<br><br><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>

<br><br>I'm not amused<br><br>

The proverbial Can o' Worms is open.<br>Bush's records previously released by the WH are revealing a few superscript "th" in 1973 documents...... doh! were these done in MS Word also?<br><br>(look at the second line)<br><br><br><br>

Let's compare a monospaced ^th, typed with a special key that doesn't reach above the other text, with a proportionally-spaced ^th that does reach above the other text.<br><br><br><br>

Gary, is this the third time today I've said... "You've got to be kidding me!"?<br><br>Are you really trying to make the case that the memo you posted is at all similar to ANY of the four memos used by CBS?<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

No, the point I'm making is that claims that 60-70's era typewriters were not able to make superscripts has now opened up all of the docs to close examination and Internet hype. It's a mob mentality that's now examing every Bush document for superscripts, "New Times Roman" and proportional fonts that some bloggers say isn't possible. The can o' worms.<br><br><br>Hey Dean, I've said over and over that the CBS docs look phoney to me. What point am I not making clear? Do I have to put a big ugly photo of Dan Rather in my post to get you to lighten up? <br><br>What do the experts say? Only CBS tonight offered up an experts to verify them. The capabilities of these typewriters is a quantifiable thing...I'm willing to accept that my judgement is wrong if proof shows that the technology is legit. How about other documents from this same guy, there must be hundreds of them to compare these CBS documents to. <br><br><br>

OK, I know you suspect the documents are fake I guess I just get intellectually frustrated when you make those posts like they actually might punch a hole in the theory.<br>Thing is no one said superscripts were not available in 72 although superscripts of the quality. What people have said is that there doesn't exist a typewriter with "th" superscripts that also had a proportional font with a curly apostrophe with a closed four without a foot in Times New Roman. (Except for the outside possibility of a machine that was outrageously expensive and would have taken hours to "type" each memo).<br><br>Yes, the font has existed since '31 but it was never a typewriter font. Yes, there was a typewriter that had a "th" in a small point size that made it appear superscripted (but it really wasn't).<br><br>Any no matter how many times a document is scanned that doesn't make a mono-spaced font look like proportional font.<br><br>It is clear that these memos as we see them were not produced on the dates that appear on them. The CBS rebuttal tonight was an insult to everyones basic intelligence.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

even if the documents aren't real, there is enough doubt to keep the WH pretty quiet as rather mentions: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"They [the White House] have not answered the question of did or did the president not obey or obey an order? Was he or was he not suspended for failure to meet performance standards of the Air Force? If he didn't take the physical, why didn't he take the physical?" Rather said<p><hr></blockquote><p>perhaps these are fakes, but perhaps they are based on reality?<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato

Holy crap, excuse my french.<br>Here we go again. 100% fake documents are still valid in trying to impugn the President.<br><br>Disobey what order? The order given in a fake document! The president now has to deny not obeying a fake order? Really, this is what he needs to do?<br><br>I'm speechless now, and you know how tough that is to do to me.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003

"here we go again" "i am speechless" "Holy crap, excuse my french." "I just get intellectually frustrated" "You've got to be kidding me!" "You've got to be kidding me!" "You've got to be kidding me!" -- just promise me that you'll never accuse liberals of being elitist. <br><br>let me simplify what i wrote since you're stuck on the documents in question when i was trying to extend beyond the piece of paper to the events surrounding the documents and the events that took place back in the early 70s.<br><br>"Was dubya or was dubya not suspended for failure to meet performance standards of the Air Force?" (1st sentence -- from Rather)<br>why can't the white house say that dubya was not suspended for (see above) and directly dispute the charges? (2nd sentence -- from me helping to enhance the implication and intention of the first sentence)<br><br>forget the document(s) in question for a moment -- i have neither claimed they are true or false; i am merely playing the waiting game with many others. i am just curious as to why the white house is not categorically denying the charges put forth by the memo that is still being called true by CBS. (this doesn't count since it's just clarifying how you are to interpret my 1st two sentences)<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato