"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Just to widen the field a little, it seems
likely the IBM/Lotus word processor would also have whatever fonts the
selectric had.

Frank Dresser


You must be kidding, you can get just about any font for a word processor.


No, I'm not kidding.

I really think it seems likely that the IBM/Lotus word processors would have
the same fonts the selectric had. Why would you think I'm kidding? By the
way, I played with OS/2 for a while, and I'm almost certain it came with
it's own version of Times New Roman. I'm not sure if it's identical in
every detail to MS Times New Roman. I suppose I'm mildly curious, but I'm
not kidding. Well, I'm not particularly curious, either. I still have the
hard drive with OS/2 on it, and I'm not even going to bother digging it out.
I'm more lazy than curious on this one.

But I'm not kidding.

Frank Dresser

DS,

The QUESTION Still Remains . . .

"WHO" provided these 'manufactured' ?documents? for 60 Minutes.

60 Minutes needs to 'come clean' with the American People.

60 Minutes needs to Identify the "Source" of the Forged Documents.

60 Minutes is Stone Walling the Search for the Truth with a
so called 'investigation'. Some now call this "DOC-U-GATE".

Failing to do so simply means that 60 Minutes is part of this
Criminal Conspircy to present these Fake Documents as real.

WHAT - Did 60 Minutes Know ? {about the Forged Documents}

WHEN - Did Dan Rather Know It ? {about these Fake Documents}

HOW - Is 60 Minutes 'involvement' in/with these Forged Documents ?

WHY - Has 60 Minutes Not Acted to Tell the Truth ?
{about these Forged 'Fake' Documents}

So What's the Frequency {Now} Dan ?

Just the Facts in Search of the Truth ~ RHF
..
..
= = = "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
= = = k.net...
"Sir Cumference" wrote:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
And the person who sent photocopies
of military documents to the press is
not likely to come forward now to point
to the original documents.

Why not? Do you think they might be afraid
they would be made a fool of if the originals
were submitted to analysis? (snip)


Because the person very likely violated the law by releasing those
documents in the first place.

Stewart
..

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

"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.
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.

Wrong.

I can understand your problem. Your boy, Bush deserted during his service
in the guard, so you've got to find a way to attack the actual service of
Kerry, who did two tours in Vietnam.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is
dressing up in a flight suit.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's "Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled. Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism" is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air National
Guard? If that's the case, then I'm relatively certain that there are thousands
of folks out there that would like to kick your sniveling liberal ass. Not that
there aren't already.

Do you have any evidence that would show that the president is a coke addict?

If you're going to use possibility that he used coke in the past, then you'd
better get on the case of Barak Obama, who is running for the Senate from
Illinois. Now there is an admitted coke-head. Oh yeah, wasn't he a featured
speaker at the Democratic Convention?

Damn... a coke-head at the convention...

dxAce

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a
nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that
someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look
like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just
so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the
concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism"
is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air
National
Guard?

By refusing direct orders and deserting your post.


Do you have any evidence that would show that the president is a coke
addict?

There's quite a bit of it out there, including his own unwillingness to even
answer the question.

Pull your head out, rightie.

Gandalf Grey wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a
nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that
someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry look
like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat. Just
so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the
concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks "heroism"
is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas Air
National
Guard?

By refusing direct orders and deserting your post.

WRONG. That's not dodging the draft.

When did he desert? Where were the direct orders? In some fake documents?

He put in his time, and he was honourably discharged. What don't you understand
about that?

You just haven't a clue as to how the National Guard operated, none, zero.

You lose.

dxAce

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Gandalf Grey wrote:

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a
nick on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled
on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that
someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a
rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.

I've served with and know *real* Heros who would make Kerry
look
like
Clinton in comparison.

You're assessment of heroes and heroism means exactly squat.
Just
so
you'll know.


You have yet to demonstrate any ability to even begin to grasp the
concept
of "Hero"

So does your support of a draft-dodging coke-addict who thinks
"heroism"
is
dressing up in a flight suit.

And please explain how one dodges the draft by serving in the Texas
Air
National
Guard?

By refusing direct orders and deserting your post.

WRONG. That's not dodging the draft.

When did he desert?

Somewhere where they weren't giving flight physicals.

Give us a break, rightie. The facts are out there. Bush was REQUIRED to
take a physical and he didn't report.


He put in his time

Apparently not. We're still waiting for some documentation that he actually
did put in his time.

Still waiting.

"Crickets.wav"

You lose, rightie.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Tue 14 Sep 2004 07:06:09p, "Gandalf Grey"

wrote in message m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 10:21:01p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Mon 13 Sep 2004 08:51:49p, "Gandalf Grey"
wrote in message
m:


{snippage}

Bob Dole Tossed a grenade, it bounced off a tree and he got a nick
on
his shin along with a purple heart.



I hadn't heard. I guess the fact that he's pretty much crippled on
one
side does not matter to you, as much as your attempts to smear
anyone
who has ever served honorably.

Oh I see. Dole ****s up and gets a purple heart but THAT'S okay!

Just so long as I know I'm dealing with the typical right wing
hypocrite.



Gee - Nice knee-jerk assumption there, chuckles! Did I say that someone
getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay"?

Apparently yes, since you don't seem to be critical of Dole's
"Technical"
P.H.

That you somehow think Kerry's
"bandaids" somehow equate to Dole's crippling injuries makes a rather
compelling case for your own hypocracy. Try again, sunshine!

To use your own party's attitude, Dole ****ed up and got crippled.
Tough
****!

After all, that seems to have been Saxby "never served" Chambliss's
technique against Max Cleland.


Where did I say that getting a P.H. for a "nick" is "okay", eh chuckles?

So you're on record that Dole didn't deserve his purple heart?


Again, you exaggerate and re-word my post into something it is not.

So far, your "post" isn't anything except a collection of weasel words.

That you
can't defend your own assertion without doing so is now a matter of
record.

My assertion is that Kerry deserved his purple heart as much as Dole
deserved his.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...


Bush's National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems' spin, here are the facts

More Questions than facts.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0...ws/20guard.htm

The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he
served
By Kit R. Roane

Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of
President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the
files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National
Guard." Case closed, he said.

But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets,
including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House
claims.

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the
Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less
stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty.
Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was
required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal
year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of
that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only
12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service
should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date
in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force
obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he
attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated
sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method,
which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows
that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed
to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50
points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.

The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his
obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a
time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made
up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the
administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last
week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."

Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable
discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the
Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had
not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

Bush signed his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968,
shortly after becoming eligible for the draft. In his "statement of
understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included
attending "48 scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each year. He also
acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty if he failed to meet
these requirements.

Slump. Bush's records show that he did his duty for much of the first four
years of his commitment. But as the Vietnam War wound down, his performance
slumped, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. He did no
drills for one five-month period in 1972. He also missed his flight
physical. By May 2, 1973, his superiors said they could not evaluate his
performance because he "has not been observed."

Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who originally certified
the White House position that Bush had completed his military obligation,
stood by his analysis. After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force
regulations from the period, he complained that if the entire unit were
judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not
have made satisfactory participation."

Some other experts disagree. "There is no 'sometimes we have compliance and
sometimes we don't,' " says Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force colonel and
Duke University law professor. "That is a nonsensical statement and an
insult to the Guard to suggest it."

The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a retired colonel and
author of an official history of the Army Reserve. "Clearly, if you were the
average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force," he says,
"they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your
obligation."


--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we."
--George Bush. Aug. 5th., 2004

"Because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about
expressing our power and influence."
---George Bush, 3/4/01