proportional spacing invented 1941

That's quite interesting, owl. There are definitely some people who won't like hearing that.

what, like the people who haven't heard Dan rather apologize for the forgeries yet?

It has not been proven that the document is a forgery.

The question now is whether the content of the statement is true.

I'd wager it is! And I suspect it's not a forgery but an elaborate dance to keep someone from getting killed.

I don't think anyone needs to argue whether or not proportional spacing was available on typewriters in 1968 or whatever. There are two rather telling facts here.

First, typewriters using proportional spacing were not all that common nor cheap. Do you really think the TNG sprung for typewriters of said quality?

Secondly, even if the TNG had said typewriters, why are there no other documents from this time frame issued by the TNG that have proportional spacing such as the ones being discussed? Did someone use the typewriter only for these docs and then sold it? Of course not. Only an idiot would say with any sincerity that that is a possibility. So where are other docs from the TNG with proportional spacing?

There are none, and that is the point. Now Rather and anyone else can argue all you want about whether or not the facts behind the docs are true, but the fact that the docs are probably fakes sure sheds a poor light on the underlying facts. People who have the truth on their side don't need to make things up to back up their truth.

Re: proportional spacing invented 1941


Who here claimed it was invented in 1972?

Assuming you are referring to the Bush memo claims - there are 3 considerations to the claims:

1. The typewriter used proportional fonts.
2. The typewriter used a ball element.
3. The typewriter was available for use in the TANG.

The 1941 IBM machine doesn't meet #2.
The IBM Selectric Composer (circa 1968) meets #1 & #2 but most likely doesn't meet #3 (it was designed for and sold to printing shops and used by typesetters. It wasn't a standard office-use machine.).
The IBM Selectric II Correcting could meet all 3 criteria however it wasn't introduced until 1972.

I studied typing in 1960 when I was twelve years old. Part of the time I would bike into class with my Hermes Baby, and the rest of the time I used Smith Coronas at the East Hampton High School where I took the class.

Most notably what makes me suspect that the document is quite genuine was that lesson they gave us on how to create half spaces and how to fake letters in where you may have made the paper slip during an erasure.

If irregular and "out of proportion" keystrokes could be produced on a Smith Corona in 1960, I would find the above remarks about IBMs to be inconclusive.

Furthermore, if Rather was duped you can't argue away the facts of Bush's mediocre record as a "warrior." But you do try.

This guy Bush is a silver spoon from the git-go - and his military service defines him as a Chicken Hawk.

What better defines a Chicken Hawk than serving in the inactive reserves during war time?

Nada.

Perhaps they would have been better served teaching you what the term "proportional font" means. Using half-spaces is NOT using a proportional font.



And did they teach you to type up entire letters adjusting the spacing between each and every letter all the way through and making sure that the exact spacing was equal on every single use of each letter? Did you sit there with a measure to ensure that each letter "i" got one pica spacing on both sides, that each "m" got 2 picas, etc..? You must have been one sloooooow typist!

What surprises me is that they lie so well. The statement that proportional spacing came out around 1972 was a lie. This is my main point.

Also these typewriters were common in offices back then but they were not used in homes. Thus when people look back on what they had at home there was no propontial spacing but it was common in business. The idea that they were used only in printing is false.

I am really amaized at how well the government can alter facts and then sell then to the population.

Costal Rat


See paragraph 5 of this link.






report on typewriter

Owl, see the 3rd paragraph of my previous post.

You get your "facts" from "Common Dreams" and then state that evidence shown by others from entirly non-partisan sites is false?? lmao

btw, here's an interesting blog by someone that's been directly in touch with a guy that is an expert (he's maintained a WWW site dedicated to the IBM Composer for several years now) on the IBM Seletric Composer (the machine you and your Common dreams article keep insisting was readily available). Lot of interesting info on the machine:

http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/09/the_ibm_selectr.html

Dan Rather did not apologize for the "forgeries." He said that he could not vouch for the documents which is not saying that they were forgeries just that he couldn't say for sure or not if they were authentic and in light of that fact he was sorry he ran the show. (put that in my own words but the meaning is the same as what he said)

Again this an example of how people distort facts and quotes.