Another leftist attack bites the dust? - Page 3

I'll fight blogger with blogger:


http://www.freespeech.com/index.php

PS. I took a look at the new and improved word doc. The 'th' in the word doc on my Mac and a friends win box is still lower than the th shown on the CBS doc.

And even better, from the same source (as my previous post) . . . . looks like the attack dogs are the same people as well as some very *ehem* trustworthy sources:


So, not only "swift Boated" but by the Swift-Boaters themselves as well as very 'trustworthy forensic specialists' . . . like getting Mr Death (from the Errol Morris movie) to 'prove' your case for you!!

I see smart quotes and full justification available an IBM manual typewriter



http://www.ibmcomposer.org/SelCompos...tification.htm

Hmmm I wonder if superscrit would be that tough to do if they can make a typewriter that justifies???

Man. This right here is an example of why the republicans are better at this than the democrats. Memos surface that are incredibly damaging to the president. The dems get all excited and frothy at the mouth. A PR firm that helped out the Swifties starts to pump out a story that the documents, which had been vetted by CBS, are forgeries.

And so what happens? Do we redouble our efforts and stay focused on the damage to the president's unassailable character? Do we begin to float stories that Bush ought to volunteer for active duty in Iraq?

No. We spend all of our time writing about typewriters.

And unless any of ya'll are forensic typographers, you can compare word documents as much as you want. You still don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Excellent point. I fell into it again--stupid me. Don't let the issues be driven. Drive the issues. Bring the issues to the for... Thanks mid for the reminder.

Last post here really; I swear.

I couldn't stop laughing when I saw this:


From a dissection of the anti-memo machine 'truths'


[edit] This too

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/...?entry_id=4669

CBS misled


Looking pretty bad for CBS. Their own sources are now claiming that this was likely part of a smear campaign.

Then you also have the daughter of Ben Barnes confirming that Barnes' past statements about Bush and that his change of heart has had nothing to do with Bush, and everything ot do with Kerry being down in the polls.



Daughter confirms story change

CBS has orchestrated the equivalent of a political hit.

Nick

Main Entry: jour·nal·ism
Pronunciation: 'j&r-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media b : the public press c : an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium
2 a : writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazineb : writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation c : writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest


-Friends don't let friends watch Alphabet Channles. Giant multinational corporations and journalism don't mix.

That makes me sick . . . . his own daughter.

He came out because the stakes are real, and how can he live with doing what he knows was wrong?!
His story, as a Governor was, OF COURSE, that he wouldn't pull strings . . . it had to be, officially, or else it would be his job . .
But EVERYBODY knows that it happened . . . only utterly cynical partisans or blinded ideologues will tell themselves that the "Champaigne Squadrons" did not exist and for the exact reasons at issue.

His daughter should know that at one point in time, probably ending when he 'came out with the story', he would've said that he 'did not' get Bush into the Squad . . .
Its dispicable for her to pretend that since he once denied it that it is now a lie!!

Of course he once denied it, it was part of the whole deal: Gov lets the rich and elitist slime balls into the gaurd and he doesn't say anything . . . . unless the stakes become seriouse, or those slime balls that he let it attack honorable people's records while hiding their shamefull little secrets.

You know what . . . this little dictionary thing that you are trying out is really lame.

Of course the docs, proven to be readily reproduced using Microsoft Word, are really thirty years old. And reproducing a copy of a Guttenburg Bible with an old 1970's typewriter is the real deal, because "Guttenburg could have made one looking like that".


/ tinfoil hat off

Actually some did have extra "characters" on the ball, meaning they had a small sized 'th' that was higher than the other letters so the paper didn't have to move.

Pfflam, your whole story could make sense except for one thing. He was already asked the same information in 2000 and flatly denied helping Bush. Also regardless of which story is true, the 2000 version or the 2004 version, Barnes never said that Bush asked for the favor. Even in the 2004 version Barnes has said that he did this basically to gain favor with the Bush family.

How can this prove corruption of Bush when we went through official channels, got a result and never contacted anyone for favors? How could Bush prove that he didn't receive a favor when he didn't ask for one, and it is claimed one was given by a man (68 to present) 36 years after the fact?

Just tell me how you think Bush could refute the Barnes claim?

Nick

Hey genius. I'm not gonna call you on the lameness of the dictionary thing, but if you're gonna pull it, at least make sure you know how to spell "big" words like CHANNELS.

So 30 year old documents can be reproduced by modern technology? Imagine that.

Is the White House gonna declare those documents forged?

Nick:



From here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in641481.shtml

An even more dramatic look at See.B.S. credulous folly

Not I don't. I've actually published (7 other editors but I actually do the layout) for a quarterly for the past few years. Spacing problems invariably occur in the text body. Try not to talk about things you've never used.

You know that there is no kerning on it if it's a word document, don't you?

Staudt, the former commander of the TANG, and named in the 1973 memo as exerting pressure to "sugar coat" Lt. Bush's record, had retired 18 months earlier.

Don't you mean a plain text document? Any Microsoft Word document displayed in MS Word does use the kerning built into the font. Are you honestly claiming that Word cannot display proportionally spaced text?

Quarterly what? You often claim expertise but never once have been willing to back it up with any actual evidence. Quarterly office newsletter is likely what you are claiming for your expertise.

Put up or shut up. You have no credibility. Everything you've claimed on this topic is utter horseshit. People are posting graphics from sites where people quite easily recreated these memos using nothing more than Microsoft Word. Something you claimed was utterly impossible. You also claimed it would require a custom hand designed font and a page layout program.

Meanwhile everyone and their grandmother has been able to retype the memo, run it through a photocopier for about 10 generations and have it show up looking exactly the same. They've been able to take the first generation and superimpose it on top of the CBS memos and have it look exactly the same. The various news services challenging this have had NAMED experts in their field state their opinion which by the way, happens to be the exact opposite of yours.

So try to stop talking about things in which you are completely and totally wrong, and keep making up credentials that you always claim, but never prove.

In otherwords, stop telling other people to be quiet with some authority you imagine you hold.

Nick

Kerning is off by default in Word, I believe.


The problem, as I understand it, is that the original documents have to be skewed/resized, both in terms of font size and margin, in order for them to be placed alongside the test-documents.


But they don't. The Boston Globe had a forensic typographer look at it, and he says it's authentic. None of us here are forensic typographers, and so none of us know what we're talking about when it comes to all of this.


But they don't look exactly the same. One of the animated documents floating around this thread exhibits significant differences in Hs, As, Is, Ts, 4s, and a number of other characters.


Considering no one here really knows what they're talking about with regard to any of this, I would suggest that everyone shut the hell up about it and wait for the experts to weigh in with some kind of meaningful conclusion.

Cheers
Scott

"Are you honestly claiming that Word cannot display proportionally spaced text?"

Actually, it's pretty obvious reading this that Trupmt REALLY doesn't understand what kerning is. It seems he thinks the fact that a font is proportional means that it's "kerned". That's just stupid:

"Don't you mean a plain text document? Any Microsoft Word document displayed in MS Word does use the kerning built into the font (this is FALSE)."

While MS Word does claim to have automatic kerning (off by default), I tested it and it appears to do absolutely nothing. It seems like this is a "missing feature" of MS Word vX that wasn't fully implemented. Try it yourself.

dmz.

Please stop posting dictionary definitions. Please stop it. Do this for me. It's deeply, deeply annoying.

I'm pretty well convinced that CBS and Co. were not the victim of a hoax, but Rather (LOL) the perpetrators of that hoax. With hundreds of Swiftvets signing affidavits and prepared to testify on camera that was way too cold to push. We want to fact check that one, till, say, midway through Kerrys second term. But a handful of memos by one dead guy passed on to them by Mr. Barnes, a Kerry campaign operative from Austin that meets basic standards and we gotta get it out there, right away.

Amazingly, this guy, Lt. Col. Killian, in 1973 had the only $3,000 rich man's typewriter toy available to Air National Guard using a prototype version of the default letter writing program called Microsoft Word, complete with a tiny little superscript thingy that automatically changes April 1st to 187th. But these bigmedia Bolshevik mofos think we're still in the '70's, when they could pass on their vile, lying Marxist piece of shit propaganda and because they have the big voice no one would hear the truth.

It's very obvious that:
1. CBS was a willful party to this forgery.
2. CBS knows that someone close to the Kerry campaign is involved in this.
3. CBS thought they could get away with it because this wasn't the first time they've done this.

They deliberately run a manufactured story, based on an obvious fraud, in a blatant attempt to influence the election. This is journalistic fraud at an Enron level. We put people in jail for falsifying financial statements. These arrogant Bolshevik criminals at the Communist Broadcasting System belong there as well.

MS Word says in the help file that instead of calling that feature kerning, they prefer character spacing. You activate it by going under format:font: character spacing and then you can turn kerning on for any font above whatever size you chose.

Nick

You are right that no one here is doing anything more than speculating Scott. But the point is that you don't claim an unbacked expertise and then tell others to shut up. That is why giant repeatedly does.

A few examples...


BTW, giant does this in just about every thread. He claims to be an expert in finance, international spying and terrorism, and now document analysis. In each of these instances he doesn't really prove anything. He just sits back insults, and tells everyone to shut up because he is the expert.

Meanwhile he has never revealed ANYTHING to back his claims. You for instance have said you are a professor of English. You even told your exact area of expertise within English. If you told me something within this area you could claim expertise, I would gladly defer. I believe you even had a run in with him about research and publishing. Giant continually claims authority over others, never backs it with anything other than personal insults, and then tells people to shut up and break off discussion as well.

So I have simply told him to put up, or shut up with regard to telling others that he is an expert and also telling them to shut up. He has no right to tell others not to post.

Nick

OK. We have a poster here who seriously thinks that CBS are 'Bolsheviks'.

You are Mika and I claim my 50.

Try it. Type ooll in Times, change the point size to 72. Hit a carriage return and type it again.

Than select one of those lines, choose "format:font:character spacing" and turn on kerning above 12 pt. Leave the other one off.

It does NOTHING. It should. The two lines should be spaced differently but they're not. There was no change and there should have been if it is in fact being kerned.

Try the same thing with a WA capitalized in say the word WASHINGTON.

BTW, I'll also note that in the same dialog you can manually raise and lower certain letters like say... a th next to a 187.

Nick

Edit: Also in addition to just typing ooll, try typing the word tools with a capital T.

You actually have to tell Word to use kerning. In the word document that matches the memo, kerning is not turned on. That's what makes it such a hoot that you are so hung up on a feature that doesn't even exist in the memos.

I love this. Two separate assumptions that both show you don't know what you are talking about. 1st: I never said what word can or cannot display. 2nd: I'm talk about kerning here, not the overall tracking of the text.

No I didn't. I said that a forger would have to do that in order to accurately emulate a typewriter.

My argument was specifically that with these memos a forger wouldn't have done that. Funny that your binary world view somehow made you read it exactly opposite.

Which claim is that?

Except that it MS does call it kerning. See menu.

I'm curious what you think mine is. Please tell.

Nick,

I've posted twice about the "th" character you asked about. It's time you admitted the truth on the subject even if Word and Kern. It's irrelevant.

Your field?

Who would know?

Let me see what I recall.. (without the help of Google of course)

You've claimed your finances are quite complex.

I believe I recall you saying you don't share you finances with your significant other as well.

You claimed you used to work in research.

You've claimed to publish a quarterly (but didn't add quarterly what...)

There was a thread around here about what do you do, or something of that nature where, again if I recall correctly, you might have mentioned something about libraries.

So the point is, who would know? All I know is that you claim authority and attempt to smack others down with it while not backing it up with anything besides name-calling and contempt. In any area where you have been challenged on your claims people who have and will actually state their expertise, you often just find some way of dismissing the issue.(For example with Mid and publishing you changed the bar from (again memory here) decent research to "ground-breaking" research.)

But the real point of this thread is that these documents are forgories and CBS was duped. We've had news come out that they misrepresenting the memos to the people they "verified" them with over the phone. We have their own experts claiming they might have verified a signature, and not the typewritten document above that signature, or that they verified the signature on only one page, but not the initialed pages, and did not verify anything with regard to typing.

Are you willing yet to take a clear position on these memos? You keep attacking the messanger, address the message.

Nick

No.

Let's look at this again:

I'm curious what you think [my opinion] is. Please tell. Apparently you think you know what the exact opposite is.

And the reason kerning is irrelevant is because it's nonexistent in the memos.

dp - but that's good because it get us closer to getting off this page that mika screwed up.

I con't remember which news network, Fox or CNN, but one of the pundits said he had his staff type the memo in word and the line breaks were identical the document was exact.

If that is true, whaqt are the chances that could happen?

Actually bunge, I addressed it with Tonton. I showed how you can raise the th next to the 187 in MS Word. I also mentioned that although printing from postscript printers is supposed to be uniform. It is not always so. There are small differences from printer to printer and the TH could be attributed to that. Lastly, we don't know how these documents were "aged" via photocopying because even CBS does have the originals. But I'm not going to let the 1% disprove the 99% that does perfectly match.

BTW, just for fun this morning, I printed a typed copy of one of the memos from my PC with Word, my Mac with Word, and my PC with OpenOffice. The only thing different from any of the three copies from the exact same printer was the TH next to the 187. When I tried my Canon inkjet printer, that was the only difference between the three copies as well.

Nick

You keep attacking the messanger, address the message.

They do the exact opposite of you in that they address the memos and their contents. You address the person and their qualifications. I've already addressed that in a particular post.

Here is a perfect example...


So to summarize, you don't say the memos are fakes, just that the people saying they are fakes are incredible liars, hypocrits, not educated, lack expertise, etc.

The real professionals take the exact opposite position of you. They really don't care who brought up that the memos were fakes. They look at the memos and render a decision. Their decision has been uniform. The one Boston Globe expert was basically expressing a possibility and had it quoted as confirmation.


But all this is besides the point. Address your qualifications, address the topic, or at a minimum stop killing the messanger with insults and false claims of expertise when you don't like the information being put out there.

Nick

Congrats, trumpt! You officially get the prize for most contorted attempt at saving face. It's pretty amusing to watch you backtrack from assuming I think the memos are not fakes.

Oh, and let me fix that for you:

This is a more accurate summary.

BTW, I still can't decide. I'm leaning toward unfuckingbelievable.

So in a thread where every time a point of yours is disproven you've gone on a rant about me and my work and blah, blah, blah, and said both that I must be on drugs and that my posts are "utter horseshit" you have the gall to accuse me of attacking the messenger. You are unreal.

And your "message" is exactly what got attacked and disproved. Guess what, trumpt. No kerning on the memo, contrary to what you were trying to BS here. Next time, don't try to play an expert on something you've never even used.