Odd interaction with a road rager

[Bill Baka]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:37:14 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:25:10 GMT, Jack Dingler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Hey,
In 1974 I was going to buy a Selectric because I was the only engineer
who knew how to type and had to type test procedures for the techs to
test circuit boards for which I was the test engineer. It was high tech
at the time but it didn't last past about 1985 when printers (dot matrix)
became to some on the scene. 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 am not stupid, I got lots of study dates, and more. I also took home
economics, same result, got **** from my guy pals, but lots of girlfriends.
Planning, even in High School, pays off, sometimes in the long run, now I
can type and cook and have some great memories of more female friends than
the jocks.
IBM Selectrics had a use to us dinosaurs.
Bill Baka
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

[S o r n i]

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.

 

[Pete]

"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

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

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]

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.
>
>
>
>

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

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...

 

[S o r n i]

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.

 

[Dave Mount]

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.

 

[Jack Dingler]

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...
>
>
>

 

[DRS]

"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?

 

[S o r n i]

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.

 

[S o r n i]

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.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

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...

 

[Fx199]

>Subject: Re: Odd interaction with a road rager
>From: "Pete" ptr@ThievingBastardsWorkAt_usaf.com
>Date: 9/17/2004 10:52 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"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

It's funny the people that won't see the evidence on this issue. Speaks deeply
of them. Thanks Pete, well said

 

[Fx199]

>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.
>
>

People that love Michael Moore...scary aint they?

 

[Fx199]

>Subject: Re: Odd interaction with a road rager
>From: "S o r n i" [email protected]
>Date: 9/17/2004 10:50 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>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.
>

No, not really, no.
You just revealed yourself as a politically-correct nazi.

 

[Fx199]

wow, look I'm Top-Posting...call the police


>Subject: Re: Odd interaction with a road rager
>From: "S o r n i" [email protected]
>Date: 9/17/2004 11:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>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.
>

 

[Fx199]

>Subject: Re: Odd interaction with a road rager
>From: "S o r n i" [email protected]
>Date: 9/17/2004 12:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>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.
>

I do agree totally there.

 

[Jack Dingler]

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

 

[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