Teletubbies have graffitied my document

[Guy Worthington]

You Americans are so forthright. In every other
english speaking nation 'graffiti' is a taboo word because
of its weird spelling - no-one ever remembers when to use
'graffito' or when to use 'graffiti'. All you can really
guarantee is that whichever you use you'll be wrong. But
not only have you Americans dispensed with the irregular
spelling of graffiti, you've also turned it into a verb[1].
I love American; it cuts through all the crap.

Anyway I digress.

I have some EPS pictures which I'd like to include in
my document. Currently, I'm including the graphics by

1) selecting from the menu Insert|Picture|From File

2) In the pop-up window 'Insert Picture', checking the
option 'Link to File' and unchecking the option
'Save with document'

3) Still in the pop-up window 'Insert Picture', browsing
to the graphics file and double-clicking.

4) The pop-up window now changes to a window 'Convert File'.
I select the option 'Encapsulated PostScript' and press OK.

A picture place holder is created in my Word document. It
displays the following information:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Title:
Creator: Metapost
Preview: This EPS picture was not saved with a preview ...
Comment: This EPS picture will print to a PostScript printer ...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sure enough the picture will print to a PostScript printer.

I then save my word document and close the document.

When I re-open the document it has been vandalized; I now have
set of shapes: a circle, a triangle and a square. Teletubbies
have graffitied over my graphic.

When I press Alt-F9 I get the field code:

{INCLUDEPICTURE "figs\\flowchart.1" \* MERGEFORMAT \d}

Where's my graphic gone?

[1] I'd find turning a noun into a verb, in some cases,
quaint: For instance I don't think I'd ever get used to
a sentence such as "I am going to lawn the front yard."
As usual though, Word 97's grammar check finds that valid.

 

[Shauna Kelly]

Hi Guy

I'm not an American, so I profess no expertise in the verbing of
graffitos<g>.

However, you clearly have a severe infestation of navigationally-challenged
teletubbies. Specifically, I think you will need to tell them where to go
and find this picture of yours. The location "figs\\flowchart.1" may be
insufficient for teletubbies to know where to find your picture. While your
newly-created document is open, they know where they are, and can cope with
a relative address. When you re-open Word, they lose their orientation
(teletubbies are not very bright). So you need to tell them, for example, to
get the picture from c:\\my folder\\figs\\flowchart.1.

Press Alt-F9 to expose the field codes. Edit the field codes to provide a
complete address including a drive designation (eg c:\\ or e:\\), press F9
to update the field and Alt-F9 to display the field result rather than the
field codes. Note the double backslashes.

If that doesn't work, try the "Gotchas" section at
http://www.word.mvps.org/FAQs/DrwGrphcs/index.htm.

Hope this helps.

Shauna Kelly. Microsoft MVP.
http://www.shaunakelly.com/word

You Americans are so forthright. In every other
english speaking nation 'graffiti' is a taboo word because
of its weird spelling - no-one ever remembers when to use
'graffito' or when to use 'graffiti'. All you can really
guarantee is that whichever you use you'll be wrong. But
not only have you Americans dispensed with the irregular
spelling of graffiti, you've also turned it into a verb[1].
I love American; it cuts through all the crap.

Anyway I digress.

I have some EPS pictures which I'd like to include in
my document. Currently, I'm including the graphics by

1) selecting from the menu Insert|Picture|From File

2) In the pop-up window 'Insert Picture', checking the
option 'Link to File' and unchecking the option
'Save with document'

3) Still in the pop-up window 'Insert Picture', browsing
to the graphics file and double-clicking.

4) The pop-up window now changes to a window 'Convert File'.
I select the option 'Encapsulated PostScript' and press OK.

A picture place holder is created in my Word document. It
displays the following information:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Title:
Creator: Metapost
Preview: This EPS picture was not saved with a preview ...
Comment: This EPS picture will print to a PostScript printer ...
----------------------------------------------------------------

Sure enough the picture will print to a PostScript printer.

I then save my word document and close the document.

When I re-open the document it has been vandalized; I now have
set of shapes: a circle, a triangle and a square. Teletubbies
have graffitied over my graphic.

When I press Alt-F9 I get the field code:

{INCLUDEPICTURE "figs\\flowchart.1" \* MERGEFORMAT \d}

Where's my graphic gone?

[1] I'd find turning a noun into a verb, in some cases,
quaint: For instance I don't think I'd ever get used to
a sentence such as "I am going to lawn the front yard."
As usual though, Word 97's grammar check finds that valid.

 

[Carl.]

You Americans are so forthright. In every other
english speaking nation 'graffiti' is a taboo word because
of its weird spelling - no-one ever remembers when to use
'graffito' or when to use 'graffiti'. All you can really
guarantee is that whichever you use you'll be wrong. But
not only have you Americans dispensed with the irregular
spelling of graffiti, you've also turned it into a verb[1].
I love American; it cuts through all the crap.

Our application of the word is usually for things that don't deserve the
respect of proper grammar (i.e., vandalism with spray paint), so probably
nobody in America will care. But just in case, they can read more hear:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=graffiti

I admit I was ignorant on the plural and singular forms of this Italian
word, but I still prefer to refer to vandalism as a whole lot of rubbish, as
opposed to recognizing an individual piece as unique. If I say, "among all
of the graffiti in our city is one piece of graffito on this wall," I feel
like I am giving that mark of vandalism some kind of individualized respect
it does not deserve. I would rather lump it all together as more of the
same rubbish, inseparable from any other similar mark, by using the plural
word. I am therefore not making an error in language, as I was before, but
making a purposeful statement about the subject.

I don't think anyone in the US uses the strict definition of the word (which
I take to mean any written work displayed to the public, without regard for
intent or legality).

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

opposed to recognizing an individual piece as unique. If I say, "among
all

of the graffiti in our city is one piece of graffito on this wall," I feel

No, that would be "one graffito" or "one piece of graffiti."

You Americans are so forthright. In every other
english speaking nation 'graffiti' is a taboo word because
of its weird spelling - no-one ever remembers when to use
'graffito' or when to use 'graffiti'. All you can really
guarantee is that whichever you use you'll be wrong. But
not only have you Americans dispensed with the irregular
spelling of graffiti, you've also turned it into a verb[1].
I love American; it cuts through all the crap.

Our application of the word is usually for things that don't deserve the
respect of proper grammar (i.e., vandalism with spray paint), so probably
nobody in America will care. But just in case, they can read more hear:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=graffiti

I admit I was ignorant on the plural and singular forms of this Italian
word, but I still prefer to refer to vandalism as a whole lot of rubbish, as
opposed to recognizing an individual piece as unique. If I say, "among all
of the graffiti in our city is one piece of graffito on this wall," I feel
like I am giving that mark of vandalism some kind of individualized respect
it does not deserve. I would rather lump it all together as more of the
same rubbish, inseparable from any other similar mark, by using the plural
word. I am therefore not making an error in language, as I was before, but
making a purposeful statement about the subject.

I don't think anyone in the US uses the strict definition of the word (which
I take to mean any written work displayed to the public, without regard for
intent or legality).

 

[Guy Worthington]

Guy Worthington wrote:

Hello Shauna Kelly:

not only have you Americans dispensed with the irregular
spelling of graffiti, you've also turned it into a verb[1].
I love American; it cuts through all the crap.

I'm not an American, so I profess no expertise in the verbing of
graffitos<g>.

LOL - graffitos sounds like a low-rent mexican restaurant.

[I'm inserting a graphic into a document. After everthing is done
and I've reloaded my document in Word, my gorgeous graphic is shown
as a black framed square/circle/triangle[1].]

(teletubbies are not very bright) ... Try the "Gotchas" section at
http://www.word.mvps.org/FAQs/DrwGrphcs/index.htm.

You're way too trusting: never ascribe to stupidity what can adequately
be explained by malevolence[2]. Teletubbies are sly.

I have stumbled across a, as unyet unnamed, Gotcha (modesty prevents
me naming it). If you have a graphics file name that isn't recognized
by Word, then it will graffiti over your pictures. I eventually had
to rename my file from 'flowchart.1' to 'flowchart-1.eps' so that Word
would recognize it as an EPS graphic.

[1] I thought I add plagarism to my growing list of crimes.
This sentence was actually composed by Cerstin Franz for
microsoft.public.word.drawing.graphics (date:2000-12-02).
If you look carefully, though, you'll see I've carefully
removed the 's' from graphics so that it can't be traced
back to the original article. Cut and paste babies rule!

[2] No idea where I read that quote - maybe it was graffito.

 

[Guy Worthington]

Carl wrote:

Hello Carl:

Our application of the word [graffiti] is usually for things that don't
deserve the respect of proper grammar ...
I don't think anyone in the US uses the strict definition of the word
(which I take to mean any written work displayed to the public,
without regard for intent or legality).

In my country, the only people who have the power to publish in
public without any legal repercussions are politicians - they
are protected by 'parliamentary privilege'. Funnily enough,
our application of the word politician is usually for things
that don't deserve the respect of proper grammar.

 

[Carl.]

It becomes clearer yet. Good thing I am abstaining from "graffito"
altogether.

opposed to recognizing an individual piece as unique. If I say, "among all
of the graffiti in our city is one piece of graffito on this wall," I

feel

No, that would be "one graffito" or "one piece of graffiti."

You Americans are so forthright. In every other
english speaking nation 'graffiti' is a taboo word because
of its weird spelling - no-one ever remembers when to use
'graffito' or when to use 'graffiti'. All you can really
guarantee is that whichever you use you'll be wrong. But
not only have you Americans dispensed with the irregular
spelling of graffiti, you've also turned it into a verb[1].
I love American; it cuts through all the crap.

Our application of the word is usually for things that don't deserve the
respect of proper grammar (i.e., vandalism with spray paint), so probably
nobody in America will care. But just in case, they can read more hear:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=graffiti

I admit I was ignorant on the plural and singular forms of this Italian
word, but I still prefer to refer to vandalism as a whole lot of

rubbish,

as
opposed to recognizing an individual piece as unique. If I say, "among all
of the graffiti in our city is one piece of graffito on this wall," I feel
like I am giving that mark of vandalism some kind of individualized respect
it does not deserve. I would rather lump it all together as more of the
same rubbish, inseparable from any other similar mark, by using the plural
word. I am therefore not making an error in language, as I was before, but
making a purposeful statement about the subject.

I don't think anyone in the US uses the strict definition of the word (which
I take to mean any written work displayed to the public, without regard for
intent or legality).

 

[Carl.]

Carl wrote:

Hello Carl:

Our application of the word [graffiti] is usually for things that don't
deserve the respect of proper grammar ...
I don't think anyone in the US uses the strict definition of the word
(which I take to mean any written work displayed to the public,
without regard for intent or legality).

In my country, the only people who have the power to publish in
public without any legal repercussions are politicians - they
are protected by 'parliamentary privilege'. Funnily enough,
our application of the word politician is usually for things
that don't deserve the respect of proper grammar.

Funny how some things are different, but still the same.