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.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot of
effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...
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.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot of
effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

It violates Occam's Razor. In the absence of extenuating circumstances, the
simplest explanation is the best. Also, the fact that something CAN be
done, is never evidence that it MUST have been done.

Sir Cumference wrote in message ...
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.


So you imply that it can be done, so if someone were going to all the
trouble to fake up a document using word, then why not go to the "lot of
effort" to make the raised e's so the document appears to be real?

But if they were going to go through all that trouble of raising the
"e," why screw up other points in the document (superior "st" or "nd")
which people lept on to claim it was a Word document to begin with? It
would take a lot less effort to tell the computer not to make those
combinations superior than it would to make every "e" raised up just
the right way.