Odd interaction with a road rager



Jack Dingler wrote:
> IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
> proportional spacing?

Dude, you've GOT to stop top-posting. It reveals your idiocy even more than
what you write.

Bill "and that's an accomplishment" S.
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qjw2d.58641$MQ5.18065@attbi_s52...
> I don't see the proof here. The military would've had to have bought
> typewriters that predated WWII to avoid getting these basic features.
> Something that would've been costly in 1971.
>
> I think to make you point that the military couldn't afford the cheapest
> of student typewriters at the time, would be to argue that the military
> couldn't afford typewriters at all. My mom certainly couldn't afford an
> expensive one.

An IBM Selectric wasn't exactly "the cheapest of student typewriters".

>
> I never argued that the balls were changed mid-memo, I just argued that
> it was easy to do.

But for that particular memo to be real, thats exactly what would have had
to happen.

>
> The argument is that proportional spacing and alternate fonts were
> impossible to produce on a typewriter in 1971. That's just false. In
> fact the main argument that proportional spacing was impossible was also
> false as even manual typewriters had had that feature for 30 years.
>
> I think your best case here is just to say you don't believe it. And
> that's cool. But the case that this was impossible, has to be false.

Never said it was "impossible" to do. Earlier statements from me have said
jut the opposite, in fact.

Highly unlikely, though.

The secretary of the Lt Col in question said she didn't type it.
The ball change would have had to be done mid-word.
They were evidently faxed from a Kinko's in Abilene. Which happens to be the
closest Kinko's to the home of a former Texas Air Guard officer, who has
publicly stated allegations against the Bush and the TXANG in the past, and
then recanted those statements.
There are speecific regulations (which I'm not going to bother to look up)
regarding military abbreviations and fonts. Incorrect instances of both
appear in these docs.

You can swing at this windmill all you want, but that doesn't make those
docs real.

Pete
 
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:45 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
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.

End of this part of the discussion. And pretty much everything else
has been covered as well.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Really? In what way? Because the norm is bottom postion? I don't see a
clear defining reason to think I'm an idiot for doing this. Have you got
a rulebook handy?

I've alternated in top and bottom and mid posting, since 1981. You're
the first to say that I'm an idiot for doing it.

Jack Dingler

S o r n i wrote:

>Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
>>IBM Selectrics and other common typewriters of the time couldn't do
>>proportional spacing?
>>
>>
>
>Dude, you've GOT to stop top-posting. It reveals your idiocy even more than
>what you write.
>
>Bill "and that's an accomplishment" S.
>
>
>
>
 
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:50:07 -0700, Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:

>The only reason I knew how to type is that I
>took typing class in high school, the only boy in a class full of girls,

I got thrown out. I and the other guy set the platen/carriage lock on
release, so when everyone was told to set up the typewriter to start
the day and hit the tab, all the carriages went flying, sort of. The
four at the end took the best part of six months to pay for.

We were going to look innocent, but we were laughing too hard to be
much of a success.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
Jack Dingler wrote (placed where it makes sense to the reader):

> S o r n i wrote:

>> Dude, you've GOT to stop top-posting. It reveals your idiocy even
>> more than what you write.

> Really? In what way? Because the norm is bottom postion? I don't see a
> clear defining reason to think I'm an idiot for doing this. Have you
> got a rulebook handy?

I don't need a rule book to realize that a thread gets incoherent fast when
one person top-posts while all others are being logical and considerate.
Reading your posts is like joining a conversation in the middle, with no
clue what's being talked about.

> I've alternated in top and bottom and mid posting, since 1981. You're
> the first to say that I'm an idiot for doing it.

Guess we can add reading comprehension to your list of shortcomings. (Hint:
I didn't say that top-posting MADE you an idiot.)

Bill "btw, the fact that you don't always do it makes it that much more
perplexing" S.
 
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:45:58 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:45:37 GMT, [email protected] (Dave Mount)
>wrote:
>
>>>Osama's father has 20 wives and Osama himself is one of 56 brothers and sisters. As
>>>far as we know he is the only terrorist. The mere fact of being a blood relative of
>>>his does not suffice to incrimminate a family the size of a large village.
>>
>>Very fair point, but it doesn't really address what I said: i.e.
>>
>>| It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
>>| just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.
>>
>>
>>Nothing to do with who, or how many.
>
>Except

Except nothing.

I'm not suggesting *anything* about who left when, or who, or how many. The
politics is immaterial to the joke!

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.
 
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.

Jack Dingler

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:45 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>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.
>
>End of this part of the discussion. And pretty much everything else
>has been covered as well.
>
>Curtis L. Russell
>Odenton, MD (USA)
>Just someone on two wheels...
>
>
>
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:svE2d.317173$8_6.218893@attbi_s04
> Really? In what way? Because the norm is bottom postion? I don't see a
> clear defining reason to think I'm an idiot for doing this. Have you
> got a rulebook handy?

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm

http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:svE2d.317173$8_6.218893@attbi_s04
> Really? In what way? Because the norm is bottom postion? I don't see a
> clear defining reason to think I'm an idiot for doing this. Have you
> got a rulebook handy?

Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/gey_stv0.htm

http://www.fscked.co.uk/writing/top-posting-cuss.html

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:40:45 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
> 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, [email protected] (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...
 
S o r n i wrote:

>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.
>
>
>
Right, it's all about the show. Nothing but a carnival so the candidates
don't need to debate issues and the public doesn't either.

Besides, all that stuff about the economy, the price of oil, the war on
Iraq and the war on terror are all big complicated subjects too deep for
the public. Let the politicians and media tells us what's good for us.

Jack Dingler
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:31:30 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>claims:
>
>
>
>>This whole issue of Al Qaeda is a red herring anyway. The resistance in
>>Iraq isn't Al Qaeda imported from Afghanistan as the White House tells
>>us, it's made of native born Iraqis with no ties to Al Qaeda. These
>>people believe they are fighting for God and Iraq.
>>
>>Jack Dingler
>>
>>
>
>Bin Laden’s Iraq Plans
>At a secret meeting, bin Laden’s reps give bad news to the Taliban:
>Qaeda fighters are shifting to a new front
>U.S. troops in Afghanistan may face less resistance as Qaeda
>leadership diverts fighters to Iraq
>By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
>Newsweek
>
>Dec. 15 issue - During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior
>Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan
>with two top Taliban commanders.
>
>The confab took place in mid-November in the remote,
>Taliban-controlled mountains of Khowst province near the Pakistan
>border, a region where Al Qaeda has found it easy to
>operate—frequently even using satellite phones despite U.S.
>surveillance.
>
>At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden’s men
>officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed
>Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s ousted fundamentalist
>regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of
>fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al
>Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly
>contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.
>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660179/
>
>
We can't catch this guy, but we can attend his meetings and get copies
of the minutes?

I catually think he was killed before we invaded Iraq. But of course
there's no evidence.

Jack Dingler
 
....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" <[email protected]> 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
 
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:34:50 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Besides, all that stuff about the economy, the price of oil, the war on
>>Iraq and the war on terror are all big complicated subjects too deep for
>>the public. Let the politicians and media tells us what's good for us.
>
> Ah, the Soviet system.

Yup, now adopted by the good old U S A !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back