From: "Gary Britt" 

If by formatting differently you mean different margins and things like
that, then insert a non-continuous section break at the beginning and end
of the page in question.  Then that page can have different margins, etc.

You don't really drop text "into" a template, unless you want
that text to be permanently part of the template.  You open a new blank
document with that particular template "attached" to it.  You can
only attach a different template by using the mouse to click File | New and
then selecting the template you want to base the document upon.  In the
file new dialog box you have the choice somewhere to make the
"new" thing a document with the template attached or open the
template itself in situations where you want to permanently change
something about the template.  The default is to open the "new"
thing as a document with the template attached.

When a template is attached to a document then the formatting styles,
macros, shortkeys, etc. contained in that template become part of the
"document" to which it is attached (but changes to the document
do NOT change the template), and if those styles, macros, etc. have the
same names but different settings from the styles and macros in your
general purpose template (file name Normal.dot but listed as "Blank
Document" in the File | New dialog box) then the ones in the special
purpose template take precedence.  You can also check and make changes to
what template is attached to a document by looking under the Tools menu for
something similar to "Tools and Add-ins".  That dialog box will
show you what template is attached to the current document and will even
allow you to change the template that is attached to that document.

Clear as mud right? 

I preferred word for dos to WordPerfect because I felt word for dos was
faster and easier to use for almost everything.  However, if you needed to
do complex mail merges and other heavy macro language things, then
WordPerfect had a much superior macro language to word for dos.

Gary


"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:63aj71dph9oj5k5bt95vgf7h9klnc05k1f{at}4ax.com...
> In the DOS days I used WordPerfect.   Gave it up kicking and screaming.
> The funniest thing is how similar HTML is to the WP "revealed codes".
>
> But now I'm used to Word, although there are still a few things that
> make me crazy, like the difficulty (for me anyway) of formatting
> individual pages of a document differently.   I also don't really
> understand how to use a template, i.e. be able to open a template and
> drop text into it and then save it as a document.  And will never
> understand why adding a header or footer has to be done through the
> "View" menu.   Fortunately I don't need to be a power user.
>
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 19:35:51 -0400, "Gary Britt"

> wrote in message :
>
> >Word has had the ability to open and I think save RTF format since the
> >1980's and Word For Dos.  Microsoft promoted it back then as a basis for
> >document interchange between different programs.  The last few years it
has
> >really taken off because of various Web/Email uses of RTF format.
> >
> >Gary
> >(Its hard to believe how long I've been using MS Word.  I still have
> >functioning copies of both MS Word 5 for Dos and MS Word 6 for Dos on my
> >computers.  Never really used 6 as I moved to windows finally.  I still
fire
> >up Word 5 from time to time to because I had/have a specialized
> >medical/legal dictionary for Word 5.  So if I encounter a new
legal/medical
> >term not in Word 2000 spell checker and my heavily customized custom.dic
> >file, I paste the word into Word 5, spell check it with the medical/legal
> >dictionary and then put the verified correct spelling as an addition to
my
> >Word 2000 custom.dic file.)
> >
> >"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
> >news:8nli711bh9silqplhjng86nrlg7pfor8kj{at}4ax.com...
> >> We don't do any fancy Word formatting.
> >>
> >> Still, I wonder why this "feature" is in Word in
the first place.
> >>
> >>  /m
> >>
> >> On Tue, 3 May 2005 17:06:38 -0400, "Gary Britt"

> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think that confirms what Ellen wrote.  If you open the
document and
do
> >> >control-a, control-c and then open a new blank document
and paste into
it
> >> >and then do a file save, it should give you the same savings as via
the
> >rtf
> >> >route, but formatting might be better preserved with copy
and paste.
RTF
> >> >doesn't support everything that Word does formatting wise.
> >> >
> >> >Gary
> >> >
> >> >"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
> >> >news:3mpf71p6uk8g6oa54a5lf4idsn6aifa888{at}4ax.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> Save to .rtf seems to help.
> >> >>
> >> >>  /m
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:55:56 -0700, Ellen K.
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I think the "deleted" stuff is never
actually deleted, it's only
> >tagged
> >> >> >as such.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Try copy and paste from the old one to a fresh
one and modify that,
> >> >> >instead of continuing to use the same one all the time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:23:12 -0400, Mike '/m'

wrote
> >in
> >> >> >message
:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Two of the Software Engineers who send me a
status report each
week
> >have
> >> >> >>a problem with growing Word files.   They
seem to grow by about
> >20-30k
> >> >> >>each week, even though the status report
remains about the same
> >amount
> >> >> >>of words.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>The sequence used to write the status report
is to take last
week's
> >> >> >>report, modify the text with what is new and
save as a new
filename.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>I already checked and fast saves are
disabled.  I am not sure
where
> >else
> >> >> >>to look.  One Engineer has Office XP, the
other Office 2003.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Any suggestions on how to control this problem?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> /m
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5