > > > >> though. I have death records that 'penetrate' calculated birthdates back
        > > > >> through time (no birth records), trying to reconstruct 3 families, all
        > > > with
        > > > >> the same family name. The family starts in 1697 with the birth of 2 boys
        > > > >> and the only records I have are the deaths of random ancestors from 1777
        > > > >> with the barest of information, thanks to the priest and/or church
        > > > rubric.
        > > > >> Working out the birthdates, placing them in generations and villages
        > > > makes
        > > > >> so many assumptions. That's why I ask on this group all these almost
        > > > >> off-topic questions about names and religions, Turkish tax records,
        > > > naming
        > > > >> conventions around 1700 and names of twins and so on.
        > > > >> With local naming conventions, a Martinus (1700) would name one of his
        > > > sons
        > > > >> Martinus (1712) - but that can't be. So there should be a Martinus who
        > > > >> would be able to father the Martinus of 1712. So his father was born
        > > > about
        > > > >> 23 years earlier (average age of marriageable grooms+1) in 1689. You
        > > > can do
        > > > >> this for all of your earliest ancestor(s) and you 'find' another
        > > > >> generation. Just getting more out of the data by inferring.
        > > > >> To go on: I have a record of a Martinus who was an "Eskudt" (Council
        > > > man)
        > > > >> in 1769 - 8 years before church records began.
        > > > >> Was this the Martinus of 1700? or the 1712 one? Would you vote in a 69
        > > > year
        > > > >> old into this position? Or a 57 year old? Eskudts were voted in by the
        > > > >> community, so the Martinus had to be liked and his extended, God fearing
        > > > >> family, respected. How long does a family have to live in a community
        > > > >> before they are trusted with a public position? 3 generations? 2? How
        > > > does
        > > > >> that fit in with the birth data?
        > > > >> To cap this off, I find a particularly attractive Elisabetha Moravko
        > > > who,
        > > > >> born in 1747, was later taken wife by a noble! So, in 1767 when she
        > > > marries
        > > > >> and gets a bit more powerful, asks him for a favour and gets Martinus
        > > > the
        > > > >> job. But which Martinus? Who would you pick?
        > > > >> There are so many nuances, tiny clues and hypotheticals. It's sort of
        > > > fun
        > > > >> though.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Also I've found Elisabetha and Catharina as the most popular female
        > > > names
        > > > >> between 1700 and 1800 in my neck of the woods.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> Peter M.
        > > > >>
        > > > >> On 24 June 2012 19:15, <david1law@> wrote:
        > > > >>
        > > > >>> **
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> Dear Peter:
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> I definitely agree that with cluster genealogy approach, and it can
        > > > >>> sometimes help solve certain dilemmas and certain "brick walls" that a
        > > > >>> person may
        > > > >>> encounter in their genealogical research. It can be very time
        > > > consuming,
        > > > >>> but in the end, I love the cluster genealogy approach as it gives a far
        > > > >>> greater perspective of the family clan within a village, church parish,
        > > > >>> etc.
        > > > >>> The cluster genealogy is a very exhaustive approach, and I found it
        > > > >>> extremely helpful in my family search, and it gave me a greater
        > > > picture of
        > > > >>> my
        > > > >>> family. Sometimes, we are left with making educated guesses, but when
        > > > that
        > > > >>> is
        > > > >>> the case, I would recommend making specific note of that fact and leave
        > > > >>> the
        > > > >>> conclusion tentative instead of drawing an absolute conclusion. The
        > > > reason
        > > > >>> why I say this is because the reason why started to use the cluster
        > > > >>> genealogical approach in the first place was because of distant cousin
        > > > of
        > > > >>> mine
        > > > >>> did genealogical research and made an educated guess as to the
        > > > identity of
        > > > >>> our great, great grandparents, and I later discovered through
        > > > additional
        > > > >>> research that my distant cousin's educated guess was plainly wrong, and
        > > > >>> the
        > > > >>> cluster genealogy research further confirmed the identity of my actual
        > > > >>> great,
        > > > >>> great grandparents.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> I would be careful with any groupings. I definitely understand about
        > > > >>> trying to group people within a family clan together, and I have done
        > > > it
        > > > >>> myself. In one family clan in a parish, I did group the various family
        > > > >>> members
        > > > >>> according to village and house number. While I do keep my raw data for
        > > > my
        > > > >>> cluster genealogy arranged according to year, and it may often hint at
        > > > >>> possible relationships and family connections, grouping according to
        > > > age
        > > > >>> or
        > > > >>> presumptive generation may be problematic. The reason why I say this is
        > > > >>> several
        > > > >>> fold. First and foremost, sometimes even if people live in the exact
        > > > same
        > > > >>> house, the relationship between the people may not be what one first
        > > > >>> thinks. I'll give one great example. When I was researching my paternal
        > > > >>> grandmother's side of my family, my great grandfather JAN HRONEC
        > > > (married
        > > > >>> to
        > > > >>> MARIA HARENCAR) lived in the same home as his grandfather, also named
        > > > JAN
        > > > >>> HRONEC (married to CATHERINA KREDATUS) in what is now STARY SMOKOVEC.
        > > > At
        > > > >>> first,
        > > > >>> I thought that the elder JAN HRONEC was his father, as both even shared
        > > > >>> the
        > > > >>> same profession -- a forester. But when I did further research --
        > > > >>> tracking down the godparents who were from another village in the SPIS
        > > > >>> region, I
        > > > >>> discovered the records to my HRONEC and HARENCAR ancestors and learned
        > > > >>> that
        > > > >>> the younger JAN HRONEC was the son of another JAN HRONEC (married to
        > > > ANNA
        > > > >>> HARBALY/HORBALY) in the village of DOMANOVCE and their marriage was
        > > > >>> witnessed a MICHAEL KREDATUS. The evidence all added up. I learned in
        > > > the
        > > > >>> process
        > > > >>> to follow every little detail because the details are clues, and to be
        > > > >>> careful about assumptions, because sometimes the assumptions may be
        > > > wrong.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> Second, with regard to grouping my presumptive generation, I would
        > > > also be
        > > > >>> very careful because a generation within a family may be greater than
        > > > we
        > > > >>> realize. In one instance, one of my great, great grandfathers had 17
        > > > >>> children between two wives. His first wife (my great, great mother)
        > > > died
        > > > >>> when
        > > > >>> she was 38 and he remarried. And a number of children died at an early
        > > > >>> age.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> In researching, I would definitely add a word of caution for all
        > > > >>> researchers. Follow the actual evidence of what you find, and be very
        > > > >>> careful about
        > > > >>> making presumptions, educated guesses, etc., and pay attention to the
        > > > >>> details -- the house numbers, the names and village of origin of the
        > > > >>> godparents
        > > > >>> or the witnesses to a marriage, etc. Sometimes, in the end, after a
        > > > very
        > > > >>> exhaustive cluster genealogical research and no more written records to
        > > > >>> research, we are still left with questions and some mysteries. In one
        > > > >>> case,
        > > > >>> another researcher and I realized that we are distant cousins, as our
        > > > >>> ancestors lived in the exact same house, but because the written
        > > > records
        > > > >>> still
        > > > >>> left some questions, we were not able to identify the precise
        > > > relationship
        > > > >>> (though we both realize that it is within one or two generations).
        > > > Perhaps
        > > > >>> some further research may help, but for now I've learned to be content
        > > > >>> with
        > > > >>> some of the mysteries in genealogical research.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> Best regards,
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> David
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> In a message dated 6/24/2012 12:39:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        > > > >>> htcstech@ writes:
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> You do have a problem and you may have to resort to bridging the gap
        > > > in a
        > > > >>> creative way.
        > > > >>> If your family name is unique in the town/village, you can continue on
        > > > >>> backwards, creating charts from those. The gap you have is 6 years and
        > > > you
        > > > >>> may be able to make an educated guess of who the likely GP is for her.
        > > > >>> She could have had later siblings, sisters and brothers from the same
        > > > >>> parents. That means that you can make an educated guess of who the
        > > > brothers
        > > > >>> and sisters are by grouping them as a 'generation' - all those males
        > > > who
        > > > >>> marry between the ages of 22-25 and females that marry around 18-20
        > > > would
        > > > >>> be in that generation. Looking back on their marriage records will
        > > > give you
        > > > >>> their parents who *might* be your GGG mother's parents. So
        > > > 1863+18=1881 -
        > > > >>> start looking at marriages from there and note the male and female
        > > > family
        > > > >>> line of their parents.
        > > > >>> Now if a set of parents had 4 surviving children (confirmed from
        > > > baptism or
        > > > >>> death records) till marriage, and you found all of them, then those
        > > > parents
        > > > >>> are not your GGG mother's. In this way you can find likely suspects.
        > > > You do
        > > > >>> not know how many siblings she (the mother) had within that gap.
        > > > Taking 10
        > > > >>> months between births, a mother can have 6-7 children within 6 years
        > > > not
        > > > >>> accounting for twins. If you find a pile of marriages around 1880
        > > > onwards
        > > > >>> with with no birth records like your GGGmother's then you have found
        > > > her
        > > > >>> parents if they are listed as the parents of the groom/bride in these
        > > > >>> marriages. Conversely, you count back 20-25 years from 1860 and start
        > > > >>> looking at likely fathers from birth records. If a male was born
        > > > between
        > > > >>> 1835-1845, then he could be her father. Trace his marriage and
        > > > children who
        > > > >>> would be of similar age to your GGGMother.
        > > > >>> It's not impossible to do, but a lot more work than finding the actual
        > > > >>> record.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> Other than that, I would find out which city the civil records are
        > > > kept at.
        > > > >>> There's a major administrative centre of records in Bratislava where I
        > > > got
        > > > >>> enough info by emailing them in English and translated Slovak. This
        > > > first
        > > > >>> find was free, but they requested money for further research. Even
        > > > though
        > > > >>> these are civil archives, they do have the original books of Slovakia
        > > > and
        > > > >>> those missing years just might be there. I would most certainly do that
        > > > >>> next. In my part of Slovakia, the local records are kept for 25 years
        > > > >>> before they are archived in one of these major administrative centres.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> If in the end you can't find any records, you'll have to be content
        > > > with
        > > > >>> that and do some creative genealogy.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> Peter M.
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> On 24 June 2012 13:17, deeellessbee <_deeellessbee@_ <mailto:_deeellessbee@_%0b>
        > > > >>> (mailto:deeellessbee@) > wrote:
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>>> **
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>> I have a question about where to turn next once the church record have
        > > > >>>> been studied. I have several ancestors who I cannnot find for a few
        > > > >>>> reasons. For instance, my g'g'grandmother was supposedly born in
        > > > 1862; I
        > > > >>>> don't see her baptism record in her town in 1862 or onward. The
        > > > baptism
        > > > >>>> records go up to 1856 and then skip to 1862, so its likely she is
        > > > >>> somewhere
        > > > >>>> in that gap. But how do I find her?
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>> I have others who were married a few years before the records of their
        > > > >>>> town start, so I can't find the marriage records. Same for some death
        > > > >>>> records. I've done page by page searches, sometimes several times for
        > > > the
        > > > >>>> same town, because I have noticed records out of chronological order,
        > > > as
        > > > >>>> well as say, baptism records mixed in with death records. But I think
        > > > >>> I've
        > > > >>>> looked pretty thoroughly. The new indexing has not turned up any new
        > > > >>>> records for me.
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>> So, what are my options? Is there any other place I can find some
        > > > kind of
        > > > >>>> record, or is that it? I have searched earlier in the records and have
        > > > >>>> found some family names but without those missing records to bridge
        > > > the
        > > > >>> gap
        > > > >>>> I can't reliably connect those I know about with the earlier records.
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>> I'm hoping there is some other way. I'd hate to think I've reached the
        > > > >>> end
        > > > >>>> of the line (literally, lol!).
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>> Thanks for any help.
        > > > >>>> Debbie
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>>
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>>
        > > > >>
        > > > >>
        > > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >>
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > ------------------------------------
        > > > >
        > > > > PLEASE STAY ON-TOPIC (GENEALOGY). OFF-TOPIC ITEMS WILL BE BLOCKED.
        > > > >
        > > > > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > > > [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS/%5d
        > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS/
        > > > >
        > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, go to [
        > > > http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS%5d
        > > > http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/SLOVAK-ROOTS -or- send blank email to
        > > > [mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.comYahoo]
        > > > SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe@ <mailto:SLOVAK-ROOTS-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.comYahoo> ! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.