Posted on 11/21/2005 2:17:55 PM PST by kristinn
The corporation abandoned this business in the early 80's I think it was. To us geeks, it seemed that the Xerox corporate management had no idea of the value of what they abandoned.
I reread both threads. On the longer one, I noticed a number of drive by posts by signed-up-the-same-day (or not long before) posters. Almost as if the usual suspects had people proactively monitoring after the 60 Minutes 2 showing, and then, when Buckhead blew the whistle, signing up ad hoc to try and "manage" the thread and of course to monitor it specifically. Just like what happened with the NCPAC / MD4Bush case! HAVE THEY NO SHAME? [he asked rhetorically! ...]
It's even more difficult than you describe. In my typing class in high school the drill was to center the platen (or the IBM 'golf ball'), figure out the number of character in the line (including spaces) then divide by two. You then backspace by that number and the line you then type will be centered on the paper. Why does this work? Because in mono-spaced fonts each character is the SAME width.
If you then try proportional fonts (like the fake memos) where each character will vary in unit widths from (3 of 9) to (9 of 9) units you would have to have a photographic memory to know the unit widths of each character in the line you wish to center. Let's see the capital "A" character is 8 units, the "i" is 3 units, the "c" is four units etc. Then when you have all the units added properly, divide by two and hope that when you "backspace" on your proportional fonts typewriter that it actually "backspaces" in the font unit-widths that you are using...
Now imagine that you repeat this on four separate memos over many months in the early 1970s and after 30 years they JUST happen to match up perfectly with the output of the Microsoft Word proportional font centering algorithm for the 'Times' font... Pretty amazing, huh...
Here is another memo/font analysis from someone not in the blogosphere - a Mr. Thomas Phinney: font program manager of Adobe Systems Inc. who was contacted by the Washington Post last year...
Source: CreativePro - September 24th, 2004
Mary Mapes and all the old CBS retired sycophants are uninformed fools and liars who simply refuse to believe that the forged memos are proof of their stupidity. When you hear them discourse on the subject they dismiss the 'font controversy' without realizing that there is no 'he said/she said' two sides to the story. The memo controversy has been resolved simply by the application of technological knowledge. Those who are older enough to straddle the age of the typewriter and the word processing program know the difference instantly - those who always had others to do their typing would have had the apparent discrepancies pass right over their heads...
dvwjr
In retrospect, looking back at the threads with a year plus behind me, I now have noticed that said libs were actually doing drive by posts on the second, longer thread, trying to pretend they "were in the AF in the early 70s" and other malarchy. The posts in question all attempt the throw in doubt and spin. Just like the MD4Bush case! Probably included our buds Novak and Mosk at the WaPo as well as multiple electronic MSMers as well!
In much the same way they did on the initial MD4Bush threads, operatives from the MSM and the left also came in on the Buckhead / Rathergate thread and tried to sow disinfo, spin and doubt. They must have been monitoring as well. I never really noticed it at the time. I linked the two threads somewhere in the low 600s of this thread. Fascinating!
Correction, the links are at 165 of this thread ....
We like you Buckhead!!
September 9 was the day after the 60 Minutes 2 showing. The initial sneak previews of the 60 Minutes 2 content would have been during 60 Minutes on Sunday the 5th. So, the time frame for the Wild Bill guy would be right for general monitoring of FR Vs that news cycle. Then, the multitude of rats arrived after Buckheads initial comment on Pikamax' thread of the NYT story on the 9th.
You have to prove to us there was no font like that in that time. We want a Back to the Future time warp DeLorean so we can verify your claims. It is up to you to prove to us that MSM doesn't have to prove anything to us.
Sincerely,
Journalism student
So give it a rest, smart a$$.
Buckhead's post needs nothing. The truth doesn't care about an extra space or two.
Kristinn thank you for your long years of service to the Republic.
I posted to the thread about 40 entries later. . .
To: Buckhead
OH Rah Buckhead You are rady for your 15 minutes of Fame. What is your real name for the History books.
YOU TOOK DAN RATHER DOWN.
He must resign.
83 posted on 09/09/2004 4:22:17 PM PDT by jokar (On line data base http://www.trackingthethreat.com/db/index.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]
Of course I was wrong, Danno did not resign.
Congratulations again Buckhead.
I don't know. I use Word Perfect, and it doesn't have it either.
schweet.
I'm also 47, a computer user since 1979, by no means an expert and no legal training. But I could see the problem when it was first brought up. Must have something to do with being 47.
You honestly don't think a post about proportional typesetting isn't lessened in its impact by extra spaces between the words?!!? In retrospect, I thought it ironic..........
'Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.
In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.
The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.
I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.
This should be pursued aggressively.
47 posted on 09/08/2004 11:59:43 PM EDT by Buckhead '
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do we have a Wall of Fame?
We don't hate you Buckhead; we love you. You proved that Mary Mapes is just another sockhead who thinks she is smarter than anyone else out there. This is usually guarantees eventual failure as she is experiencing now.
I just wonder when it's going to hit the Clintons and their ilk?
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.