Posted on 09/09/2004 3:10:33 PM PDT by Semper Paratus
Brit Hume announced story coming up now on National Guard docmunents
795 - "The Executive still didn't have a way to make the "th" smaller, it would have been the same size, just rolled up using the paten."
I don't remember what year it was introduced, but one of the early Selectrics had proportional fonts (depending on the ball) and 'mini-line' spacing (a single line was divided into about 6 or 8 small line spacings (so as to give the capability to do this - as you say). However, it cost a lot more, and the only one I remember was the Secretary of the Big Boss who had one, and it made beautiful output with a carbon ribbon and ball.
There was one called the "Composer", I think that did this.
The White House WANTED CBS to run with the story because they knew that the documents were forgeries. CBS would end up looking like idiots, they would be discredited....so the White House decided not to tell them, but released the obviously fake memo's to the public. They wanted to expose CBS for what it is...an arm of the DNC.
you said; "CBS is *never* going to run a favorable story on Bush"Exactly, which is why it would have been better if the WH had just killed the original 60 minutes story before it was even aired. The MSM will never give the same attention to the forgery story as they did to the original 60 min. story.
CBS wouldn't have killed it for the White House. They probably would have spun it and said that the White House tried to pressure them NOT to run the story and would have still run it. CBS is so blinded by partisianship that they thought they had a "gotcha"...they wre intent on burning Bush but ended up getting burned. The MSM might not report the forgeries in depth, but it will get reported to an extent and the new media is reporting it.
They still have Barnes' daughter saying her dad lied and Killian's son saying those documents didn't come from the family and that his father wouldn't have written at least some of those documents.
It's been done.
Doesn't matter. Those documents were word processed, without question.
"this is starting to feel like the end of the soviet empire."
Great point. When Solidarity stood up to the Communists, it was apparent that Communism was intellectually bankrupt and could not possibly survive.
When Clinton was indicted and when confronted with a "numbingly literal phallocracy" (Mark Steyn's words), the feminists looked the other way. This clearly demonstrated the intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.
And by the way, has it occured to anyone that the DNC is, with their over the top rhetoric, inciting violence amongst the leftists? They are so cranked up that I think it is just a matter of time before we see violent left-wing riots.
I don't know how a program that converts an image into PDF treats characters. I believe that old fax technology made conversions of characters to code, cuz it sped up transmission speeds.
I saw one post, in one thread where someone said they had a "th" char on a daisy ball, but there are so darn many threads about this today, I'd be at a loss to find the post again.
Seeing the differences in the signatures finally convinced me, though I was trying to poke holes in the story for a good portion of the day today.
Republicans are going after the truth!
WOW! No kidding! Did he give dates? Kewl.
795 - "The Executive still didn't have a way to make the "th" smaller, it would have been the same size, just rolled up using the paten."
And there were some font balls which would do that, make the small type and move it up or down for certain specialties - like the 2 for square in square feet, common fractions like 1/4 and 1/2, and some small things lower down, like markings for footnote annotations. But these depended on which 'font ball' you used. My secretary had about a dozen different ones.
The IBM Selectric did; however, have interchangeable fonts that clipped into place. You could get special character fonts, but I am not sure whether the special characters included super and subscripts.
Good thought, especially since his son has already come out questioning the memos.
Yes, going by memory...appointed in 1972...Bush in sometime in 1971?
THE WEEKLY STANDARD's story by Stephen Hayes is up now. He writes that CBS was apparently the "victim" of a fraud.
That is FAR too generous (and shocking coming from the WEEKLY STANDARD). They obviously participated in the fraud, if only by not doing appropriate due diligence before they broadcast these to the entire world...
"l" I think
"Exactly, which is why it would have been better if the WH had just killed the original 60 minutes story before it was even aired."
Hanity and Combs up now.
Times Roman, and Times New Roman might be exactly the same font, different names merely reflecting the licensor of the font; Monotype or Linotype.
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman?
From: Charles Bigelow
Date: 5 May 1994"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)
During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.
In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.
The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".
During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.
Full Article: http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm
Hewitt: "Powerlineblog.com started this this morning; they deserve all the credit"
Blah..
795 - "The Executive still didn't have a way to make the "th" smaller, it would have been the same size, just rolled up using the paten."
One ball had a small font "TH" and a small "ST" which printed high up
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.