Can we customize font size so at Doc. open its a different size?

[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.


Does my stalker imagine that people have nothing else to do with their
lives than monitor newsgroups so they can post instant responses?

 

[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.

 

[Greg Maxey]

Does Mr. Daniels imagine that people have nothing else to do with their
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]

If you don't see that the two comments "less than a month apart" make
exactly the same point, then it's clear that you have _major_
comprehension problems.

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

Of course I said that, since we don't know whether OP has Word2003,
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]

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
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

If you don't see that the two comments "less than a month apart" make
exactly the same point, then it's clear that you have _major_
comprehension problems.

 

[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

Of course I said that, since we don't know whether OP has Word2003,
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)"

 

[Greg Maxey]

Ms. Barnhill,

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.

 

[Greg Maxey]

Mr. Daniels,

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

No.  Though it is unusual, rude and offensive to publically bet that anOP
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]

Unfortunately your fairness and open mindedness provides and excellent stage
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]

<<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

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]

Mr. Daniels,

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]

If you are finished with your rather boring lesson on the psychology of
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...