Odd interaction with a road rager

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Ron McKinnon, Aug 31, 2004.

  1. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     


  2. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  3. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  4. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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 bullshit.
    >
    >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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  5. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    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 crap; 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 bullshit.

    >
    > 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, crap. 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.
     
  6. Raoul Duke

    Raoul Duke Guest

    "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
     
  7. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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
     
  8. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "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
     
  9. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    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.
     
  10. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  11. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  12. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Jack Dingler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:Jho2d.61692$D%[email protected]_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
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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%[email protected]_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
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  15. 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...
     
  16. 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...
     
  17. 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...
     
  18. S o r n i

    S o r n i Guest

    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.
     
  19. Jack Dingler

    Jack Dingler Guest

    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...
    >
    >
     
  20. Bill Baka

    Bill Baka Guest

    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 shit 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/
     
Loading...
Loading...