Let's try this again.
Suspend your objection to becoming an MVP for a moment (especially since
it's pretty clear that it'll never happen) and go back and read that article
again. Here's the link in case you lost it:
http://word.mvps.org/AboutMVPs/index.htm.
Look closely at the section entitled "How NOT to become an MVP" again, but
this time imagine that, rather than being instructions for those who aspire
to MVP-dom, it's merely a set of recommendations to anyone who wants to repay
the kindness shown to them by a group of hardworking volunteers (see the
section entitled "Do MVPs get paid?") by sharing their knowledge with others
who may not be so fortunate. I understand that this may be difficult for you,
but have a fire extinguisher on hand and spray your head with it if you smell
smoke.
Now consider your post in light of the recommendations in the aforementioned
article:
If it's in emails, it has nothing to do with Word.
First, this is blatantly wrong. Any Office user with an ounce of nous would
be able to look at the situation - pilcrons have suddenly appeared in both
Word documents _and_ in email messages - and safely assume that the problems
are related. However, if this wasn't clear to you it would have been better
to say something like, "I'm not absolutely certain but I don't think the two
are related." If I had been answering (given that I _do_ know about the
potential for a relationship between Word and email) I would have asked if
the OP used Outlook and if it was configured to use Word as the editor. Then
I would have gone on to say that fixing the problem in one place should fix
the problem in the other. But given your lack of awareness around this I'll
let this one go on that point.
Now consider the rudeness of this response. You might as well have ended
that statement with "you moron!" It's abrupt and dismissive. Perhaps it might
have been a bit more palatable if you had said something like "AFAIK, things
that happen in email aren't caused by Word because the two aren't related."
Of course, you would still be wrong, but at least you would have been
politely wrong.
Now let's look at the rest of your post:
If it were in Word, it's perfectly simple to turn off, but you
shouldn't.
~sigh~ Where to begin...
Again, it's wrong. Although there are many good reasons to _show_
non-printing characters, there are no good reasons not to hide them. It won't
break Word or cause any problems that can't be fixed easily. Yes, it probably
would cut down on the number of posts of this nature if users had a better
understanding of the advantages of showing non-printing characters, and yes,
power-users do tend to show them at least part of the time, but a blanket
"don't do it" is incorrect and misleading.
It also falls under the "cryptic answer" category as well. You provided no
reason for not hiding the non-printing characters, and if I were on the
receiving end of this advice, I'd either be scratching my head in confusion -
after all, everything worked fine _before_ these characters started showing
up on my screen - or in a panic that there's some major problem with all the
work I've ever done and now it's going to come back to bite me. ~cue the
spooky, foreboding music~
I suppose it could also be considered untested as well, since it's not
really an answer that works - but that's just being pedantic.
Rude though? Yup, definitely - especially when considered in conjunction
with your later comment about "
f everyone learned to use their paragraph
marks correctly...". The use of "perfectly simple" implies that the user is
ignorant, and telling the user that they shouldn't do something - especially
without explanation - again is abrupt and dismissive. And your follow up
comment is nothing more than a slap that makes you sound arrogant. It was
unnecessary and unkind.
Unfortunately, given your historical reaction to criticism of your posts, I
expect that if you do respond it will simply to be to argue over some minor
technical point; the gestalt of the criticism will be lost on you. If you do
take this position, that's OK; I'll just file it with "Teaching pigs to sing"
and cross-reference under "Troll".
--
Gordon Bentley-Mix
Word MVP
Uninvited email contact will be marked as SPAM and ignored. Please post all
follow-ups to the newsgroup.
grammatim said:
If it's in emails, it has nothing to do with Word.
If it were in Word, it's perfectly simple to turn off, but you
shouldn't.