Equations in Word 2007 compatibility mode

[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.

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

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?

 

[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/micr...5f035c71a74?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!

 

[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.

 

[Peter T. Daniels]

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

 

[Gordon Bentley-Mix]

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.)
--
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]

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

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.

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...

This way the collective we can see that you, like me, might try
spell-checking your insults before clicking "Send."
<becomng>??

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!

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