Can we customize font size so at Doc. open its a different size?
JE
How do we do that?
Thanks, JE
Peter T. Daniels
you want _new_ documents to be set to 16 pt?
For the latter, open your normal.dot or normal.dotm or normal.dotx
template (which version of Word?), not by double-clicking it, but from
within Word, and Modify (which version of Word?) the Normal style to
change its font size.
Jay Freedman
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:29:01 -0800, JE <J...@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
>My word docs always open at font size 11. I wouldm like to change this to 16.
>How do we do that?
>Thanks, JE
See
http://www.word.mvps.org/FAQs/Customization/CustomizeNormalTemplate.htm
--
Regards,
Jay Freedman
Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit.
Stefan Blom
*.dotm (macro-enabled template).
--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bfbdac1f-06ec-4410...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Peter T. Daniels
On Nov 15, 12:49 pm, "Stefan Blom"
<StefanB...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> To clarify, the file name extension for the Normal template in Word 2007 is
> *.dotm (macro-enabled template).
>
> --
> Stefan Blom
> Microsoft Word MVP
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:bfbdac1f-06ec-4410...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Do you want to change the size of all your existing documents, or do
> you want _new_ documents to be set to 16 pt?
>
> For the latter, open your normal.dot or normal.dotm or normal.dotx
> template (which version of Word?), not by double-clicking it, but from
> within Word, and Modify (which version of Word?) the Normal style to
> change its font size.
>
> On Nov 15, 11:29 am, JE <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My word docs always open at font size 11. I wouldm like to change this to
> > 16.
> > How do we do that?
> > Thanks, JE-
Peter T. Daniels
On Nov 15, 11:29 am, JE <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Suzanne S. Barnhill
macro in it. A .dotm file is not one that *contains* macros but one that is
macro-enabled.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:67c613df-cdf8-4b4c...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Gordon Bentley-Mix on news. microsoft. com dot at dot
automatically increases the font size on printed documents as well.
More honking from the plonker...
--
Cheers!
Gordon Bentley-Mix
Word MVP
Please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup.
Read the original version of this post in the Office Discussion Groups - no
membership required!
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> .
>
Suzanne S. Barnhill
larger on printout, and it could very well be that he does just want them to
be more readable onscreen. I don't think this is particularly likely, but
it's not impossible, and in Word there is always more than one way to skin a
cat.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Gordon Bentley-Mix on news.microsoft.com"
<gordon(dot)bentleymix(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in message
news:4E469386-F319-43A8...@microsoft.com...
Gordon Bentley-Mix on news. microsoft. com dot at dot
Oh pul-eeze! That's gumby reasoning if ever I heard it! Stretch anymore and
the wires will start poking out.
The OP makes very clear reference to changing the font size from one
specific value (11) to another (16). No where does the OP say anything about
making the font more readable on the screen. And while many tasks in Word can
be accomplished in a multitude of ways, changing the zoom setting absolutely
does *NOT* change the font size. Peter has once again ventured outside his
very limited area of expertise and is talking through a hole in his hat; stop
defending him.
--
Cheers!
Gordon Bentley-Mix
Word MVP
Please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup.
Read the original version of this post in the Office Discussion Groups - no
membership required!
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
> .
>
Suzanne S. Barnhill
reading posts here that users often think the font has become larger because
they have inadvertently zoomed in. I agree that Peter's interpretation of
the request was farfetched, but I think it was a valid comment in any case.
If you want to print something out in a larger font size to be more
readable, that's one thing, but often people do just want it to be more
readable onscreen, and many users are unaware of the Zoom control.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Gordon Bentley-Mix on news.microsoft.com"
<gordon(dot)bentleymix(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in message
news:DC60A291-18B9-4D39...@microsoft.com...
Greg Maxey
forever. While my skill at interpreting what another person means
will never match Mr. Daniels', it seems that whatever JE wants, JE
wants it to be automatic. If JE wants documents to opened zoomed to
150% then hammers and nails may be required:
Sub AutoOpen()
ActiveWindow.Caption = ActiveDocument.FullName
With ActiveWindow.View
.Type = wdPrintView
.Zoom = 150
End With
End Sub
However, I agree that everyone should treat Mr. Daniels with all
fairness just as he is always unfailingly polite and always takes such
care to bridle his arrogance.
On Nov 15, 8:22 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnh...@mvps.org> wrote:
> Changing the zoom setting changes the apparent font size. We know from
> reading posts here that users often think the font has become larger because
> they have inadvertently zoomed in. I agree that Peter's interpretation of
> the request was farfetched, but I think it was a valid comment in any case.
> If you want to print something out in a larger font size to be more
> readable, that's one thing, but often people do just want it to be more
> readable onscreen, and many users are unaware of the Zoom control.
>
> --
> Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Microsoft MVP (Word)
> Words into Type
> Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org
> >> .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greg Maxey
> No, it's Normal.dotm by default. Otherwise you wouldn'tbe able to save a
> macro in it. A .dotm file is not one that *contains* macros but one that is
> macro-enabled.
>
> --
> Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Microsoft MVP (Word)
> Words into Type
> Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org
>
> Not until you've put at least one macro into it!
>
> On Nov 15, 12:49 pm, "Stefan Blom"
>
>
>
> <StefanB...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > To clarify, the file name extension for the Normal template in Word 2007
> > is
> > *.dotm (macro-enabled template).
>
> > --
> > Stefan Blom
> > Microsoft Word MVP
>
> > messagenews:bfbdac1f-06ec-4410...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > Do you want to change the size of all your existing documents, or do
> > you want _new_ documents to be set to 16 pt?
>
> > For the latter, open your normal.dot or normal.dotm or normal.dotx
> > template (which version of Word?), not by double-clicking it, but from
> > within Word, and Modify (which version of Word?) the Normal style to
> > change its font size.
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:29 am, JE <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > > My word docs always open at font size 11. I wouldm like to change this
> > > to
> > > 16.
> > > How do we do that?
>
> - Show quoted text -
A silence has fallen on the troll bridge. This is usually a sign that
it is busy dining on a supper of crow.
Gordon Bentley-Mix
--
Cheers!
Gordon Bentley-Mix
Word MVP
"Greg Maxey" <gma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ac749b3-5937-45cc...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Suzanne S. Barnhill
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Greg Maxey" <gma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ac749b3-5937-45cc...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Peter T. Daniels
my normal. template was normal.dotx until I did.
Does my stalker imagine that people have nothing else to do with their
lives than monitor newsgroups so they can post instant responses?
On Nov 15, 4:49 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnh...@mvps.org> wrote:
> No, it's Normal.dotm by default. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to save a
> macro in it. A .dotm file is not one that *contains* macros but one that is
> macro-enabled.
>
> --
> Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Microsoft MVP (Word)
> Words into Type
> Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:67c613df-cdf8-4b4c...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Not until you've put at least one macro into it!
>
> On Nov 15, 12:49 pm, "Stefan Blom"
>
>
>
> <StefanB...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > To clarify, the file name extension for the Normal template in Word 2007
> > is
> > *.dotm (macro-enabled template).
>
> > --
> > Stefan Blom
> > Microsoft Word MVP
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in
> > messagenews:bfbdac1f-06ec-4410...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > Do you want to change the size of all your existing documents, or do
> > you want _new_ documents to be set to 16 pt?
>
> > For the latter, open your normal.dot or normal.dotm or normal.dotx
> > template (which version of Word?), not by double-clicking it, but from
> > within Word, and Modify (which version of Word?) the Normal style to
> > change its font size.
>
> > On Nov 15, 11:29 am, JE <J...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > > My word docs always open at font size 11. I wouldm like to change this
> > > to
> > > 16.
> > > How do we do that?
> > > Thanks, JE--
Peter T. Daniels
bothered to look at the posting times of my two suggestions, he would
have seen that the second suggestion was an afterthought, nearly four
hours later -- precisely because, unlike my stalkers, who are sure
they always know the one right answer to every question, I remember
what it was like to be new to word processing (some 25 years ago), and
I evidently have considerably more empathy with the people who
typically ask such questions -- I will not assume knowledge not
explicit in their postings. (A trait that Suzanne possesses in
abundance, as well.)
On Nov 15, 8:22 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbarnh...@mvps.org> wrote:
> Changing the zoom setting changes the apparent font size. We know from
> reading posts here that users often think the font has become larger because
> they have inadvertently zoomed in. I agree that Peter's interpretation of
> the request was farfetched, but I think it was a valid comment in any case.
> If you want to print something out in a larger font size to be more
> readable, that's one thing, but often people do just want it to be more
> readable onscreen, and many users are unaware of the Zoom control.
>
> --
> Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Microsoft MVP (Word)
> Words into Type
> Fairhope, Alabama USAhttp://word.mvps.org
Stefan Blom
it to the user templates folder. But note that if you are running Word 2003
and Word 2007 on the same machine, there will be a normal.dot file.
--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8b4d3203-5443-41cf...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Peter T. Daniels
On Nov 16, 6:49 am, "Stefan Blom"
<StefanB...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> There shouldn't be a "normal.dotx" file unless someone intentionally saved
> it to the user templates folder. But note that if you are running Word 2003
> and Word 2007 on the same machine, there will be a normal.dot file.
>
> --
> Stefan Blom
> Microsoft Word MVP
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:8b4d3203-5443-41cf...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Thanks, JE---
Greg Maxey
not as honed as the troll's. It in this case refers to it.
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OjGJOmnZ...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Greg Maxey
Mr. Daniels,
<I didn't have any macros for months after installing Office2007, and
<my normal. template was normal.dotx until I did.
Are you sure about that or is that just more of your petty whimpering to
cover another one of your WAGs declared as facts? Try Google.
<Does my stalker imagine that people have nothing else to do with their
<lives than monitor newsgroups so they can post instant responses?
No. Your stalker as you like to call him imagines that you feel pretty
silly after spewing your fantasy stated as facts and learning once again
that you were wrong.
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8b4d3203-5443-41cf...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Greg Maxey
<For the latter, open your normal.dot or normal.dotm or normal.dotx
Note you said or "normal.dotx." Continue your arguments or slink off
as you wish.
> > > > > Thanks, JE---- Hide quoted text -
Greg Maxey
lives than study the posting times of his mostly incorrect posts?
Unlike your stalkers, as you like to call them, you rarely know the right
answer to any question.
<I will not assume knowledge not explicit in their postings.
Oh really? Now there is a sharp reversal of habit. Who crowed these words
less than a month ago?
"Try reading for _content_ and _context_ rather than, as you always do,
only for the specific question asked, where a more sensitive reader
can intuit what's actually going on from what is unsaid."
Cheers.
Peter T. Daniels
exactly the same point, then it's clear that you have _major_
comprehension problems.
On Nov 16, 9:27 am, "Greg Maxey"
Peter T. Daniels
Word2007 with at least one macro, or Word2007 with no macros. Why do
you find that difficult to comprehend?
Stefan pointed out that if one has both 2003 and 2007 on one's system,
then one does indeed have normal.dot, which I did and do. What is your
problem? "I guess my system was a freak!" in the eyes of those who
don't think that macro-less Word2007 has normal.dotx and not
normal.dotm.
Since you refuse to believe anything I say, how about this quotation
from *Microsoft Office Word2007 Inside Out*, by Katherine Murray, Mary
Milhollon, and Beth Melton (Microsoft Press, 2007), p 53:
"Caution! The document will be converted to the new file format, given
the new file extension (.dotx for macro free documents or .dotm for
macro enabled documents)"
Suzanne S. Barnhill
the part of the OP. Your meaning was clear to me, viz., "I will not assume
that the OP already knows what I'm about to say if he hasn't said so."
It is not unusual to have to assume that an OP may not actually have enough
knowledge to frame the right question, that is, that the question, as
stated, may not represent the actual question or problem, and the solution
may lie elsewhere than in an answer to the exact question asked.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8eefa4da-c986-4e0f...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Suzanne S. Barnhill
The reference you cite applies to document templates, not to Normal. See
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA100307561033.aspx, which clearly
refers to Normal.dotm. Same for
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179177.aspx. And
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd797428.aspx says about the
.dotm format: "Template for creating new Office Word 2007 files that contain
macros. If you want to include UI customizations or macros in the template,
use this file format." About .dotx, it says, "Template for creating new
Office Word 2007 files that do not contain macros." Neither of these applies
to the Normal template.
Google finds only one English-language result for "Normal.dotx" when
searching within http://office.microsoft.com, and I believe it to be an
error. All the other language versions are translations of an article on
setting the default font in Word; that article is found at
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/hp100144081033.aspx, and it says
"Normal.dotm."
If you have a Normal.dotx, it's because you've resaved it in that format or
renamed it.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:70bca88e-ead1-4ab5...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Greg Maxey
You are trying to educate a mule. With Daniels it his belief in his own
infallibility that is so annoying, even when wrong he continues his
arguments.
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
> The reference you cite applies to document templates, not to Normal.
> See http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA100307561033.aspx, which
> clearly refers to Normal.dotm. Same for
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179177.aspx. And
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd797428.aspx says about
> the .dotm format: "Template for creating new Office Word 2007 files
> that contain macros. If you want to include UI customizations or
> macros in the template, use this file format." About .dotx, it says,
> "Template for creating new Office Word 2007 files that do not contain
> macros." Neither of these applies to the Normal template.
>
> Google finds only one English-language result for "Normal.dotx" when
> searching within http://office.microsoft.com, and I believe it to be
> an error. All the other language versions are translations of an
> article on setting the default font in Word; that article is found at
> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/hp100144081033.aspx, and it
> says "Normal.dotm."
>
> If you have a Normal.dotx, it's because you've resaved it in that
> format or renamed it.
>
>
Greg Maxey
The only one in this thread proving a comprehension defect is you . If the
OP has Word 2003 he or she has a normal.dot. If the OP has Word2007 he or
she has a normal.dotm. If the OP has Word2003 and Word 2008 he or she as
both a normal.dot and a normal.dotm. This fact remains true regardless of
the presence or absence of macros.
I will not dispute, and could care less, if you now have or if you have ever
had a normal.dotx. When a dilettante like you starts monkeying with Word
there is no telling what will result.
Prove it to yourself. Rename your normal.dotm (and normal.dotx file if you
still have it) and restart Word.
Cheers,
Greg Maxey
> enough knowledge to frame the right question, that is, that the
> question, as stated, may not represent the actual question or problem,
> and the solution may lie elsewhere than in an answer to the
> exact question asked.
No. Though it is unusual, rude and offensive to publically bet that an OP
is a fumble fingered moron who inadvertenly presses CTRL+h when they post
asking why pressing CTRL+Home brings up the Find dialog. That instance,
like this one, makes it clear that often Mr. Daniels thinks he knows far
more than what he actually does know.
Your argument points to a dogged determination to defend Mr. Daniels. Mine
is to suggest that if he doesn't know the correct answer then it is ok to
leave it to those who do and to suggest that he check his opinions and
assumptions about how Word works before posting them as statements of fact.
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
> I think Greg interpreted "knowledge" as being on your part rather
> than on the part of the OP. Your meaning was clear to me, viz., "I
> will not assume that the OP already knows what I'm about to say if he
> hasn't said so."
> It is not unusual to have to assume that an OP may not actually have
> enough knowledge to frame the right question, that is, that the
> question, as stated, may not represent the actual question or
> problem, and the solution may lie elsewhere than in an answer to the
> exact question asked.
>
Suzanne S. Barnhill
> Your argument points to a dogged determination to defend Mr. Daniels.
My "dogged determination" is to be fair and open-minded. Instead of
challenging every incorrect answer, I find it sufficient to post a correct
answer for the benefit of the OP. If the person who posted the incorrect (or
less helpful) answer sees my answer and tacitly files that knowledge away
for future use, fine. If the person who posted the less than helpful answer
wants to challenge my answer, then I will discuss the issue. But I do not
feel the need to attack anyone who posts an incorrect answer, much less
gloat over it.
In the case of Ctrl+Home vs.Ctrl+H, Peter's was a silly answer but not
entirely impossible (though I considered it unlikely). The behavior of
certain commands and features with the WordPerfect options enabled is rather
specialist knowledge, and you wouldn't get it by using Word 2007, in which
those options no longer exist (thank goodness!). As I did happen to have
this knowledge, I was able to supply what I believe to be the correct
answer. Since the OP has not come back to say one way or the other, for all
we know he might actually have pressed Ctrl+H by mistake.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Greg Maxey" <gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote in message
news:O4i1YdvZ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Peter T. Daniels
<gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote:
> > It is not unusual to have to assume that an OP may not actually have
> > enough knowledge to frame the right question, that is, that the
> > question, as stated, may not represent the actual question or problem,
> > and the solution may lie elsewhere than in an answer to the
> > exact question asked.
>
> No. Though it is unusual, rude and offensive to publically bet that an OP
> is a fumble fingered moron who inadvertenly presses CTRL+h when they post
> asking why pressing CTRL+Home brings up the Find dialog. That instance,
> like this one, makes it clear that often Mr. Daniels thinks he knows far
> more than what he actually does know.
Wow, this time we get a double-header -- not only does he harp on a
matter from some other thread from some time ago, but he also
pontificates on something he knows nothing about -- and I know a
little about: namely, the psychology of typing. Though if he actually
gave the process of typing a moment's thought, he might actually
realize that typing is to some extent carried out non-consciously, by
the autonomous nervous system (like piano playing) -- there is simply
not enough time, given the rate of transmission of neural impulses
from brain to muscles, for the typing of each separate character (or
the playing of each note) to be a consciously controlled action
subject to the individual's volition. _Thinking_ something like "type
Home!" gets translated into, literally, typing h(-o-m-e) rather than
the more arcane "Home" key. Doubtless he'll come back with some smart-
ass remark about "gedorkian" academics. Well, If that's what he needs
to make himself feel superior, fine.
Greg Maxey
on which the troll routinely performs. You also distort the
facts. No one feels the need to attack anyone who posts an incorrect
answer, much less gloat over it. However, there are a few participants
in this group, first and foremost me, who recognize Mr. Daniels' unbridled
arrogance, loathe it, and expose it for what it is.
Defend and support him, attack and criticize me, do as you please. It is
not going to make Mr. Daniels' "Not until you've put
at least one macro into it!" remark any less incorrect or change the fact
that it was a statement born of his uninformed arrogance.
Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
>> Your argument points to a dogged determination to defend Mr. Daniels.
>
> My "dogged determination" is to be fair and open-minded. Instead of
> challenging every incorrect answer, I find it sufficient to post a
> correct answer for the benefit of the OP. If the person who posted
> the incorrect (or less helpful) answer sees my answer and tacitly
> files that knowledge away for future use, fine. If the person who
> posted the less than helpful answer wants to challenge my answer,
> then I will discuss the issue. But I do not feel the need to attack
> anyone who posts an incorrect answer, much less gloat over it.
>
> In the case of Ctrl+Home vs.Ctrl+H, Peter's was a silly answer but not
> entirely impossible (though I considered it unlikely). The behavior of
> certain commands and features with the WordPerfect options enabled is
> rather specialist knowledge, and you wouldn't get it by using Word
> 2007, in which those options no longer exist (thank goodness!). As I
> did happen to have this knowledge, I was able to supply what I
> believe to be the correct answer. Since the OP has not come back to
> say one way or the other, for all we know he might actually have
> pressed Ctrl+H by mistake.
>
Suzanne S. Barnhill
<<typing is to some extent carried out non-consciously, by
the autonomous nervous system (like piano playing) -- there is simply
not enough time, given the rate of transmission of neural impulses
from brain to muscles, for the typing of each separate character (or
the playing of each note) to be a consciously controlled action
subject to the individual's volition. _Thinking_ something like "type
Home!" gets translated into, literally, typing h(-o-m-e) rather than
the more arcane "Home" key.>>
I think you meant the autonomic nervous system, and I'm not sure it's
relevant here, but I can confirm that this sort of error is not beyond
possibility: witness a recent post in which I typed \a when I meant \@.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:98e226cd-ff3f-49e0...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Greg Maxey
This is one time where I truly do wish the OP would come back and say "Silly
me! That was it exactly. Thank you for so graciously exposing my human
fallibility." I am very eager to demonstate that, unlike you, when I am
wrong I can admit it. I would really like to have a taste of those crows
before you eat them all up.
Greg Maxey
typing perhaps you will return to the point.
Maybe you are ready to concede that all knowledge is not gathered from a
book or that sometimes the book isn't really teaching what you thought you
learned.
What were the results of your practical field exercise. Will you share?
Gordon Bentley-Mix
What I find so interesting is that, while most people - with even the
slightest shred of humility - when clearly proven wrong would would own up
to having made a mistake and ask for forgiveness, Peter insists on defending
his position with ridiculous arguments and incredible stretches for
justification. Even his most ardent supporter recognises that he is so far
afield with this attempt to prove his infallibility that she feels compelled
to point out his error (and then has gone on to correct his word choice -
another error which he has yet to acknowledge - and call one of his previous
answers "silly"). I wonder if someone with a professed expertise in
psychology might be able to explain what might motivate him to carry on this
way. I certainly have my theories - mostly to do with severe trauma in
childhood resulting in incomplete attachment and bonding issues - but I
don't claim to be an expert in these matters. Accordingly, I would be most
intrigued to hear what someone who *does* claim to be such an expert has to
say...
--
Cheers!
Gordon Bentley-Mix
Word MVP
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:70bca88e-ead1-4ab5...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...