Odd interaction with a road rager

[Jack Dingler]

I like this quote from Rumsfield.

DEFENSE Secretary Donald Rumsfield was offensive enough when he
intimated last week that US troops were as interchangeable as automotive
factory parts. Irritated at a question from a reporter about why 20,000
American troops had to stay 90 days longer than expected in Iraq, he
said: "Oh, come on. People are fungible. You can have them here or there."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...articles/2004/04/21/rumsfelds_fungible_facts/

And these from bush
"This battle will take time and resolve. But make no mistake about it:
we will win."
- George W Bush, September 12, 2001

"Can we win the war on terror? I don't think you can win it." - Bush,
August 31, 2004
Both Cheney and the folks you call the Dems are both speaking the truth
as they know it.

I think someone pointed out to him that terrorism has been going on for
tens of thousands of years. It's unlikely he'll end it before November.

I happen to agree with the Dems even though I'm a old school
conservative republican (vs a fascist republican that hates muslims).
Before Bush came into office, it was common knowledge that oppression
and poverty provides a breeding ground for resistance fighters and
rebels. Now it's common knowledge that people just hate freedom and
fight against freedom wherever they find it.

Regardless, of which war monger wins the upcoming election, we're in
Iraq for the long haul. Cheney says maybe 20 years. So if you have kids,
be a patriot not a terrorist sympathizer, get them to enlist, so we can
get this over with. Maybe if we get all the kids of the proper age
(18-35), to enlist and join the fight, then we can get this war over
with in 5 or 10 years. Wouldn't that be great? If you're in that age
range, don't side with the terrorists, join the regular armed forces and
be a patriot.

For those of us too old or not well enough or have butt pimples like
Rush Limbaugh, we'll just live with the rationing, burgeoning
unemployment and the resulting real estate crash that would come from a
concerted effort to win in Iraq. But at least with all the young folks
gone, the roads would be clearer and safer for cycling.

Jack Dingler


S o r n i wrote:

>Muttley wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 03:54:30 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I'm getting confused. All this time I thought terrorists were
>>>>pro-Bush.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh, no doubt. After getting kicked out of Afghanistan, seeing
>>>all those Taliban killed, then losing over 70 percent of their own
>>>members to either capture or becoming room temperature because of Mr.
>>>Bush, the terrorists naturally HAD to become Bush backers.
>>>
>>>
>>The reason that the terrorist *leaders* want Bush re-elected is that
>>he has stirred up so much hatred amongst so many that the number of
>>people available for recruitment into terrorism has increased beyond
>>their wildest dreams.
>>
>>They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
>>and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
>>can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.
>>
>>
>
>What I love is the self-righteous indignation over Cheney's (admittedly
>ham-fisted) remarks, yet "official" Dems can say stuff like this with total
>impunity.
>
>Bill "blatant hypocrisy" S.
>
>
>
>

 

[Jack Dingler]

Well, I'm certainly partisan. I don't like either candidate for this
election or the last.

From my point of view both parties seem equally vicious, hypocritical
and deceptive. It's turned me off from the candidates of both.

I'll likely vote for a flip-flopping hypocritical liar, but I have
figured out which one yet.

At this point, from my perspective, Bush and Kerry are identical in
policy and ideologies, were they matter. The only difference is the
color of the uniforms. For the most part, picking between them is no
different than choosing between sports teams when you don't have one in
your home town. No matter who you choose, you get the same game.

And neither is pro-cycling or has any real interest in fixin the
problems inside America. It's all about war, and both have a plan, they
both want to keep it going, but both have no idea how to change it's
course. I'd like to hear either one of them discuss how to fix the war
in Iraq and accomplish some of the stated goals. Not a peep yet except,
"Stay the course".

Jack Dingler

S o r n i wrote:

>I see the VAST majority of hypocrisy and mean, nasty statements being made
>by "official" Democrats this time around (and in fact ever since the 2000
>election). Forget the 527s (over the line on both sides usually), how about
>Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McCauliff (sp?), etc., not to mention Kerry
>himself. Blatant personal attacks, and the "general" media lets 'em slide.
>(Not even including Hollywood fund-raisers and Michael S-Moores "embodying
>the very essence of the Democratic Party".)
>
>Why I say it doesn't matter is that partisanship is so entrenched nowadays
>that no one is going to change his or her mind. I guarantee you that, even
>if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq (found WMDs, welcomed as
>liberators, etc.), the left would STILL hate Bush and go to any length to
>defeat him. However, if a conservative questions Kerry's voting record over
>the last 25 years, he's smearing him. Sorry, I call ********.
>
>What's more important, the voting public is starting to see that, too. It's
>pretty obvious.
>
>Bill "when it's bad enough to get ME to speak up, it's pretty bad" S.
>
>
>
>

 

[S o r n i]

Muttley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:01:46 GMT, "S o r n i"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> I'm not even a Republican.
>>>> It's the mean-spirited bitterness of the left and their blatant
>>>> hypocrisy
>>>> in the recent past that's even motivated me to speak up.
>>
>> BINGO. What part of that don't you understand?
>
> I understand what you said perfectly.

After snipping your own words exemplifying it!

> What I am saying is that it is patantly untrue. (Even more so, given
> what you have written below).
>>
>>>> I'm usually a-political to a fault (don't really give a ****; don't
>>>> believe it really matters)
>>>
>>> Yet every time you *do* go against type and post something
>>> political, it is always anti democrat. And your claim that you:
>>> "don't believe it really matters" doesn't really ring true.
>>
>> I see the VAST majority of hypocrisy and mean, nasty statements
>> being made by "official" Democrats this time around (and in fact
>> ever since the 2000 election). Forget the 527s (over the line on
>> both sides usually), how about Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McCauliff
>> (sp?), etc., not to mention Kerry himself. Blatant personal
>> attacks, and the "general" media lets 'em slide. (Not even including
>> Hollywood fund-raisers and Michael S-Moores "embodying the very
>> essence of the Democratic Party".)
>>
>> Why I say it doesn't matter is that partisanship is so entrenched
>> nowadays that no one is going to change his or her mind. I
>> guarantee you that, even if everything had gone perfectly in Iraq
>> (found WMDs, welcomed as liberators, etc.), the left would STILL
>> hate Bush and go to any length to defeat him.
>
> Of course. What else would the left do but try and get their
> candidate into power.

This goes WAY beyond usual partisan politics. We're talking actual hatred.
(Probably payback for the Clinton era, the nastiness during which was also
wrong and over the line.)

>> However, if a conservative questions Kerry's voting record over
>> the last 25 years, he's smearing him. Sorry, I call ********.
>
> Bill, you are 100% entitled to your views, and 100% entitled to
> enumerate them whenever you wish.
>
> It does not, however, do a lot for your credibility when you state
> that you are "apolitical to a fault", when you clearly do not like
> the way (you see) the democrats behaving.

If I saw republicans being hypocrits on this scale I'd yell about too. I
saw dems bashing Bush for months on end, and when the pubs started fighting
back they cried like babies. Bad move POLITICALLY I think.

> You may not consider yourself a republican, but you are very clearly
> anti-democrat, and (again, from your description of them as "the
> left"), you clearly see your ideals as separate from theirs.
>
> That is in no way the description of someone who is apolitical.

Maybe I used the wrong word. Apathetic might be more accurate. I usually
stay WAY out of political discussions; I listen to both sides and make up my
mind quietly. (True, I lean right, but not on many issues.) This time I've
been motivated to squawk a bit because I dislike the TACTICS of /left-wing/
democrats THIS TIME AROUND. I see a whole bunch of contradictions and
double standards and blatant biases and...well, ****. I really would feel
the same way if right-wingers were doing it -- mainly because it's logically
fallacious and, hopefully, people WILL see that.

> Another indication of your "politicality", is that you seem to only
> see transgressions on one side.

Not true. Like I've said, I haven't seen one "republican official" question
Kerry's war record or patriotism -- but that's the charge when they in fact
confront his tesimony or VOTING record.

> I would say I'm slightly to the left of center - I would normally
> swing more to the democrats than the republicans (so I'm declaring a
> bias), and yet I clearly see nastiness and hipocracy on *both* sides
> of the divide. In other words, although biased, I retain the ability
> to look objectively at what is going on.

Thus your endless series of "end of the day" posts? You seem to only bash
republicans, Muttley, which is surely your right. The difference is, the
actual Republican CAMPAIGN hasn't stooped to personal attacks like the dems
have (IMO).

Bill "we'll see what happens" S.

 

[Raoul Duke]

"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies, and
provide
> them with even more confused and hostile young men who can be sent to
their
> deaths while they sit safely in their caves.

Are these "confused and hostile" young men kinda like John Kerry when HE
volunteered for combat?

Dave

 

[Jack Dingler]

Ken [NY) wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:17:10 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>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. 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.

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


>>I can't help but notice you have a derogatory sig line. Is this hate
>>speech against the French speaking peoples of the world?
>>
>>
>
> Of course not. I was remarking that Mr. Kerry speaks fluent
>French. Uh, do you view the fact that he speaks two languages as hate
>speech?
>
>
Was attempting to decipher the context as to why you used in a sig line.
I didn't know he was a fluent speaker of the French language. I thought
he would say 'Shalom'.

Jack Dingler

 

[Pete]

"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote

>
> I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
> interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace. 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.
>
> Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century
technology.

All highly unlikely to be done by an Air Guard Lt. Col. when typing up a
memo, even if the Guard sported the extra money for such a typewriter.

And the other teminology faults make this a nonstarter as far as validity.

Pete

 

[S o r n i]

Raoul Duke wrote:
> "Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
>> and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
>> can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.
>
> Are these "confused and hostile" young men kinda like John Kerry when
> HE volunteered for combat?

Does Al Qaeda have "reserves"?

Bill "naval, at that" S.

 

[Jack Dingler]

The IBM Selectrics were a staple Pete. Almost all typewriters had
proportional spacing. The fonts came on a plastic ball that snapped into
the typewriter. There was a lever on the typewriter that allowed you to
choose between fixed and proportional spacing.

My mom had an IBM selectric at home that could do this in 1971, and we
didn't have the budget of a National Guard unit..

This would be like arguing in the future that it would be unlikely for
someone in this day and age to own a cell phone.

Jack Dingler

Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
>>I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
>>interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace. 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.
>>
>>Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century
>>
>>
>technology.
>
>All highly unlikely to be done by an Air Guard Lt. Col. when typing up a
>memo, even if the Guard sported the extra money for such a typewriter.
>
>And the other teminology faults make this a nonstarter as far as validity.
>
>Pete
>
>
>
>

 

[Jack Dingler]

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

S o r n i wrote:

>Raoul Duke wrote:
>
>
>>"Muttley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>>They hope that he will be re-elected, continue his current policies,
>>>and provide them with even more confused and hostile young men who
>>>can be sent to their deaths while they sit safely in their caves.
>>>
>>>
>>Are these "confused and hostile" young men kinda like John Kerry when
>>HE volunteered for combat?
>>
>>
>
>Does Al Qaeda have "reserves"?
>
>Bill "naval, at that" S.
>
>
>
>

 

[Fx199]

>Subject: Re: Odd interaction with a road rager
>From: "Pete" ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com
>Date: 9/16/2004 4:03 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>
>> I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
>> interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace. 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.
>>
>> Them young-uns have no idea what was possible using 20th century
>technology.
>
>All highly unlikely to be done by an Air Guard Lt. Col. when typing up a
>memo, even if the Guard sported the extra money for such a typewriter.
>
>And the other teminology faults make this a nonstarter as far as validity.
>
>Pete
>

He'd clearly would have had to change font balls at the very least, and then
there's the impossibly perfect spacing, come on people, use your heads.

 

[Fx199]

>I loved that one. Actually us old guys know that typewriters with
>interchangeable font heads and proportional spacing were commonplace. In
>fact, the proportional spacing that the experts claim was impossible to
>do with a typewriter, was introduced by IBM in 1941. Bac

Are you saying you believe that it is a genuine memo typed by the person CBS
purports it it to have been done by?

 

[Pete]

"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Jho2d.61692$D%.49575@attbi_s51...
> The IBM Selectrics were a staple Pete. Almost all typewriters had
> proportional spacing. The fonts came on a plastic ball that snapped into
> the typewriter. There was a lever on the typewriter that allowed you to
> choose between fixed and proportional spacing.
>
> My mom had an IBM selectric at home that could do this in 1971, and we
> didn't have the budget of a National Guard unit..

Personal budgets and military unit budgets are two completely different
animals. Especially for mundane stuff like typewriters. When I was a
programmer in the USAF, I *always* had a better, faster, more costly PC at
home than at work.

> This would be like arguing in the future that it would be unlikely for
> someone in this day and age to own a cell phone.

I was in the military a few years after the period in question.
And the probability of stopping midsentence (midWORD), to change balls for
two letters in superscript, and then changing back, just wasn't happening.

Assuming, of course, the Lt. Col. could locate the alternate ball without
asking his secretary.

Typing grp, when you mean gp, just didn't happen either. There is even a
regulation on acceptable abbreviations. As there is/was also a regulation on
fonts, proportional or fixed. (I'd bet at the time it stipulated fixed on a
typewriter)

All this is moot, because even Rather has his doubts now.
Whatever your thougts about Bush and his military service...don't hang them
on forged documents.

Pete

 

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:46:33 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> It was purely laughing at the idiocy of allowing people to leave the country
>> just because they didn't *say* they were terrorists.
>
>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.

Besides, real terrorists have those special terrorist license plates.

 

[Jack Dingler]

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.

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

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.

I'm curious though, which Micorosoft Font fades the top half of the
letters like in the memos, so it looks like it was written by a
typewriter? I don't think I've ever seen a computer typeface that fades
the top half of the letters. Would be something a programmer could
create though.

Jack Dingler

Pete wrote:

>"Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:Jho2d.61692$D%.49575@attbi_s51...
>
>
>>The IBM Selectrics were a staple Pete. Almost all typewriters had
>>proportional spacing. The fonts came on a plastic ball that snapped into
>>the typewriter. There was a lever on the typewriter that allowed you to
>>choose between fixed and proportional spacing.
>>
>>My mom had an IBM selectric at home that could do this in 1971, and we
>>didn't have the budget of a National Guard unit..
>>
>>
>
>Personal budgets and military unit budgets are two completely different
>animals. Especially for mundane stuff like typewriters. When I was a
>programmer in the USAF, I *always* had a better, faster, more costly PC at
>home than at work.
>
>
>
>>This would be like arguing in the future that it would be unlikely for
>>someone in this day and age to own a cell phone.
>>
>>
>
>I was in the military a few years after the period in question.
>And the probability of stopping midsentence (midWORD), to change balls for
>two letters in superscript, and then changing back, just wasn't happening.
>
>Assuming, of course, the Lt. Col. could locate the alternate ball without
>asking his secretary.
>
>Typing grp, when you mean gp, just didn't happen either. There is even a
>regulation on acceptable abbreviations. As there is/was also a regulation on
>fonts, proportional or fixed. (I'd bet at the time it stipulated fixed on a
>typewriter)
>
>All this is moot, because even Rather has his doubts now.
>Whatever your thougts about Bush and his military service...don't hang them
>on forged documents.
>
>Pete
>
>
>
>

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:00:07 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

Do that a lot when you typed your memos? Swapping font balls in the
middle of the page and all? Most of the extra font balls were in the
desks of the exectuive secretaries. And I don't remember one of them
doing anything like that, even if it could be done.

And back then the rest of us typed on plain typewriters or used pens
and memo pads.

Now that CBS is backing away, you may be the last line of defense on
this one.

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

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:25:10 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

Interesting. Because that is exactly what several IBM Selectric
experts are saying. Do a google on this and you can find the follow-up
articles that lead to the apparently non-potical nerds that have tried
- and failed and then explained why it is probably a forgery. And this
is using the IBM Selectrics that they believe are best able to produce
the memo.

Word OTOH can produce it with little effort. I've done two myself and
the only problem was cleared up by someone else (I was comparing the
screen to the PDF and didn't print it - the superscript prints
differently - higher - than it appears on screen).

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

 

[Fx199]

>Subject: Re: Odd interaction with a road rager
>From: Jack Dingler [email protected]
>Date: 9/17/2004 2:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <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.
>
>I never argued that the balls were changed mid-memo, I just argued that
>it was easy to do.
>
>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.
>
>I'm curious though, which Micorosoft Font fades the top half of the
>letters like in the memos, so it looks like it was written by a
>typewriter? I don't think I've ever seen a computer typeface that fades
>the top half of the letters. Would be something a programmer could
>create though.
>
>Jack Dingler

Good lord, you top posted...where's DRS?

I challenge you to recreate those memos on a typewriter. You were probably
looking at a faxed letter.
No expert is defending these memos in fact quite the opposite and I'm sure they
know more than you do.
You don't deny that the font ball would have needed to be changed. No one is
going to do that for a "th".
CBS is even denying they are real now.
Go to the "little green footballs" site and do some reading before you defend
these lies.
(go to yahoo and type little green footballs into the search if you don't know
the site address)

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

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 that it has been documented over and over that they did not
leave the country while everyone else was grounded and that the
securityt procedures in place at that moment were followed. If you are
either poster that brought up the Bin Laden flight, it isn't off
topic, but it is simply false. And you don't see it mentioned by
credible sources after it was brought up the first week and slapped
down.

You need a new conspiracy. Your old one is getting weak.

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

 

[S o r n i]

Curtis L. Russell 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 that it has been documented over and over that they did not
> leave the country while everyone else was grounded and that the
> securityt procedures in place at that moment were followed. If you are
> either poster that brought up the Bin Laden flight, it isn't off
> topic, but it is simply false. And you don't see it mentioned by
> credible sources after it was brought up the first week and slapped
> down.
>
> You need a new conspiracy. Your old one is getting weak.

Except, of course, that it will live on indefinitely in Michael s'Moore's
hatchet piece. Then the audience will tell someone, and they'll tell
someone, and so on and so on...

Bill "false believers" S.

 

[Jack Dingler]

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

Jack Dingler

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:25:10 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Interesting. Because that is exactly what several IBM Selectric
>experts are saying. Do a google on this and you can find the follow-up
>articles that lead to the apparently non-potical nerds that have tried
>- and failed and then explained why it is probably a forgery. And this
>is using the IBM Selectrics that they believe are best able to produce
>the memo.
>
>Word OTOH can produce it with little effort. I've done two myself and
>the only problem was cleared up by someone else (I was comparing the
>screen to the PDF and didn't print it - the superscript prints
>differently - higher - than it appears on screen).
>
>Curtis L. Russell
>Odenton, MD (USA)
>Just someone on two wheels...
>
>