"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message


..
.
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES
DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters of
the
time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic.
Don't
waste
your
time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font.
What has not been established is if *any* typewriters of
the
time
could
be used to reproduce what someone (according to NPR) has
done:
- Type the content of the suspect document using MS Word.
- Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how
they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities
that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the
same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable
probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with
great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or
no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by
multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt to artificially
"age" a
document. If you've seen the pdf (I downloaded it from the
Washington
Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.

Try again yourself. The "a" letters in several words were affected
the
same way.

That still wouldn't be explained by multiple passes.

Try again.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the first
criticism
out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.

You believe what you want. They match up all to well.

No, as a matter of fact they don't.

If you go to other sites in the links you can see what the best of
the IBM typewriter of the time can do reproducing the memo's and
you can see for yourself that they match up far worse than the
suspect documents and their computer generated brethren with the
character misalignments I expected to find.

Not to mention that nobody in their right mind would go through
the
gymnastics need to create the superscript of just a few characters
in the document. The "th" would have been just regular typed
letters.

You obviously never used a Selectric II.

No but others have. Follow the links it's obvious that a Selectric II
could not create those documents.

It's already been established that IBMf and OTHER typewriters had both
superscript and proportional spacing.

Try again.



If you were writing a math paper where the superscript was part of
a formula you might but not in a memo such as this.

That's absurd. You're reaching.

Your the one reaching.

Actually, I'm not. Since there are now printed document experts who are
saying that it's quite possible for the docs to have been turned out on
typewriters of the period, the burden of proof now falls on the
doubters.
Plus, since superscript on even so cheesy an IBM model as the Selectric
II
was no more than a flipped lever away, and since even when I was
learning
how to type [1964] that lever flipping was taught to be almost
instinctual,
you ARE in fact reaching.

No you are reaching. I did not say it's not possible just unlikely.

Well, you're wrong, since quickly and efficiently producing superscript on
electric typewriters was a part of basic high school typing classes in 1964.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't already
known about Bush's desertion.

These "docs" do portray Bush in a more negative light.

Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value. We knew he got in via Barnes. We knew he got
jumped
ahead of his capabilities. We knew he wasn't where he was supposed
to be. We knew he failed to show for the physical, etc., etc.

I don't care if they are real but I do care if they are fake
because then someone is trying to smear the President.

If.


It's pretty clear that they are forgeries.

No it's not.

It's clear to me that they are when you look at an Selectric II
created
document, a computer generated document and the suspect document the
two
that line up the best is the computer generated and suspect. It's
pretty
clear the suspect documents were created on a computer not a
typewriter.

Not to the experts. And you're no expert.

The opinion of the experts are not in yet.

Well, manifestly, the opinion of some of them IS in.


You are no expert either.

And I said that I was an expert exactly where????


Since we will have to wait I'll believe my eye's over your bias any day.

What you believe doesn't really concern me.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 20:43:48 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:


"Dan" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:


It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised "e"'s
can't
be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

The August 18, 1973 Memo. The two middle "e"s in the word
"interference".
This was caught by an independent expert named Marty Heldt, but anyone
can
see it in a blowup or even with a handheld magnifying glass.


Sorry, but I don't see it. I see a bunch of distortions from the
multiple copyings. They are *not* "raised" - the bottom is slightly
distorted compared to the first "e" in interference, but the tops are
in exactly the same spot.

Actual "raised letters" - usually referred to as "flying caps", are
due to the platen not being in the correct position after/before a
shift (CAPITAL LETTER) on a regular typewriter. IBM Selectric
"golfball" typewriters don't have this problem, because the upper case
letters are on the opposite side of the ball from the lower case
letters. There is no shifting of the platen involved.

I *do* see a superscript "th", however. No "hunt and peck" typist
would jump through the hoops needed to do this in a MEMO TO HIMSELF!
You have to manually space the page up 1/2 line, CHANGE THE TYPE BALL
to the smaller font, type the "th", manually space the page back down
and then REPLACE THE TYPE BALL WITH THE LARGER ONE!

Do you *seriously* believe someone actually did this - assuming he
actually had the IBM Selectric Composer typewriter to begin with?

Besides, this entire page lines up *perfectly* - horizontally AND
vertically - with the memo text re-typed into Word, using default
settings and margins. Just what do you think the odds are of *that*?

So no, it's NOT "beginning to look like the docs are legitimate"!
They are *clearly* forgeries.

Dan

Experts disagree with you, Dan.

I think I'll take their word over yours. Especially since I learned on a
Selectric II and superscript was taught to be nearly instinctual in 1964
typing classes.

In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that typewriters
of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic. Don't
waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font. What has not been established is if *any* typewriters
of the time could be used to reproduce what someone (according to
NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect document using
MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how they line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities that a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt to
artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf (I downloaded
it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I would think
it is an artifact from something other than the device that originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just his style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't already
known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough said - I think
I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents without
Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was supposed to
be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture put together
by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs or no Killian
docs. That was never really a question. The Killian docs are
interesting, but they don't change much of anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others. Better to focus on what
Kerry did when he came back from Vietnam and that is on the record. No
debate about what he did then.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun 12 Sep 2004 12:01:09a, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:16:29p, Dan wrote in message
:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:06:25 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote:


It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. The raised
"e"'s can't be duplicated without a lot of effort in Word.


What "raised e's"? I don't see any.

Dan


There is a single occurrence of an ever so slightly raised "e" in the
word "Colonel" in one of the documents

That's only one instance. There's also the word "interference" in the
18 August memo. Same thing in the word "me" in second line. In the
case of that word, it may be a matter of the "m" falling slightly below
the line.

In both case, it's inconsistent with a word processor.


You're asserting it's consistent with a typewriter? If the typewriter had
some defect to cause a letter to misregister, that misregistration would
be consistent, which it is not in these docs.

Again it becomes apparent that you never used a Selectric II.

And I think I'll take the word of a document expert over yours.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters
of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic. Don't
waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font. What has not been established is if *any*
typewriters
of the time could be used to reproduce what someone (according
to
NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect document using
MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt to
artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf (I
downloaded
it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I would think
it is an artifact from something other than the device that
originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just his style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't already
known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough said - I
think
I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents without
Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was supposed to
be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture put together
by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs or no Killian
docs. That was never really a question. The Killian docs are
interesting, but they don't change much of anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Better to focus on what
Kerry did when he came back from Vietnam and that is on the record. No
debate about what he did then.

That's right. A hell of a lot more for America than Bush ever did.

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message


..
.
In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES
DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters of
the
time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic.
Don't
waste
your
time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font.
What has not been established is if *any* typewriters of
the
time
could
be used to reproduce what someone (according to NPR) has
done:
- Type the content of the suspect document using MS Word.
- Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how
they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities
that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the
same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable
probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with
great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or
no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by
multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt to artificially
"age" a
document. If you've seen the pdf (I downloaded it from the
Washington
Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.

Try again yourself. The "a" letters in several words were affected
the
same way.

That still wouldn't be explained by multiple passes.

Try again.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the first
criticism
out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.

You believe what you want. They match up all to well.

No, as a matter of fact they don't.

If you go to other sites in the links you can see what the best of
the IBM typewriter of the time can do reproducing the memo's and
you can see for yourself that they match up far worse than the
suspect documents and their computer generated brethren with the
character misalignments I expected to find.

Not to mention that nobody in their right mind would go through
the
gymnastics need to create the superscript of just a few characters
in the document. The "th" would have been just regular typed
letters.

You obviously never used a Selectric II.

No but others have. Follow the links it's obvious that a Selectric II
could not create those documents.

It's already been established that IBMf and OTHER typewriters had both
superscript and proportional spacing.

Try again.



If you were writing a math paper where the superscript was part of
a formula you might but not in a memo such as this.

That's absurd. You're reaching.

Your the one reaching.

Actually, I'm not. Since there are now printed document experts who are
saying that it's quite possible for the docs to have been turned out on
typewriters of the period, the burden of proof now falls on the
doubters.
Plus, since superscript on even so cheesy an IBM model as the Selectric
II
was no more than a flipped lever away, and since even when I was
learning
how to type [1964] that lever flipping was taught to be almost
instinctual,
you ARE in fact reaching.

No you are reaching. I did not say it's not possible just unlikely.

Well, you're wrong, since quickly and efficiently producing superscript on
electric typewriters was a part of basic high school typing classes in 1964.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't already
known about Bush's desertion.

These "docs" do portray Bush in a more negative light.

Not really. We already know everything in the docs that's of any
material value. We knew he got in via Barnes. We knew he got
jumped
ahead of his capabilities. We knew he wasn't where he was supposed
to be. We knew he failed to show for the physical, etc., etc.

I don't care if they are real but I do care if they are fake
because then someone is trying to smear the President.

If.


It's pretty clear that they are forgeries.

No it's not.

It's clear to me that they are when you look at an Selectric II
created
document, a computer generated document and the suspect document the
two
that line up the best is the computer generated and suspect. It's
pretty
clear the suspect documents were created on a computer not a
typewriter.

Not to the experts. And you're no expert.

The opinion of the experts are not in yet.

Well, manifestly, the opinion of some of them IS in.


You are no expert either.

And I said that I was an expert exactly where????


Since we will have to wait I'll believe my eye's over your bias any day.

What you believe doesn't really concern me.

And what you believe does not concern me in the least. Suffer at the
work of your whims such as they are.

Well, I've done the comparisons and came to my own conclusions which are
clear the documents were faked on a computer. Someone was very inept to
say the least, but you continue on with your crusade that they are real,
I've said my piece.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"Gandalf Grey" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"-=jd=-" wrote:

On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:47:47p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 09:20:11p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat 11 Sep 2004 06:12:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"John" wrote in message
...
Isle Of The Dead wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...


There is NO reliable evidence the documents are fake.


Dude, what part of "computer age"
do you NOT understand?



I USED TYPEWRITERS THAT COULD DO IT BACK IN THE EARLY
SEVENTIES DICKHEAD!

1. It's been established in the last 24 hours that
typewriters
of the time could do what we've seen.
2. Isle of the Dead is a known newsgroup psychotic. Don't
waste your time.



It's only been established that some typewriters had the
type-font. What has not been established is if *any*
typewriters
of the time could be used to reproduce what someone (according
to
NPR) has done: - Type the content of the suspect document using
MS Word. - Print the MS-Word doc on a laser printer.
- Scan the MS-Word doc
- Scan a copy of the suspect document
- Superimpose the two over each other and marvel at how they
line
up.

Maybe it's not outside the realm of infinite possibilities that
a
chiefly mechanical device in the early seventies has the same
typographical characteristics of a current software based
word-processing program to include type spacing, kerning,
justification, character registration, etc, etc, etc...

I wouldn't be so quick to declare it a definite or even
reasonable probability just yet...

Well, the raised "e" can only be accomplished in Word with great
difficulty.

It's beginning to look like the docs are legitimate. NPR or no
NPR.


Apparently the raised "e" can also be attributed to a defect
introduced by multiple-passes through a copier in an attempt to
artificially "age" a document. If you've seen the pdf (I
downloaded
it from the Washington Post).

No. That wouldn't effect the "e"s alone.

Try again.


In the single position and no other "e" being affected, I would think
it is an artifact from something other than the device that
originally
produced the document.

Now you're reaching.

No need to try again.

Wrong.


The new discoveries along with the Rovian character of the first
criticism out make it clear that the docs are legitimate.


Opinions vary...

Rove doesn't. He's a sleazeball trickster and this is just his style.



Besides that, the docs don't reveal anything that wasn't already
known about Bush's desertion.



And there we have it. Who needs the docs, right? Enough said - I
think
I see where you're coming from.

Yeah. I'm coming from the truth. The existing documents without
Killian's documents already prove Bush wasn't where he was supposed to
be. Then there are the missing documents and the picture put together
by the AP. Bush was a technical deserter, Killian docs or no Killian
docs. That was never really a question. The Killian docs are
interesting, but they don't change much of anything.




And Kerry received one or more of his decorations "technically". So
what?
Apparently, you come from "the truth" as only you can see it through the
filter of your bias. Wherever Bush was, the ANG apparently did not have
any problem with it, as can be determined by the honorable discharge
Bush
received. Or is that particular document "forged" and/or not up to your
standards of truth?

I think it is a mistake to spend much time on Kerry's 4 months in
Vietnam since it's his word against others.

More like 3 plus years.

Excuse me, 4 months and 2 days. If you don't know the time Kerry spent
in Vietnam best you stop writing and go find out.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
If we ever gain some expert consensus, its going to be interesting to see,
how it all comes out. I'll predict CBS eventually drops any further
mention of/reliance on the documents and switches to stressing any other
information in the story as sufficient to prove their point. Also, if


Hilarious.

You guys *still* don't get it.

You have a MS Word document that required
millions of calculations to create.

And another document that matches it exactly.

But somehow, someway, you're still not grasping
that it would take *gasp* millions of calculations
to create the same spacings.

You see an IBM typewriter from 1973 with the
claim of "proportional fonts", but you stilll haven't
grasped the difference between a mechnical
device with a few variations and a computer
generated device requiring millions of calculations.


That's liberals for ya.

If you'd exercise yore brains some more,
perhaps you wouldn't need losers like Clinton
to save your asses!

Too funny.,

"Dan" wrote in message
...

Besides, this entire page lines up *perfectly* - horizontally AND
vertically - with the memo text re-typed into Word, using default
settings and margins. Just what do you think the odds are of *that*?

So no, it's NOT "beginning to look like the docs are legitimate"!
They are *clearly* forgeries.


Clearly.

Anybody with even of gram of experience understands this.

I can't believe what morons we're dealing with,
no wonder America is sinking a morass of debt
and destruction.

WHAT THE **** PART OF

"LINES UP EXACTLY WITH DOCUMENT
WHICH REQUIRED MILLIONS OF
CALCULATIONS TO CREATE"

do you morons NOT understand?


What unbelievable pathetic weenies.

Go! Go back to 1960 where you belong!

"Telamon" wrote:

If people can type up the document
on a computer and it lines up with
the documents in question then they
are fake documents. (snip)


Not really? Computer printer manufacturers, and computer font designers,
have spent decades trying to reproduce the output of popular typewriters and
printing presses. Indeed, many computer fonts used today are based directly
on the old typewriter fonts. Companies making word processing programs have
spent decades trying to get similar results from their programs. At this
point, after decades of such efforts, it would really be more surprising if
the results between the two (typewriters and computers) were actually that
different.

Stewart