Hmm, mathmatcially it works out to 70% blatent attention-whoring and 30% generally clueless buffonery would be my guess, just like every other billy-goat gruff we get. I am worried he will flame out too fast and ruin my predicted time though.
Your understanding is correct about macros travelling with documents or templates. The trick with the macro solution was not to get around that but to automate the replication of the universal template to a local location, and update it with your customizations as often as you want it to.
In fact, you would be essentually creating a form of a macro virus, but since it is not malicious it should be more likened to a macro stem cell or something.
Good luck.
You fool, you don’t “Doot” to Singin’ in the Rain, you “Dah” it. Just like how you “La” to Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and “Bum-bum” to just about any hard rock song ever made.
Don’t you know ANYTHING?!?!?
Why is this little tangent so much scarier than the OP’s rageaholic antics. Ever time I think I have been exposed to the absolutely sub-basement of pedantry on the SDMB another level is exposed.
We now now have a debate over the appropriate onomatopoetic phraseology of circus music. I’m getting the big mason jar to put Fenris and Spoofe in and letting them tussle it out.
Okay. What’s this all about?
Manny-mahna! Doot doot de doot doot…
the hokey pokey, of course. why do you ask?
lissner was being a combative ass in GQ, mahattan called “lockdown” on that thread, and now lissener is being a whiny, whinging bitch about it all.
And there’s some circus music too.
When do we get to the pie? I like pie.
Underdoot… I mean, pants.
SPOOFE, why don’t you doot the toothbrush song for us, like you used to do?
That’s always such a crowd pleaser.
Hey, I told you, Clogcock, I don’t do that anymore!
“Squeaky fuck”??
May I suggest Astroglide…
That’s why I don’t trust history. You never know who wrote it.
Anybody else suffering “the lights-the colors!” flashbacks to Lib’s dissection of biblical scriptures?
Yeah, it doesn’t leave a sticky residue like that other one…
It’s a modern miracle, Baby!
Unless, of course, “squeaky fuck” was referring to Jerry getting his rodential cheese groove on. Then, yeah: never mind.
No. 'Course, I wasn’t there.
FordPrefect, Dooku,* et al.*:
Workarounds aside (thanks for which anyway; none is a solution), here’s my main objection:
It seems likely to me (though I have no actual idea) that, in the beginning–Word 1.0–it made perfect sense (or at least there was nothing to suggest otherwise) to save the toolbar customizations to the document, i.e. to the template, as opposed to the toolbar; the presumed paradigm, I presume, was a single user at a single computer doing “simple” text documents. In that earlier model, the customizations would rest comfortably on the native template. As the program–and its users–became more sophisticated, however, this made less and less sense: files were more likely to be shared; the template is likely to be customized for more than one user; Word became a huge honkin program that would come to be used (inappropriately, IMHO) as a poor man’s PageMaker or Quark; etc.
In any case, PowerPoint got it right: since the “point” of the toolbars–especially of their customization–is for the USER, not the DOCUMENT, the toolbars DO rest comfortably on the customizer’s native harddrive, and he/she is able to use his toolbox to edit many different documents, created from many different templates. Simple solution.
At my office, we use 14 different Word templates, and 11 different PowerPoint templates–depending on what department, the doc is coming out of; whether it’s a proposal for a project or the project itself; whether it’s for a big client with their own format; etc., ad nauseum. The first drafts of these documents, the raw doc that comes to me in the Production department, is often created by a Consultant on their laptop; often in the field, sometimes at a client’s office. Sometimes it’s emailed from a foreign country. Then it’s my job to clean it up, hammer it into format, ready it for print production, PDF, or electronic export.
None of these infinite variables is a problem in PowerPoint, because my toolbars always stay the same. I’ve invested probably a dozen hours customizing my PowerPoint toolbars, and this makes the most frequently performed an the most complicated tasks in PowerPoint a relative breeze.
In Word, however, every time I want to—for example—bump up by one point each all the differently sized fonts in a table, I have to dig the button to do this out of the customization box. And then next time, when I open a different document, built on a different template, from a different source, I have to do all this again.
Now, where does this make sense? Under what possible logic does doing it this way make more sense than doing it the PowerPoint way, where a USER’s customizations are saved on the USER’s computer? Word’s way is contrary to the very concept of customization: these changes must be universal to everyone who uses this template. In PowerPoint, they need only affect the individual user who changed them: walla, customized.
You are all wrong.
the circus song goes like this.
doot doot doodle doodle doot do do do do
doot doot doodle doodle doot do do do do
Doot doodle do do
Doot doodle do do
doodle doodle doodle doodle doodle doodle do do
the italicised doodles are one continuous run, and breaking the flow with needless doots is beyond contempt.
And don’t even get me started on the 1812.
:dubious: I’m sure I wouldn’t know what you were talking about.
Esprix