I have doubts about whether the forgery was intended to be caught. That would only apply if the forger(s) actually did have the knowledge and skills to know the difference. Yes, the memos are transparent fakes to the people who understand typography. But to a Chris Lehane or a Paul Begala, dwelling 24/7 in the cesspool of smears against Bush, rabid believers that there OUGHT to be such useful documents somewhere, it would be easy to construct the fakes in MS Word and believe they had done a really really good job of it. Remember, anyone of the same mindset as the CBS producers who fell for this would have believed they had constructed "the real thing" (or close enough) because they would be blissfully unaware of all the issues raised since the 60 Minutes - II episode.
I didn't know anything much about documents or forgeries (except what I've been reading on these threads), but I wouldn't think that (before now) the typical viper operative on the DNC or Kerry campaign, nor even Hillary's pals, would be any more aware of these issues than the suckers at CBS.
Maybe you're right. Any way you slice it, it's more time in the toaster oven for sKerry.
Had the forger consistently used any of the styles of ordinals he used, it would be plausible he was trying to get away with faking these documents. But if a forger noticed the auto-superscripting and didn't like it, why didn't he kill it everyplace it appeared or--failing that--why didn't he at least settle on one or the other means of preventing it? If the forger weren't concerned about such details, he would have simply let Word auto-superscript when it felt like it. That someone would go through the trouble of killing some but not all such things is a clear sign to me that the person wanted to write "I AM AN MS-WORD FAKE" all over the document.