[Greg Maxey[_2_]]

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.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Nov 16, 2:59 pm, "Greg Maxey"
wrote:
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.

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.

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 wrote:
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.

On Nov 16, 9:27 am, "Greg Maxey"
wrote:
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."