Odd interaction with a road rager

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:45 GMT, Jack Dingler
wrote:

IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
proportional spacing?

Get real. That isn't the only issue. It includes the centering on
margins, the superscript, and overall match with the memo. If you have
a Selectric and the one Times Roman type ball, you should be able to
match it up completely. The experts can't. OTOH, non-experts can match
it up exactly with Word in minutes.

Your defense is driven more by your political position, not logic. If
the reverse situation had occurred, you would have been attacking
these memos not only for their falsehood, but lining up stories about
how the Republic Party was behind each and everyone.

What cracks me up is watching the Dem Defenders on the talking heads shows.
When it's shown that the memos MUST be forgeries, they say stuff like, "We
should be talking about issues that affect us today, not things that
happened 30 years ago." Yet the DNC is running ads /featuring/ Dan Rather
(their "Fortunate Son" campaign). They've got balls, gotta give them that I
guess.

Can you imagine if someone produced forged documents disparaging Kerry?!?
Or if these ANG memos WERE real? Either way, their stance now is
hypocritical versus what they'd do in either of those cases.

Bill "almost funny" S.

Jack Dingler top-posted, so I'll delete the context:

What I saw on the news was a memo that looked typewritten to me,
especially with the top half of every letter faded out.

Could the memos be faked? Sure they could. But the public arguments
about proportional spacing and superscript made it clear to me that
those raising the concerns didn't know their subject matter well
enough to be experts.

In this topic like others, I haven't made up my mind. I don't have
access to the original records, and I don't trust folks like these
experts that say that proportional spacing couldn't be done with
typewriters.

You're convinced. That's cool. I have no problem with that. But in the
end it doesn't matter. In the scheme of the Bush / Kerry debate it
rates up there with arguing about the shade of colors in the team's
uniforms. No matter which team you root for, you get the same game.
Bush and Kerry don't differ as far as substance is concerned and this
memo debate demonstrates the difference are really about style and
fashion.

Also about who forged government documents in an attempt to influence a
federal election; and what major "news network" ignored warnings, denials
and red flags and went ahead and broadcast an inflamatory piece 45 days
before a presidential election. Oh, and WHY.

Bill "you know, nothing major" S.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:02:48 GMT, (Dave Mount)
wrote:

What is funny is that (as they put it), they let some people leave the contry
*at some stage*, because they *said* they hadn't had anything to do with
something.

Please check you Republican Paranoia at the door.

There is no paranoia reflected in my comments - I was simply stating
the facts without embellishment. There is some conspiracy paranoia
running around in your jokes.

BTW, I'll let you know if I ever register as a Republican. Being part
of a political party may be important to you and as some sort of
marker to recognize members of your herd and perceived enemies, but it
makes about as much sense to me as buying Ford or Chevy for no
discernable reason.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

....stuff deleted

It was a clear attempt to manipulate a national election and
smear a candidate with false information, all done by an anti-Bush
newsman with a clear agenda to elect Kerry. Someone forged bogus
government documents and now Rather and CBS are covering for the
criminal forger. Wasn't it Rather who said "The coverup is usually
worse than the original crime." when referring to Watergate?


This could easily have been forged and leaked by either party. Note that
since it is a copy, not an original, it is quite possible that someone
has duped the original and then made it look like a forgery to create a
diversion. The issue is fairly unclear as to whether it is a real copy,
a copy that was made and then altered, an original or copy that was
scanned and modified, etc. The real issue is who leaked it and why? I
can make a case for either party having the motivation and ability to do
so, for whatever reason there may be.

Frankly, I doubt it matters, overly, since this argument is fairly moot
and won't change anyone's mind. Personally, I fully believe that Bush
qualifies as a deserter. The reprimands, which are serious issues in the
military, are indicators that he wasn't playing by the rules. That the
reprimands did not result in punishment is a clear indicator that sons
of senators are, essentially, above the law, something which makes me
detest the man even more than the fact that he didn't fully perform his
obligations. We are not supposed to be a society based upon nepotism,
favoritism, and bias, yet it is clear that we are, always have been, and
always will be. Those of us who play by the rules are taken advantage of
by those who do not. This, more than anything else, is why I detest the
man.

This is, however, only my opinion. As such, it is worth no more than
Ken's (except to me, perhaps).

Rick

Jack Dingler wrote:

I'll likely vote for a flip-flopping hypocritical liar, but I have
(not) figured out which one yet.

Now that you've identified the culprits, you're going to vote for
one of them? If we keep voting for Republicrats, who do you think
we'll continue to be stuck with?
The One Party system lives on.
Mitch.

"Rick" wrote

This could easily have been forged and leaked by either party. Note that
since it is a copy, not an original, it is quite possible that someone
has duped the original and then made it look like a forgery to create a
diversion. The issue is fairly unclear as to whether it is a real copy,
a copy that was made and then altered, an original or copy that was
scanned and modified, etc. The real issue is who leaked it and why? I
can make a case for either party having the motivation and ability to do
so, for whatever reason there may be.

Very true.
Shame on the republicans for creating the forgeries, and shame on the
democrats (and CBS) for falling all over themselves promoting forged memos
as real.
or
Shame on the democrats for creating the forgeries and promoting them as
real.

Either way....

Frankly, I doubt it matters, overly, since this argument is fairly moot
and won't change anyone's mind. Personally, I fully believe that Bush
qualifies as a deserter. The reprimands, which are serious issues in the
military, are indicators that he wasn't playing by the rules. That the
reprimands did not result in punishment is a clear indicator that sons
of senators are, essentially, above the law, something which makes me
detest the man even more than the fact that he didn't fully perform his
obligations. We are not supposed to be a society based upon nepotism,
favoritism, and bias, yet it is clear that we are, always have been, and
always will be. Those of us who play by the rules are taken advantage of
by those who do not. This, more than anything else, is why I detest the
man.

Reprimands? What reprimands?

Pete

...stuff deleted

Reprimands? What reprimands?

Pete


Pete,

This whole stink began because Bush's files contained several notations
that he'd missed certain key training dates and not reported to service
during the requisite time periods. These were explained by the Bush clan
as saying that he was working on his father's campaign. This didn't
exactly wash as an excuse to those who put the notations in his file. In
military terms, such notations are reprimands (though not the beginning
of a formal investigation). Such notations have led to individuals who
do not have parents in positions of power to active service. Failure at
that point leads to legal proceedings, for most individuals.

Rick

Jack Dingler wrote:

Ken [NY) wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:17:10 GMT, Jack Dingler
claims:

The major news media has been reporting that the Taliban and Al Queda
have retaken much of Afghanistan with the US and the appointed
government staying in bases, near the oil infrastructure and protected
areas. They could be lying of course. You never know whta to believe in
the news, so much of it is invented political stuff.

The Northern Alliance of Poppy Growers and Heroin Producers that the US
backed, have been reported as funding the resistance.

But then at this point there seems to be an uneasy truce. They leave the
pipeles alone and we don't shell villages.

I think your info is just old, Ken.

Is your "major news media" source the same folks who gave us
the anti-Bush phoney memos done on Microsoft Word in the 1970s before
Microsoft was founded?

I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace.

But not on government correspondence. That was always done with the
standard "typewriter" font. Making corrections on proportionally-spaced
typed copy was a real bitch if you had to replace an i with an m or vice
versa. And the feds used smaller paper to save money, and I'm pretty
sure that they would never have put that centered-at-the-top
"letterhead" on memos either.

I think the Selectric had the first interchangeable heads, but I typed
on an IBM Executive (proportional weighted type, beautiful output) at
least a decade before Selectrics. The type on the memo in question was
NOT weighted, just proportionally spaced. Cheap and ugly.

In fact, the proportional spacing that the experts claim was impossible to
do with a typewriter, was introduced by IBM in 1941. Back in the 1970s,
you could swap typefaces in the middle of letters and even use different
colored print ribbons. Was a heady time for the typewriter industry.

The feds wouldn't have done that, though. Everything they typed looked
cheesy. By design.

Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century technology.

No ****. In 1963 I typed a 2-page right-justified brochure on my IBM
Executive. God, it was beautiful. It looked like real print. You had
to type it once, figure out how much space you had to add or subtract in
each line and then type it again. Kerning by hand, so to speak. It was
really fun. The alternative was paying somebody with a Varityper (I
think that's what it was) to crank it out at some exhorbitant cost per
word. I worked cheaper than that.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =======
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections,1995

In article ,
Elisa Francesca Roselli writes:

But this is really off-topic.

I just had an epiphany (don't ask me how it was induced

Edgar Winter for Prez; Rick Derringer for VP.
Johnny Winter for Solicitor-General, or whatever
it is the Americans call the main legal guy.

That should rock the country out. And maybe let Lenny
Kravitz do some stuff, if he's not too noisy & shrill
about it. Maybe he could at least yell at Ted Nugent,
Charleton Heston, Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Donald Trump,
Bill Maher, Montel Williams, Tony Brown, Wolf Blitzer, and
all those puffed-up talking heads on network news and PBS.

Yeah. America needs a figure who'll yell at all those
irritants, and put them in their God-damned places -- for
the people, by the people, and of the people. Maybe Alice
Cooper could back him up.

If that's not possible, I'd hope Americans would then
just vote for the guy who best knows the lyrics to Bob
Dylan's 'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall', and who can best
hold his liquor. Of the two obvious choices, I don't
believe either qualifies.


cheers,
Tom


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Muttley wrote:

Bill "am I reall this dense" S.

No, Bill. The system where we let the politicians and media tells us
what's good for us.

It's so much easier that way for the hard of thinking.

Dishonest quoting (with a lame typo at that) suits you, Mutt. That's all I
need to know about you.

Bill "he who tells little lies tells big ones, too" S.