Posted on 09/10/2004 10:08:54 PM PDT by RatherBiased.com
As one who grew up with "who" and "whom," I react sharply to the latter-day error of substituting "that." Thus I was struck by phrasing in the "memo" of August 1, 1972, "... qualified Vietnam pilots that have rotated...."I don't believe anyone would have written this in 1972. It would have been, "...pilots who have rotated...."
Maybe not in 1972, but how about these lines from Shakespeare?
HAMLET: My fate cries out,
And makes each petty artery in this body
As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve.
Still am I called. Unhand me, gentlemen.
By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!
Hamlet, Act I, Scene iv, lines 81-5.
Good to cross paths with you, old friend.
Cheers back atcha!
They don't even look the same to ME....notice the 1's have FLAT bottoms on the old document!
And if you notice in the copy of the older document, CBS has "doctored" up the "th."
So who exactly is CBS left with? The handwriting guy and Robert Strong, who, by the way, called the entire TANG "corrupt?"
Move over, baseball, mom and apple pie. Hoax letters are about to turn into the new national pastime.
You mean "Obviously Hoax Letters" LOL
From the comments page of http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003629.php:
Author: Timmer
Web Site: http://digitalwarfighter.com
Comment:
Old AF Admin Wheenie with 20 years in service here. One thing I haven't heard a lot about, only a little, is the format of some of the documents. They're just wrong. The headers are wrong. The signature blocks are wrong. They're just WRONG.
There's no such thing as a Memo for file. There's a Memorandum for Record, but no Memo for file. NO SUCH THING.
Addressing an official document with
MEMORANDUM FOR:
didn't occur until the 1990s. The AF didn't move their signature blocks over to the right of the documents until the same time, before then they were anchored four clear lines down the left margin.
An official signature block looks like this.
JOHN S. SUPERTROOP, Rank, USAF
Duty Title
Three line signature blocks are reserved for flag officers (Generals) and Colonels sitting in a General's billet. But they look like
JOHN S. SUPERTROOP
General, USAF
Duty Title
Now civilians may scoff and say so what? Who cares about admin details like that? Ummmmm, the military does...quite a bit too much actually. I've seen inspection teams tear entire careers apart over the admin details being mucked up.
There isn't an admin guy in any branch of the service who wouldn't have taken one look at these documents and waved the bullshit flag. You could show those documents to any airman coming fresh out of school down at Keesler and they'd have a blast tearing them apart.
Those documents aren't just fakes...they're really really bad fakes. And all it would have taken was someone with some sense of how these things are done. The more I look at them...the more I get the feeling that someone sort of scanned through http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/33/afman33-326/afman33-326.pdf AFM 33-326 and shoved all this together. Before that we had AFR 10-1 and it had the formats I mentioned above.
Remember though, before anyone goes, "Hey, that looks right." We didn't use that manual until 1996 and it's been updated since then.
Bottom line, wrong fonts, wrong headers, wrong formats. It's bullshit, you can't hide from it.
Actually Times Roman has been around for a long time.
Times New Roman hasn't.
There's another thread here about its orgins. I believe it was the 80's.
To bad the guy didn't sign his name to it so it could be used as a source.
http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
Both have been around since 1931 since TNR is just a different name for Times's Roman (aka Times Roman)
But in the late 1980s, Monotype, the creator and owner of the rights to the font, slightly revised TNR to its present form. The current Times New Roman is not the same one that existed before the revision.
I suspect that the use of 'that' as a substitute in a relative clause for a personal pronoun modified by the clause was acceptable in Elizabethan England. I ran a search for 'he that' in the King James Bible and got 611 hits. For example: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15, Mark 4:9, Luke 8:8)
Funny!!!!
Thanks, my error.
Fox News Channel reported this evening that like each NG member, Bush had until his birthday, in late July, to take his physical, and a 3 month window in which to do so. The May letter ordering him to take a physical is just a couple of weeks into the 12 week window, and so there was no reason that one of his superiors would order him to take a physical when he still had 10 weeks left to take it.
Excellent! I have concluded that the "Nixon" signature is authentic, so that Cambodia story must be true!
BTW, as a former Air Force officer I can tell you that no one ever referred to an Officer Effectiveness Report as an OERT. They are called OER's or simply, ER's.
I'll take my portion without ketchup, please...
OETR stands for Officer Education Transcript Repository, according to AFI36-2305, so Bush must have been overseeing one of those, and Killian refused to sugar coat his rating of it. No doubt some of the paperwork he was doing in Alabama. He couldn't have been refering to Bush's OER, since he had completed that in May of 1973, and would not have to do another, since Bush had cleared the base on May 15, 1972. /sarc
You are very observant. Good catch. FReepers are good at what they do.
I agree. Which, of course, is a far cry from standard English in 1972, much less military usage.
Styles come and go, and in the instance, I am quite confident of my ear. There has been a marked usage change in recent years (it always annoys me). For want of any better theory, I suspect the uneducated teachers in the public school system started teaching "that" because they themselves couldn't figure out when to use "who," and when "whom."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
