Straightening quotes

S

Scott

For some reason, Edit>Auto Text Cleanup>Straighten Quotation Marks does
nothing.
The other functions (Remove/Increase Quoting, etc.) all work, but not
Straighten Quotation Marks.

Any guesses?

Entourage 2004, OS 10.3.8 (and now 10.3.9)
 
M

matt neuburg

Scott said:
For some reason, Edit>Auto Text Cleanup>Straighten Quotation Marks does
nothing.
The other functions (Remove/Increase Quoting, etc.) all work, but not
Straighten Quotation Marks.

Could it be that it's just plain busted? Anyhow, I suggest doing your
text munging in a competent text munger, such as BBEdit (or its freeware
version TextWrangler). It's a much better text editor than the Entourage
environment, and will straighten quotes in a snap. m.
 
S

Scott

Could it be that it's just plain busted? Anyhow, I suggest doing your
text munging in a competent text munger, such as BBEdit (or its freeware
version TextWrangler). It's a much better text editor than the Entourage
environment, and will straighten quotes in a snap. m.

Oh, sure, it *could* be plain busted, but does that indicate some other
underlying problem, one that should be taken care of. If something
*should* work but doesn't, I wonder why.

I've been using WordService to fill in,
<http://www.devon-technologies.com/products/freeware/freeware.php>
somewhat easier than using an intermediate application.
 
P

Paul Berkowitz

For some reason, Edit>Auto Text Cleanup>Straighten Quotation Marks does
nothing.
The other functions (Remove/Increase Quoting, etc.) all work, but not
Straighten Quotation Marks.

Any guesses?

Entourage 2004, OS 10.3.8 (and now 10.3.9)

It does seem to be broken in 2004. I suspect it's a consequence of some of
changes to Unicode in either Panther or Entourage 2004. I'll report the bug.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.
 
S

Scott

Oh, sure, it *could* be plain busted, but does that indicate some other
underlying problem, one that should be taken care of. If something
*should* work but doesn't, I wonder why.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, because this is a computer program? Duh....

You missed my point. If a program's functionality is broken, I wonder
what the underlying cause is. Could it be a corruption somewhere that
might lead to data loss? It's like when your car makes a noise it
shouldn't. It could be nothing but a minor annoyance, or it could be a
wheel about to fly off at 55 mph.
 
M

matt neuburg

Uh, because this is a computer program? Duh....

You missed my point. If a program's functionality is broken, I wonder
what the underlying cause is.[/QUOTE]

You missed *my* point. I've told you, in profound and accurate terms,
the underlying cause. This is a computer program. They have bugs. What's
more, this particular program is insanely complicated and is layered on
top of an insane number of frameworks etc. And it has a long history,
which after a while becomes a major liability. Bugs are absolutely
inevitable. If you're not psychologically prepared to encounter bugs all
the time, don't use computers. If you don't understand this, read The
Mythical Man-Month or some similar explanation. m.
 
S

Scott

You missed *my* point. I've told you, in profound and accurate terms,
the underlying cause. This is a computer program. They have bugs. What's
more, this particular program is insanely complicated and is layered on
top of an insane number of frameworks etc. And it has a long history,
which after a while becomes a major liability. Bugs are absolutely
inevitable. If you're not psychologically prepared to encounter bugs all
the time, don't use computers. If you don't understand this, read The
Mythical Man-Month or some similar explanation.

Do you have some need to resort to insults? Your first response did not
answer the question, and the second two were inappropriate. If you were
saying that you *knew* this was a particular bug in Entourage, you could
have said so. Paul Berkowitz said that "It does seem to be broken in
2004. I suspect it's a consequence of some of changes to Unicode in
either Panther or Entourage 2004. I'll report the bug." He was helpful
and clearly answered the question.

You, on the other hand, flippantly said "Uh, because this is a computer
program? Duh...." This doesn't answer anything. Your first response had
been "Could it be that it's just plain busted?", which sounds like you
were just making a wild guess and had no experience with why it wasn't
functioning. The statements did not reveal any knowledge or information
on your part about the problem. They did not indicate whether the
problem was limited to *my* system (for example, a corrupted support
file--something that could easily be fixed), or a bug in Entourage
itself; thus your responses were neither "profound" nor "accurate."
 
M

matt neuburg

Scott said:
have said so. Paul Berkowitz said that "It does seem to be broken in
2004. I suspect it's a consequence of some of changes to Unicode in
either Panther or Entourage 2004. I'll report the bug." He was helpful
and clearly answered the question.

You, on the other hand, flippantly said "Uh, because this is a computer
program? Duh...." This doesn't answer anything. Your first response had
been "Could it be that it's just plain busted?", which sounds like you
were just making a wild guess and had no experience with why it wasn't
functioning.

Okay, I'll do one more iteration before plonking, since this has
suddenly devolved into the gratuitous ad hominem. I don't usually do any
iterations in that realm, but I'll take the bait just this once.

Paul's response and mine are identical as regards content. We're both
saying it doesn't work and that that would seem to be a bug. That's all,
as far as it goes. He did not provide, nor does he have, any further
knowledge of the matter. We both did exactly the same thing: we tried
the menu item, it didn't work, we assumed it's a bug and that something
got broken along the way. Indeed, in that respect neither of us provided
any information that *you* didn't already have.

If anything, my response was *more* directly helpful than Paul's because
I then suggested a workaround (and in a later message I also commended
you for finding what might be an even better workaround).

Therefore there seems no rational reason for complaining that my
responses were flip. I think my responses were exactly on point. What
you didn't like about them was apparently that my responses were
realistic - I didn't pat your hand and go "Awwww, did wittle user find
wittle bug? Let Mommy kiss it and make it better." Mommy *isn't* going
to kiss it and make it better. It's a bug, ths program like all programs
is full of them, and it will get fixed if and when Microsoft fixes it
and no sooner. And no one here has the slightest idea when, if ever,
that will be. m.
 
S

Scott

Okay, I'll do one more iteration before plonking, since this has
suddenly devolved into the gratuitous ad hominem. I don't usually do any
iterations in that realm, but I'll take the bait just this once.

I find it ironic that you have made repeated ad hominems against me, but
then note that "this has suddenly devolved into the gratuitous ad
hominem." If you interpreted anything I said to be an ad hominem, I
apologize for it coming across that way; I was reacting defensively to
what I perceived as being such from you.

Paul's response and mine are identical as regards content. We're both
saying it doesn't work and that that would seem to be a bug. That's all,
as far as it goes. He did not provide, nor does he have, any further
knowledge of the matter. We both did exactly the same thing: we tried
the menu item, it didn't work, we assumed it's a bug and that something
got broken along the way. Indeed, in that respect neither of us provided
any information that *you* didn't already have.

Actually, Paul provided me information I did not have. For all I knew
when posting, the feature worked for every other Entourage 04 user.
Saying "could it be that it's just plain busted?" is not the same as
saying "it doesn't work for me either." I did not get the impression
that you had tried the menu item yourself.

If anything, my response was *more* directly helpful than Paul's because
I then suggested a workaround (and in a later message I also commended
you for finding what might be an even better workaround).

Indeed, and thank you. I do prefer to do things with as few steps as
possible.

Therefore there seems no rational reason for complaining that my
responses were flip. I think my responses were exactly on point. What
you didn't like about them was apparently that my responses were
realistic - I didn't pat your hand and go "Awwww, did wittle user find
wittle bug? Let Mommy kiss it and make it better." Mommy *isn't* going
to kiss it and make it better. It's a bug, ths program like all programs
is full of them, and it will get fixed if and when Microsoft fixes it
and no sooner. And no one here has the slightest idea when, if ever,
that will be. m.

"Uh, because this is a computer program? Duh.... " is a flippant answer,
and your incorrect supposition that I want "Mommy ... to kiss it and
make it better" went from flippant to plain insulting. It was also
undeserved since at no point did I ask for anything but thoughts about
why it was not working. Perhaps I should have been more explicit in my
reply to your first response, but when I asked "but does that indicate
some other underlying problem, one that should be taken care of," I was
asking whether it was a simple Entourage bug (something I couldn't do
anything about) or, as I've said repeatedly, whether this was due to a
damaged file *on my system* that could be fixed (e.g., tossing a
preference file and letting Entourage or another part of Office rebuild
it). It wasn't until Paul said that he had replicated the bug that I had
my answer.
 
M

matt neuburg

Scott said:
Actually, Paul provided me information I did not have. For all I knew
when posting, the feature worked for every other Entourage 04 user.
Saying "could it be that it's just plain busted?" is not the same as
saying "it doesn't work for me either." I did not get the impression
that you had tried the menu item yourself.

Your original post did not ask for confirmation. The only question it
posed was: "Any guesses?" It didn't work for me either, so I guessed, in
reply, that it was just plain busted. I still think this is a pretty
good guess. But it is just a guess; one counter-example would be
sufficient to disprove the theorem, and I do not have access to every
computer and every copy of Entourage (or time to check them all).

The conversation proceeded naturally from there, down the tubes like a
bad Albee play. You asked whether this indicated some underlying
problem. I had a little trouble making sense of that, but in general the
problem underlying the existence of a bug is that programs do have bugs,
and that is the answer I gave.

In every case I was simply responding to what you said, and I think I
responded accurately and directly.

So please, consider the possibility that the problem here is that you
failed to ask the question that you really wanted answered (perhaps this
would have been something like, "Is it just me, and if so what might I
be doing wrong, or is there a bug in Entourage?").

Perhaps you got the wrong impression from my first response because you
read it as a response to a question that was in your head, whereas I was
attempting to respond to the question that you actually asked. On the
other hand, Paul apparently used his Amazing Telepathy Power (tm, pat.
pend.) and answered the question you were thinking of but had not asked,
so naturally you liked his answer better.

In future, ask better questions. "You are more likely to get a useful
response if you are explicit about what you want respondents to do."

<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#explicit>

m.
 
Top