Equations in Word 2007 compatibility mode

[Mattas120]

I am working in 97-2003 compatibility mode in Word 2007 (in a vista OS), and
need to include equations in my documents. 'Equation' is disabled as
incompatible, and Words only suggestion is that I convert the document to
straight 2007, which I don't want to do. I am currently going back and forth
between word 2003 and 2007 to get the combination of features I want. Is
there any better work around for including compatible equations into a
document created in word 2007?

Thanks for any help.

Stefanie M

[Bob Mathews]

You don't need to convert the document to Word 2007 docx format,
but neither can you use the "new" equation editor (aka, the OMML
equation editor). The same Equation Editor that's been included
with Office since Office version 2 is also in Word 2007. Some
people call this "Equation Editor"; others call it "Microsoft
Equation", but whatever you call it, it hasn't changed.

To access Equation Editor in Word 2007, whether in native or
compatibility mode, on the Text group of the Insert tab, click on
Object. The Insert Object dialog that pops up is similar to what
you've seen in earlier versions of Word. Select "Microsoft
Equation 3.0".

BTW, MathType 6 is also compatible with Office 2007 (and
earlier), and installs a MathType tab onto the Ribbon in both
Word and PowerPoint. For more information on MathType, and to
download a free 30-day evaluation, click the link in my
signature.

--
Bob Mathews
Director of Training
Design Science, Inc.
bobm at dessci.com
http://www.dessci.com/free.asp?free=news
FREE fully-functional 30-day evaluation of MathType 5
MathType, WebEQ, MathPlayer, MathFlow, Equation Editor, TeXaide

[Mattas120]

Thanks for your very prompt help. I appreciate it.

[Kassy]

Is there anyway to get an icon on the ribbon? In Word 2003 I could just
click on the icon for equation editor and I'd like to make it that easy again
because I am a math teacher and therefore use it often.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's the giant pi icon near the right end of the Insert tab of the
Ribbon. If you want it even more convenient, you could right-click on
that icon and add it to your Quick Access Toolbar.

If you put your QAT below the Ribbon, it's easier to get at.

[Jay Freedman]

Use the instructions at http://www.gmayor.com/installing_macro.htm to add
this macro to a module in your Normal.dotm template:

Sub RunEqnEditor()
ActiveDocument.InlineShapes.AddOLEObject _
ClassType:="Equation.3", Range:=Selection.Range
End Sub

Then right-click the empty area on the Quick Access Toolbar and choose
Customize. Set the category in the dialog to Macros, click on the
RunEqnEditor item, and click the Add button. When it appears in the
right-hand list, click it there and click the Modify button. Change the
title to Equation Editor, and choose an icon -- you can find the blue 'pi'
symbol, or use any of the others.

If you want the button to be on the ribbon instead of the Quick Access
Toolbar, see http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/Customize_Ribbon.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.

[Jay Freedman]

Hi Peter,

The button you mentioned starts the new 2007 equation system. Bob Mathews
explained earlier in the thread that Kassy needs the old equation editor
from 2003 and earlier. It's a little more work to get a Quick Access Toolbar
button for that.

--
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.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I was responding to Kassy's question, not to Mattas120's question that
Bob answered two years ago. Hopefully Kassy will come back and say
whether he specifically needs the old version or is satisfied with the
new (improved?) version.

> >> often.-

[Jay Freedman]

My apologies, I didn't notice that Kassy wasn't the originator of the
thread.

[Greg Maxey]

Kassy,

As you now may know, the icon for the Word2007 EquationInsertNew
control is already located on the Ribbon in the Symbols group of the
Insert Tab and it can be added to the Quick Access Toolbar (QAT)
Whether access is easier with the QAT located above or below the
Ribbon is purely a matter of opinion.

To answer your question. Yes, there is a way to get an icon on the
ribbon and Jay Freedman pointed you to a link that would get you
started.

We still don't know if you want single click access to the new
equation editor or if you want to use the older Microsoft Equation 3.0
editor. If you want to use the older Microsoft Equation 3.0 editor
and add it to your Ribbon you could do it with the following XML
script. This script adds a new control to the Symbols group that will
insert a Microsoft Equation 3.0 object at the selection:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<customUI xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/01/
customui">
<ribbon>
<tabs>
<tab idMso="TabInsert">
<group idMso="GroupInsertSymbols" visible="false"/>
<group id="GroupCustomInsertSymbol" label="Symbols"
insertBeforeMso="GroupInsertSymbols">
<button idMso="EquationInsertNew"/>
<gallery idMso="SymbolInsertGallery"/>
<button id="Btn1" label="Microsoft Equation 3.0"
imageMso="EquationInsertNew" onAction="RibCon.ButtonOnAction"/>
</group>
</tab>
</tabs>
</ribbon>
</customUI>

Actually builtin controls (including groups) can not be edited so what
the script really does is it hides the builtin group and creates a new
custom group that contains duplicates of the two Symbols group builtin
controls and a new custom control.

You would also need the following VBA script a standard project named
"Main:"

Sub InsertEquationObject()
Selection.InlineShapes.AddOLEObject ClassType:="Equation.3",
FileName:="", _
LinkToFile:=False, DisplayAsIcon:=False
End Sub

and the the following VBA script in a standard project named "RibCon:"

Sub ButtonOnAction(Control As IRibbonControl)
Main.InsertEquationObject
End Sub

Once a control is added anywhere on the Ribbon it can be placed on the
QAT for single click access.

Another thing to consider is a keyboard shortcut. You could assign
either the InsertEquationObject macro shown above (to insert a
Microsoft Equation 3.0 object) or the following macro if you prefer
the new equation editor

Sub InsertNewEquation()
CommandBars.ExecuteMso ("EquationInsertNew")
End Sub

to a keyboard shortcut.

Post back if you need further assistance.

On Aug 17, 1:19 pm, Kassy <Ka...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > > On 28-Sep-2007, <Mattas...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I am working in 97-2003 compatibility mode in Word 2007 (in
> > > > a vista OS), and need to include equations in my documents.
> > > > 'Equation' is disabled as incompatible, and Words only
> > > > suggestion is that I convert the document to straight 2007,
> > > > which I don't want  to do. I am currently going back and forth
> > > > between word 2003 and 2007 to get the combination of features
> > > > I want. Is there any better work around for including
> > > > compatible equations into a document created in word 2007?
>
> > > > Thanks for any help.
>

> > > > Stefanie M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Aug 18, 6:05 pm, Greg Maxey <gma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kassy,
>
> As you now may know, the icon for the Word2007 EquationInsertNew
> control is already located on the Ribbon in the Symbols group of the
> Insert Tab and it can be added to the Quick Access Toolbar (QAT)
> Whether access is easier with the QAT located above or below the
> Ribbon is purely a matter of opinion.

Are you _still_ looking to pick fights?

In what universe is it not easier to _not_ have to move the cursor an
extra inch or two -- from the text -- each way to get at a QAT button?

[Greg Maxey]

I don't know. See that wasn't so hard. However, cursor movement (distance)
alone does not make it a fact that access to controls on the QAT is easier
below the Ribbon. That is still purely a matter of opinion. I don't have
all the statistical data, but other factors may come into play like a users
ability to locate and discern a single control from all controls on the
Ribbon and QAT. Unlike you, since I don't have all the facts, I don't go
popping off with my opinion stated as a definitive fact.

Since the discussion has moved from your opinions to facts. Here are a few:

1. The QAT is not the Ribbon
2. Kassy asked "Is there anyway to get an icon on the ribbon?"

In my opinion, supported by facts, you don't know the difference between the
QAT and the Ribbon and you don't know how to customize the Ribbon.

So once again, if you don't know the answer to a question it is ok to leave
it to those who do.

Cheers

--
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

My web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b28480ee-a918-4ba3...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

[Greg Maxey]

Here is another fact. The pi icon near the right end of the Insert
tab of the ribbon is not "giant." In fact it is sized "normal" as
compared to "large" like some other control icons on that tab (e.g.,
WordArt, Chart, Picture, etc).

Opinon: Your response to Kassy question smacks of arrogance typical
in many of your posts.

[Peter T. Daniels]

You are clearly an ass. (Sorry, Suzanne, but this is _entirely_ his
own doing.)

If _you_ have trouble distinguishing between the QAT and the Ribbon,
whose fault or problem is that?

Why are you unwilling to recognize that a shorter cursor move is
easier and quicker to accomplish than a longer cursor move?

Your accusation that I don't know the difference between Ribbon and
QAT is like Mrs. Palin talking about "Death Panels" in the health
insurance reform bill. It is both ignorant and maliciously insulting.

And if you are not aware that customizing the QAT is an ordinary,
built-in, everyday feature of Word2007, accessible to any user without
any sort of programming skills, whereas customizing the Ribbon was
(stupidly) not intended to be done by Word users, but is possible only
to those who have mastered the special variety of a certain
programming language, then your ignorance is immense.

But since you _probably_ are not that ignorant, then all you are is
malicious.

And from the addendum that you came back more than half an hour later
to post:

"Here is another fact. The pi icon near the right end of the Insert
tab of the ribbon is not "giant." In fact it is sized "normal" as
compared to "large" like some other control icons on that tab (e.g.,
WordArt, Chart, Picture, etc).

"Opinon: Your response to Kassy question smacks of arrogance typical
in many of your posts."

I did not say that the icon is giant. The icon is the same size as
most of the icons on that Ribbon tab. I said that the pi is giant.
Perhaps you're not aware that the Greek alphabet has capital and small
letters, just like the Roman alphabet. The pi is a small ("lower-
case") letter but it is shown as big as the capital Omega in the
adjacent icon (and bigger than the tilted capital A in the WordArt
icon). That makes it really, really big.

So if you insist on prosecuting your arrogant attacks, try first to
read and understand what you are commenting on, and then check your
facts.

On Aug 19, 8:08 am, "Greg Maxey"

<gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote:
> I don't know.  See that wasn't so hard.  However, cursor movement (distance)
> alone does not make it a fact that access to controls on the QAT is easier
> below the Ribbon.  That is still purely a matter of opinion.  I don't have
> all the statistical data, but other factors may come into play like a users
> ability to locate and discern a single control from all controls on the
> Ribbon and QAT.  Unlike you, since I don't have all the facts, I don't go
> popping off with my opinion stated as a definitive fact.
>
> Since the discussion has moved from your opinions to facts.  Here are a few:
>
> 1. The QAT is not the Ribbon
> 2. Kassy asked "Is there anyway to get an icon on the ribbon?"
>
> In my opinion, supported by facts, you don't know the difference between the
> QAT and the Ribbon and you don't know how to customize the Ribbon.
>
> So once again, if you don't know the answer to a question it is ok to leave
> it to those who do.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Greg Maxey -  Word MVP
>
> My web sitehttp://gregmaxey.mvps.org
> Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
>

> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:b28480ee-a918-4ba3...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

[Greg Maxey]

Peter,

Clearly an ass or not is another matter of opinion. As stated before.
I am not interested is exchanging insults with you.

I don't have trouble distinguishing between the QAT and the Ribbon.
You do. Kassy asked if it was possible to add an icon to the Ribbon
and you went off nattering about adding a control to the QAT. It seems
that you a) don't know the difference, b) can't read or comprehend the
question or c) in your typical arrogant manner you assumed that Kassy
didn't really want to add a icon to the Ribbon because it is too hard,
or not worth the effort, or he/she is incapable of mastering a new
skill.

Considering your impressive acedemic creditentials I think it is safe
to rule out (b). So which is it (a), (b) or both? I suspect both.

The rest of your diatribe simply highlights and reinforces one of my
favorite annoyomous quotes:

"With Daniels, it is his belief in his own infallibility that is so
irritating. Even when obviously wrong he continues his arguments."

Cheers,

--
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

My web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Aug 19, 1:21 pm, "Greg Maxey"

Then why do you keep (this is the third time) hurling insults?

> I don't have trouble distinguishing between the QAT and the Ribbon.
> You do.  Kassy asked if it was possible to add an icon to the Ribbon
> and you went off nattering about adding a control to the QAT.  It seems

Again I point out what a teacher is supposed to do. You claim you're
not interested in being a teacher. If you're not, why do you even
participate in this newsgroup?

Does it really not occur to you that the most helpful answer to a
question might be something other than the specific answer to the
specific wording of the question asked? For instance, by your
reasoning, an appropriate answer to the question "Does anyone know how
to make my paragraph numbering start over with 1 after a second
Heading 1?" would be "Yes."

What Kassy _wanted_ was a button to reach Equation Editor. Perhaps s/
he overlooked the pi button. Perhaps s/he, like many people, finds it
a pain to first click on a tab, then mouse all the way across the
screen to get to that button (whereas with the old-style menus, when
you click on the menu it's never more than a short slide down to the
desired command). The QAT makes that button more easily available.

Perhaps you haven't heard of ergonomics.

> that you a) don't know the difference, b) can't read or comprehend the
> question or c) in your typical arrogant manner you assumed that Kassy
> didn't really want to add a icon to the Ribbon because it is too hard,
> or not worth the effort, or he/she is incapable of mastering a new
> skill.
>
> Considering your impressive acedemic creditentials I think it is safe
> to rule out (b).  So which is it (a), (b) or both?  I suspect both.

If it's not (b), then how could it be [(a) or (b)]?

In fact, it was clear to the rest of us that what Kassy wants is a
convenient way to get at Equation Editor. I offered two ways of doing
that. Your _only_ contribution to answering Kassy's question was to
repeat, about two days later, what I had already said.

> The rest of your diatribe simply highlights and reinforces one of my
> favorite annoyomous quotes:
>
>  "With Daniels, it is his belief in his own infallibility that is so
> irritating. Even when obviously wrong he continues his arguments."

I'm not wrong about your inability to understand the questions being
asked, and I'm not wrong about your bizarre grudge-holding (which
seems to have originated in some imagined slight in response to some
original bit of nastiness), and I'm not wrong about what Kassy wanted
to know.

And you might try spell-checking your insults before clicking "Send."
<annoyomous>??

[Greg Maxey]

Peter,

I'll remind you that I admitted my own fallibility regarding poor spelling
("Being a notorious poor speller myself I am ...") in the first post of the
exchange, that you now call imagined, where you hurled the first insult "Are
there no courtesy requirements for being and MVP?" If this is a fight
between you and I then you picked it and you picked it then.

I participate in the newsgroup because despite your presence it pleases me.
I know what happens when one wrestles with a pig. Others may suffer your
arrogant behavior, biased opinions, and flat out wrong answers in silence,
but I choose to confront you. I will continue to do that even if it exposes
my own shortcomings until you either go away, change your behavior and
style, or until in pleases me to stop.

<For instance, by your reasoning, an appropriate answer to the question
"Does anyone know how to make my paragraph numbering start over with 1 after
a second
Heading 1?" would be "Yes."

Wrong again Peter. That may always be a true answer and in some
circumstances appropriate. However, in most cases, and particularly if the
responder knew (or could even concede the possibility) that the asker really
might want to know how to do what they asked then it would be a lot like
your answer to Kassy. Inappropriate and arrogant.

"What Kassy _wanted_ was a button to reach Equation Editor."

How do you know what Kassy really wanted? I know exactly what Kassy asked
and I can go back and see that in your snooty reply to Jay that you were
hoping Kassy would come back and tell us what he\she really wanted. If you
didn't really know then what makes your really know now?

In fact, it was clear to the rest of us that what Kassy wants is a
convenient way to get at Equation Editor.

Wrong again Peter. It wasn't even clear to you. Again, the rest of you can
all go back and see that in your snooty reply to Jay that you, at least, was
hoping Kassy would come back say what he\she really wanted.

While not infallible, I am reasonable capable of understanding the questions
asked. However, unlike you, when I don't I usually leave them to those who
do and I do not make it a habit to spin my answers in a manner that suits a
shortcoming in my abilities.

<If it's not (b), then how could it be [(a) or (b)]?

Yep, you nailed me. Guilty of carelessness again. Another fallibility.
I'll spend the rest of the evening in sack cloth and ashes.

Cheers,

--
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

My web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org

Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:1ff21c21-8c3f-4f25...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

[Beth Melton]

"Greg Maxey" <gma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c51051fe-d22f-415b...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> Here is another fact. The pi icon near the right end of the Insert
> tab of the ribbon is not "giant." In fact it is sized "normal" as
> compared to "large" like some other control icons on that tab (e.g.,
> WordArt, Chart, Picture, etc).

Whether the Equation button is large or regular size depends on your screen
real estate. As I'm sure you know the Ribbon will autoscale and the buttons
in Symbols group it's one of the first groups to scale on the Insert tab and
appear stacked instead of displayed horizontally with large buttons. When
there is enough room the Equation button is the same size as the WordArt and
Chart buttons. In which case it may appear "giant" compared to say, the
"Date and Time" button.

~Beth Melton

[Greg Maxey]

Beth,

Yes I am aware that the Ribbon will autoscale and that buttons in the
Symbols group of the Insert Tab are the first to do so. However, I have
been looking at the same Word Ribbon for nearly 3 years with "normal" sized
controls in that group and I didn't consider Peter's screen resolution when
I stated that the icons are "normal" sized as compared to "large." That was
an oversight, that was an error, I am not infallible, I was wrong. Thank
you for clearing that up.

Since it is your opinion that in one case the icon may appear "giant" even
if a "giant" among other "giants," do you have an opinion on what the OP
actually wanted? Did he want Peter to point out what may have been already
obvious (a giant icon on the Ribbon) or did he really want to know how to
add his or her own controls to the Ribbon? We may never know, but that is
what the OP asked.

--
Greg Maxey - Word MVP

My web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org

"Beth Melton" <bme...@NoSpam4Memvps.org> wrote in message
news:86C03CE1-D4F2-486D...@microsoft.com...

[Peter T. Daniels]

Once again (though since you couldn't grasp it the first time, you
probably won't get it this time either), I did not say that the icon
is giant. I said that the pi is giant, and explained why.

On Aug 19, 6:49 pm, "Greg Maxey"

<gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote:
> Beth,
>
> Yes I am aware that the Ribbon will autoscale and that buttons in the
> Symbols group of the Insert Tab are the first to do so.  However, I have
> been looking at the same Word Ribbon for nearly 3 years with "normal" sized
> controls in that group and I didn't consider Peter's screen resolution when
> I stated that the icons are "normal" sized as compared to "large."  That was
> an oversight, that was an error, I am  not infallible, I was wrong.  Thank
> you for clearing that up.
>
> Since it is your opinion that in one case the icon may appear "giant" even
> if a "giant" among other "giants," do you have an opinion on what the OP
> actually wanted?  Did he want Peter to point out what may have been already
> obvious (a giant icon on the Ribbon) or did he really want to know how to
> add his or her own controls to the Ribbon? We may never know, but that is
> what the OP asked.
>
> --
> Greg Maxey -  Word MVP
>

> My web sitehttp://gregmaxey.mvps.org
> Word MVP web sitehttp://word.mvps.org
>

> "Beth Melton" <bmel...@NoSpam4Memvps.org> wrote in message

>
> news:86C03CE1-D4F2-486D...@microsoft.com...
>
>
>
> > "Greg Maxey" <gma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c51051fe-d22f-415b...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Here is another fact.  The pi icon near the right end of the Insert
> >> tab of the ribbon is not "giant." In fact it is sized "normal" as
> >> compared to "large" like some other control icons on that tab (e.g.,
> >> WordArt, Chart, Picture, etc).
>
> > Whether the Equation button is large or regular size depends on your
> > screen real estate. As I'm sure you know the Ribbon will autoscale and the
> > buttons in Symbols group it's one of the first groups to scale on the
> > Insert tab and appear stacked instead of displayed horizontally with large
> > buttons. When there is enough room the Equation button is the same size as
> > the WordArt and Chart buttons. In which case it may appear "giant"
> > compared to say, the "Date and Time" button.
>

> > ~Beth Melton-

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Aug 19, 5:37 pm, "Greg Maxey"

<gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I'll remind you that I admitted my own fallibility regarding poor spelling
> ("Being a notorious poor speller myself I am ...") in the first post of the
> exchange, that you now call imagined, where you hurled the first insult "Are
> there no courtesy requirements for being and MVP?"  If this is a fight
> between you and I then you picked it and you picked it then.

I take it you don't plan _ever_ to provide a reference to the remark
that so sticks in your craw, so that we can see what provoked it?

[Beth Melton]

"Greg Maxey" <gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote in message
news:OI4UL9RI...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Beth,
>
> Yes I am aware that the Ribbon will autoscale and that buttons in the
> Symbols group of the Insert Tab are the first to do so. However, I have
> been looking at the same Word Ribbon for nearly 3 years with "normal"
> sized controls in that group and I didn't consider Peter's screen
> resolution when I stated that the icons are "normal" sized as compared to
> "large." That was an oversight, that was an error, I am not infallible,
> I was wrong. Thank you for clearing that up.

Actually, to be a bit pedantic, the Symbols group is the second to scale.
The Links group scales first. But this begs the question, does it really
matter? Does it really matter how one describes the size of a button? Does
it really matter which group scales first? Perhaps it does to the uber-geeks
(and since I took the time to observe the behavior I'm pretty sure that
makes me an uber-geek, plus I'm notorious for being pedantic --just ask
Echo! <grin>) but I don't think the majority of those who frequent this
newsgroup care if a button is described as "large" or "giant" or which group
scales first. The minute details really don't matter.

Now, someone lurking may have discovered the Ribbon does autoscale and
groups of buttons can stack and be reduced in size or display horizontally
with larger buttons depending on their screen size and resolution as a
result of this discussion. But in the end it has nothing to do with the
initial question and is a bit off-topic.

> Since it is your opinion that in one case the icon may appear "giant" even
> if a "giant" among other "giants," do you have an opinion on what the OP
> actually wanted? Did he want Peter to point out what may have been
> already obvious (a giant icon on the Ribbon) or did he really want to know
> how to add his or her own controls to the Ribbon? We may never know, but
> that is what the OP asked.

Well...since you asked for my opinion:

I think the beauty of the newsgroups is they provide a platform to leverage
multiple contributors and in return, receive multiple answers. Usually
something can be learned from every answer even if it may not be the answer
the original poster was seeking. We're well aware there are a large number
of lurkers in the newsgroups. Someone reading this thread may not have known
you can right-click buttons and easily add them to the Quick Access Toolbar
or that the Quick Access Toolbar can be moved below the Ribbon. Others may
have never realized there is a new Equation Editor for Word 2007 and someone
mentioning the button may prompt them to take a look.

As for my opinion of what Kassy wants, I'm pretty sure what she (my vote is
female) really wants the fastest and most efficient method to obtain a
one-click access to the old Equation Editor (since the Subject states
Compatibility Mode and the new Equation Editor is disabled when using
Compatibility Mode) and doesn't care if it's on the Ribbon or the Quick
Access Toolbar.

My general opinion about this thread (and others like it in this this group)
is the newsgroups are for learning and sharing. If we honestly want to know
what someone is really asking, and expect them to hang around to ask/answer
follow-up questions, then our focus should be on creating an environment
that is conducive to asking questions -- not obsessing over finding
miniscule faults with those who are trying to help others and learn at the
same time.

~Beth Melton

[Greg Maxey]

Sure Peter. As dirty laundry is already in the air, I'll share the
reference with you again and with your collective we (whoever that is):

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.word.docmanagement/browse_thread/thread/6b52159b8df73478/5835f035c71a74?hl=en&q=grammatim,+Greg,+courtesy

This way the collective we can see that you, like me, might try

spell-checking your insults before clicking "Send."

<becomng>??

Cheers,

--

[Greg Maxey]

Beth,

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately, I fear that your tacit
approval of Peter's behaviour and style will only reinforce his arrogance
and embolden him to continue offering his biased opinions. It may even make
him more resolute in defending some of his answers that have been clearly
wrong.

I happen to agree with you on what Kassy (male of female) really wanted.
The answer almost step by step was provided in my first post associated with
this thread. While Peter is apparently schooled in a gazillion languages he
has a real problem with English. He either can't read it or he can't
comprehend what he reads. According to Peter, my only contribution to

answering Kassy's question was to repeat, about two days later, what I had

already said. Can we agree that is not true?

Personally I don't think Peter's motivation here is to help others nor do I
believe that he thinks there is anything that he doesn't already know.

--

[Gordon Bentley-Mix]

One wonders if he has specially made doors in his house to accommodate his
oversized head...
--
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!

"Greg Maxey" <gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote in message

news:#5uwEmUI...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

[Peter T. Daniels]

In hindsight it's understandable that Greg Maxey would not recognize
the sentence "Mastery of both [spellcheck and use of the shift key]
will go a long way in making your questions easier to read" as
discourteous.

That he failed to understand the extensive discussion of his
discourtesies that ensued is even more troubling.

On Aug 19, 11:26 pm, "Greg Maxey"

<gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote:
> Sure Peter.  As dirty laundry is already in the air, I'll share the
> reference with you again and with your collective we (whoever that is):
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.word.docmanagement/br...

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Aug 19, 11:51 pm, "Greg Maxey"

<gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote:
> Beth,
>
> Thank you for sharing your opinion.  Unfortunately, I fear that your tacit
> approval of Peter's behaviour and style will only reinforce his arrogance
> and embolden him to continue offering his biased opinions.

There is, by definition, no such thing as an unbiased opinion.

Now I suppose we'll wait until doomsday for Greg (and Gordon!) to
provide their credentials in psychoanalysis.

[Beth Melton]

I've involved myself enough in this situation. I defer to the last paragraph
of my previous reply.

~Beth Melton

"Greg Maxey" <gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote in message

news:#5uwEmUI...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> According to Peter, my only contribution to answering Kassy's question was
> to repeat, about two days later, what I had already said. Can we agree
> that is not true?
>
> Personally I don't think Peter's motivation here is to help others nor do
> I believe that he thinks there is anything that he doesn't already know.

>> My general opinion about this thread (and others like it in this this

[Gordon Bentley-Mix]

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:ba5dba79-fc4f-4ad3...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

>
> Now I suppose we'll wait until doomsday for Greg (and Gordon!) to
> provide their credentials in psychoanalysis.

Well, now that you mention it...

Proof once again that Peter repeatedly argues without all the facts - in
addition to conveniently ignoring those that don't support his total belief
in his infallibility.

(Note that I *never* said I had any credentials in psychoanalysis; I may or
may not, but Peter doesn't know one way or the other. And yet he's still
willing throw out comments like this purely to defend himself when he's been
caught out.)

[Greg Maxey]

Peter,

Spin the thread how you like.

I did not intend to be discourteous or malicious to the OP. revivalgurl
[sic] did not indicate that she had taken offense in her follow up post.
She had every opportunity to pour on scorn and indignation along with you
and Ms. Barnhill. She did not. Perhaps she wasn't offended. If she wasn't
it only makes your indignation more irrelevant.

Everything that followed your "Are there no courtesy requirements for
becomng [sic] an MVP" remark is a direct result of that remark. Even your
fan club captain classifies the remark as careless and intended only to
chastise me. Others can have and share their opinions regarding remarks that
you direct at other people and they can even presume to know your intent. In
fact, only you know your true intent and the recipient has the exclusive
right to determine how a he or she receives a remark. Yours was deliberate
and received with the full measure of your honed arrogance. It was a direct
attack, a haughty insult. You threw your glove full in my face. In an
earlier era, it you could have had it returned to your wrapped around a
bullet. Unlike that era, I offered you the opportunity to take it back. You
have spurned several private attempts at reconciliation, which only confirms
your intent coincides with the manner the remark was received. You have not
retracted the remark, nor have you softened it. It carries the same force
today as the day you made it. No, I am not going to forget it or act now
like you never made it.

While that beer summit or room with a brace of pistols would end this
matter, I will make you another offer at reconciliation.

I don't expect, no I can certainly say that I will never consider you a
friend, peer or associate, but I also don't really want to stay forever on
one side of an argument (right or wrong). I think that a man in himself
wrapped up makes a very small package and perhaps we can find a way to step
back from the fray and co-contribute amicably to the Word forum. Call it an
offer of cease-fire if you like.

Here are some terms for you to consider:

1. Apologize publicly for insults that you have directed towards me
directly past and present, actual and perceived. Apologize for the
disparaging public remarks that you have made about me here in this support
forum. You don't have to enumerate them. A general apology will do. On
this, I will take the lead.

Peter, I apologize for all remarks that I have made which have insulted
you or which have been disparaging of your character. They are inexcusable,
inappropriate, often mean spirited, and spawned from my anger or ego.

2. Post when and wherever you like, but stay in your range of expertise.
Always be open to the ideas and suggestion of others. If you venture
outside your range then try to be correct.

3. Stop posting your opinions as statements of fact. If you think something
is easy or if you prefer one method to another then say so in that manner.
Stop insisting or trying to prove that your ways are always best, easiest,
fastest, etc. Let others decided for themselves what is easiest between a
set of given options and decide for themselves if the effort/advantage of
pursuing one approach justifies taking that approach over another.

4. Stop disparaging the contributions and skills of others and selective
advanced Word features. Stop throwing up roadblocks and detours when a user
seeks information on a particular feature or function that you don't
understand or that you don't wish to pursue yourself.

5. STOP SHOUTING in the newsgroup.

6. Bridle your arrogance.

These are fairly simple and reasonable terms. Perhaps unpleasant, but they
are not an unconditional surrender. Give them some thought. Let me know
which one or ones stick in your craw and perhaps we can work it out.

Cheers

--

[Gordon Bentley-Mix]

Acceptance of 2-6 would be enough for me, and in return I promise to never
reply to one of Peter's posts again. In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as
to never post in any thread he posts in - as a reply to his post or to any
other in the thread. I'll also echo Greg's apology in my own words:

Peter, I apologise for all of the occasions when I treated you in a
less-than-kind manner. Like Greg, my comments are inexcusable,

inappropriate, often mean spirited, and spawned from my anger or ego.

--
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!

"Greg Maxey" <gma...@mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote in message
news:#syxJ$dIKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...