This solution is easy. Forget any sites or solutions that told you run some something in the “VBA editor” and blah, blah, blah.
So, you opened a template you’ve created previously, and tweaked it. Now you just want to save the updated template as a template, in the special folder where they go, and under the same name as before. But … you’re getting blocked by a dreaded dialogue box that says, “Word cannot give a document the same name as an open document.” Argh!
I ran into this using MS Word on Mac OS X (in multiple versions of the operating system and through multiple updates of Word from Microsoft). However, it seems that Windows users also have the same issue. Word just won’t let you save it as a template. What to do?
Try this quick and easy solution: Save as the .DOTX only after first saving as a .DOT. It’s that easy!
Click File > Save.
Under “Format” choose “.DOT” (Word 97 – 2004 Template). (Notice that we are not doing .DOTX yet.)
Repeat above steps, but this time choose .DOTX. Viola!
This will essentially give you two of the same template, but that does not hurt. In fact, one could serve as a backup, just in case.
Sound off in the comments and let me know whether this helps or not.
This amazing article on canning was really intriguing. You won’t even believe what some people have canned, and for how long it can remain editable, and even improve in flavor instead of degrading. The last thing on the list will blow your mind! Read the full article.
This WCHS channel 8 report is either biased or hugely ignorant: it paints the Democrats’ recently defeated bill as being about “free contraception,” when it was actually about overturning the Hobby Lobby ruling, which was about (and specifically limited to) abortifacients as pertaining to an unlawful effort by HHS to force persons to pay for the abortifacients, even if against their religious convictions.
Furthermore, the report inaccurately implies that the bill was about “restoring” something that American women supposedly lost due to the Hobby Lobby ruling. That is either deliberately misleading or ignorantly misguided, as the whole point of the Hobby Lobby case was that the unlawful HHS mandate tried to impose a brand new burden on religious persons (that of paying for abortifacient coverage for employees) which was not something that American women ever “had” previously.
Since there never was such a mandate lawfully implemented against religious persons, there is nothing to be “restored.” The HHS mandate itself was not implemented by Congress. It was conjured out of thin air by HHS, and insomuch as it sought to overpower religious persons (via coercing closely-held corporations), it was against the law from the start. In other words, it was always illegal from the start. It never legally existed as far as closely-held, religious, for-profit corporations are concerned. Not only was the mandate itself unlawful from the start, but it never actually took hold—an injunction was granted. Then it was invalidated by the US Supreme Court before ever being enforced for even a single day against Hobby Lobby.
Both before and after the ruling, any American woman employed by a religious person/corporation had and still has the legal occasion to buy and pay for certain abortifacients, on her own. To reiterate, those women still have that option now. There was only an unlawful, failed attempt by HHS to create a government mandate that all corporations, even closely-held religious ones (both for-profits and non-profits), be compelled (by penalty of crippling fines) to pay for abortifacient coverage in violation of religious conviction. It was struck down, as pertaining to closely-held, religious, for-profit corporations. American women lost nothing by that ruling. There was never anything to be restored. How can the reporter be so mistaken on this?
Furthermore, it is both alarming and sad that Senator Manchin is so easily confused and so utterly mistaken on the true issues at stake here. According to the report,Senator Manchin holds that if one is a religious person then he or she is not permitted to make a profit as a corporation and still have his or her religious freedom protected. The senator is simply, sadly, horrendously wrong. Religious persons are indeed free to make a profit, even as corporations, and not check their religion at the door. So says the law, in clear language, and thus it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
If you wanted to see fireworks in D.C., you didn’t have to wait for July 4th. Yesterday’s decision on the HHS mandate exploded on the media scene, lighting a fuse under the radicals of the Left. While most Americans watched with pleasure as a pillar of ObamaCare fell, liberals sulked at another loss for lawlessness. Democrats couldn’t fire off their press releases fast enough as they vowed to push their assault on faith in the marketplace by ending justices’ opt-out. Promising a legislative fix, Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insisted that Americans’ “right” to sex-on-demand trumps a company’s deeply held beliefs on contraception and abortifacients.
As out of touch as liberals are with the law, it turns out that they’re even more out of touch with voters. While the Left trotted out its tired “war on women” line, FRC’s Cathy Ruse pointed out that the majority of women opposed the mandate — including 60% of the lower court female judges who voted to stop it!
There is some odd confusion regarding what’s at the heart of the Hobby Lobby case—resulting in part from [willful?] misleads by the liberal media (notice Bill calling out CBS Radio regarding blatant false reporting) and liberal politicians (for example, Hillary Clinton, the clear early frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race, proves in her response to the Supreme Court’s decision protecting Hobby Lobby from the Obama HHS mandate that she really has no fundamental understanding of what the case was about). It seems many on the left incorrectly think the case was in regard to “all” contraceptives (i.e. Hobby Lobby supposedly being exempted from paying for any contraception). Yet the Christian-owned company already pays for 16 of 20 contraceptives that the HHS mandate insists upon. Only the four that could cause the abortion of a fertilized embryo were contested. Even then, the case was not about blocking anyone’s “access” to those four abortifacients, but rather about preventing Obama’s HHS from compelling business owners to pay for the abortifacients in violation of the owners’ religious beliefs.
However, there is an underlying issue at stake, just as important as the obvious one.
Ever since America fell so far as to have many of its citizens think that only non-profit persons/entities can be permitted to hold religious convictions, this is the first time that such a bogus and dangerous notion has been tested and decided upon at the highest level. You only get one chance to have a legal “first impression” in the highest court of the land.
Punishing owners of for-profit businesses simply because they are unwilling to check their religious beliefs at the door is the edge of a legal razor blade that was bound to eventually strike at the judicial heart of our society. The precedent set here will have ramifications so far reaching that it’s practically beyond the description of words—and the timing is crucial, because the worldview of the SCOTUS justices serving at the given moment will determine where they come down on this, and likely will dictate pretty much forever afterward how related issues will be decided.
It is disturbing that four of the nine justices dissented in this case, discounting the hallowed American tradition of protecting our right to free exercise of religion. This judgment almost went the wrong way. By a margin of only one vote, freedom of religion was upheld. It is alarming that the decision was even close.
Had Kathleen Sabellius and her HHS minions not overreached at this point in history—if their challenge were to have occurred later, after additional moral decline and perhaps even the replacement of conservative justices with liberal justices, or perhaps just after gradual changing of the minds of some justices—the decision could have gone the other way. Thankfully, America got a 5-4 decision in favor of religious freedom.
The Obama Administration’s HHS department overreached so far that their unlawful demands resulted in threatening all closely-held corporations (e.g. family-owned, for-profit businesses) with massive punitive fines so steep it would bankrupt the businesses unless they comply and pay for abortifacient drugs. That forced the matter to be dealt with. Before the judgment was announced, I was quite concerned. In the end, I’m relieved that it was now and not at some later time. The forces of the left jumped the gun. At a later time the same overreach might have resulted in a bad decision instead. As it was, we got a good decision from the court.
The struggle for right is far from over, though. My friend and fellow author, John F. Harrison, summed things up powerfully when he said to me recently, “It irks me that people are so unclear on the issues, and the mainstream media is deliberately making them unclear. This was never about ‘access’ to contraceptives or anything else. Or have we become so infantalized by the nanny state that we believe we only have ‘access’ to something if it is provided free by the government or paid for by a third party?”
It’s common knowledge that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, right? Only problem: That stat is wrong.
Have you ever quoted the facts about the 50 percent divorce rate? Yeah? So have I. Have you ever lamented the fact that the divorce rate was the same in the church? Or that most marriages are just hanging in there, not vibrant and happy? … I had no idea that every one of the statistics I was quoting—statistics that fit both with conventional wisdom and what I saw reported in the media—were nowhere close to true…. [read more].
“In recent years, many churches have dropped all images of war in favor of a peace treaty with the world. We speak of Jesus as a healer and leader, but not Lord and King. We shout grace, whisper repentance and make inordinate attempts to ingratiate ourselves with those who oppose us. We retreat into silence in the face of horrendous evil and hope it will all go away….” [read more]
“Views on sexuality among young adults are dramatically different from previous generations. As a Boomer, I thought I was part of the generation that ushered in the sexual revolution. But I had no idea that views on sexuality would change so dramatically with the generation of my three sons. The implications for local congregations are staggering…” [read more]
This humorous post on the JoeForAmerica website has a list of “13 Images that will Stress-Out OCD Sufferers” — with an additional stress coming from a misspelling in the title (it has sense been corrected, but the URL still shows “Sufferers” misspelled as “Suffers”). Whether or not the additional stress was intentional or accidental, we applied our Photoshop “Skilz” to creating a li’l “test” to reveal who the truly OCD people are. In the upper left is the original “problem” image. Can you explain which fix is right, and why?
Here in West Virginia, as in many parts of the country, this past winter poured many, many snow storms on us (above average), and even the so-called early spring has had several snow storms.
Today, on April 7, by faith I officially turned off the artificial snowflakes feature of this blog, with hopes that the last snow of the season is behind us. This is despite the fact that it is currently still quite chilly here, and there were reports of snow in some parts of West Virginia as recently as night before last!
Algore, how’s that “global warming” thing working out for you?
(My study of the research indicates there has been no evidence of global warming for over 15 years, yet government officials and tree-hugger “science” people still cling to their stance about it, while others want to continue to foster gestapo-style tactics under the moniker of “climate change” instead of “global warming.” Sigh.)
