0.41 seconds [Archive] - CycleBanter.com

Howard Kveck

September 13th 04, 09:56 AM

In article et>,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Robert Chung" > wrote:
> >
> > > is the time gap between first and second in the Tour de l'Avenir.
> Lokvist
> > > took the final stage with a big fist pump, thinking he'd won the
> overall.
> > > The officials had to go back to the first stage ITT to determine the
> > > overall. The 1989 TdF GC time gap was roughly 20 times larger.
> > >
> > > (I would have written 41/100ths of a second, but the "ths" weren't
> > > superscripted. Some people would consider this proof that this post was
> > > written before 1973).
> >
> > I hand-typed a copy of your post, and it looks identical. This
> > conclusively proves your post is a forgery.
>
> http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg
>
> If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
> perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.

I was mocking some of the people who have styled themselves as experts
in the field of document analysis. See, I don't claim to be an expert in
this field, and I haven't made up my mind on whether they are or aren't
forgeries. A couple of points, though. Some sites I've looked at say that
not all documents that are alleged to be from Killian look the same,
type-wise. Who's to say whether or not they were all done on the same
typewriter, or even by the same person (him or one of several secretaries)?
Further, there was a lot of talk about proportional and superscripted types
not existing then. A little searching will show that IBM had machines out
in '41 that did both of those things, and that the US govt. had them in
common useage. As for the fonts matching, well, Times New Roman in Word
better look like Times New Roman on a typewriter. The fonts in computers
and word processors are made to match the mechanically generated versions
of the same name.

It is interesting to me that the White House didn't and doesn't dispute
any of what the documents said. They aren't pushing back on this at all. I
doubt that's because they knew that the blogoshpere would sort it out for
'em. Maybe they want them to go away?

The important part of all this is simple: did GWB fulfill his obligation
in the TNG? It does not appear to be so. Example:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

As for me voting for Chirac, I don't understand. Chirac is French and...
Ooooooooooohhhhhhh, now I get it! You called Kerry Chirac, cuz he's so, you
know, French. Damn, that is *so* cute.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

RonSonic

September 13th 04, 04:47 PM

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:20:35 +0200, "Robert Chung" > wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg
>>
>> If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
>> perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.
>
>I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You
>appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document
>purportedly created at time A, where B > A, then the document purportedly
>created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim, that's
>nuts.
>
>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp
>

Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type memoranda.
Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk.

Ron

gwhite

September 13th 04, 05:53 PM

Howard Kveck wrote:
>

> See, I don't claim to be an expert in
> this field,...

> "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
> Albert Einstein

Einstein was not an expert in the field of governance. In appeals to authority,
it is beneficial to actually choose an authority. Even then...

Robert Chung

September 13th 04, 09:44 PM

RonSonic wrote:
>
> Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type
> memoranda. Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on
> every desk.

So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a
document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine,
then the document is proved to be a forgery.

BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the
memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf

How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?

Curtis L. Russell

September 13th 04, 10:13 PM

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>
>So you're saying that if one can use a cheap machine today to re-create a
>document purportedly created at some past time on an expensive machine,
>then the document is proved to be a forgery.
>
>BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create the
>memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf
>
>How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?

Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
non-issue. You create it, forge the signature and then run it through
a copier to disguise the age. The longest part of the process is
forging a reasonable signature.

How long to create something pretty much the same? A few minutes.
Longer to forge a signature. Not that I ever saw a 'CYA' memo in my
seven years in the military, not labeled as such. Seems pretty dumb
ass to me.

The interesting part of this entire event is how many
middle-of-the-road to liberal media types are taking CBS to task on
the original vetting and their subsequent defense. Its ABC that was
the harshest commentator as of this morning - not the favorite
whipping boy of the left, Fox.

And the direction of this is even more interested when you look at
Terry Mcauliffe's remarks. After making the Republicans responsible
for anything ever released about Kerry, he now declares the Bush
documents were probably planted by Republicans as well. While this may
sit well with the core Democrat voters, I'm guessing that it doesn't
sit nearly as well with the swing voters.

And it seems to pretty much concede that the documents were probably
forgeries.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung

September 13th 04, 11:46 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:44:48 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, speaking of re-creating those memos, have you tried to re-create
>> the memo dated "04 May 1972" using MS Word?
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf
>>
>> How easy (or hard) was it to get them to match?
>
> Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
> non-issue. [...] How long to create something pretty much the same?
> A few minutes.

The claim on LGF was that the memos could be re-created using MS Word
defaults, in a few minutes. Try it with the memo dated "04 May 1972."

Stewart Fleming

September 14th 04, 03:24 AM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> And it seems to pretty much concede that the documents were probably
> forgeries.

So how to explain the White House comment that they did not dispute
authenticity? More "up is down"?

Tom Kunich

September 14th 04, 04:55 AM

"RonSonic" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:20:35 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:
>
> >Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>
> >> http://wizbangblog.com/images/cbsdocnumber4studysmall.jpg
> >>
> >> If you don't think that the See-BS "documents" are forgeries after this
> >> perhaps you ought to vote for Chirac.
> >
> >I looked at that page, but I can't see why it's relevant at all. You
> >appear to be saying, "If at time B one can re-create a document
> >purportedly created at time A, where B > A, then the document purportedly
> >created at time A is proved to be a forgery." If that's your claim,
that's
> >nuts.
> >
> >http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1644869,00.asp
> >
>
> Sure, every company clerk in the ANG used an IBM Composer to type
memoranda.
> Makes perfect sense to have those $4,000 machines setting on every desk.

The typeface that is standard in MS Word is Times New Roman. This typeface
was invented about 1980 (http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/articles/times.htm)
..

Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available in
the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was only
used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface. That is, it was designed
to compress the font together so that wide and narrow letter are squashed
together to use the maximum space on a line. Typewriters have character
stamps that are the same width and so kerned typefaces look badly when typed
with such spacings. They invented entirely new typefaces for typewriters
that would look acceptably attractive.

What really modernized the world of publishing was the invention in the
early 80's of the word processing machine. Over the next decade the ability
to kern type and to proportionally space was slowly built into machines that
the extremely tightly controlled printers unions began to lose control of
the printer's business. Most people would say that it wasn't until about 198
8 before word processing hit it's stride.

Robert Chung makes a silly comment about reproducing the typeface as if that
sort of thing was possible or even likely, because he is completely ignorant
of the printer's trade despite whatever other education he might have.

This entire modern world rests on one thing - the written word. And you and
I and everything we know of the modern world we owe to the written word and
the vast powerful history behind it. Robert's entire education started and
was greatly advanced and even today is expanded by -- reading. Each decade
the AVAILABLE technology has been used to its fullest to improve, make more
efficient and cheaper, the printer's trade.

And yet he gives it so little thought that it never even occurs to him to
wonder what the hell he's really looking at. In the citation given in the
first posting on the subject it shows the standard Word character set. On
the second line it shows the See-BS document.

What should have leaped off of the page aside from the fact that both
character sets are identical, save for the number of times they've been
reproduced, in every detail - is that they are PIXELATED. Count the dots
m'lads. They are a standard MS character grid.

The character set at the bottom demonstrates what a typewriter typeface
SHOULD look like from that time. Looking closely you'd see that it is
composed not of dots, but of LINES. And it wouldn't matter in the least what
company or how expensive the typewriters - they would ALL have lines in the
characters instead of dots (or pixels if you like).

Well, there's a reason that there is this very basic difference - because
the upper two character sets were formed by being written by an electron
beam being turned on and off. And that beam was controlled in a grid pattern
which was developed by early computer engineers. You see, we drew lines on a
CRT and turned the lines on and off rapidly so that each line had so many
dots and there were so many lines on a screen. We then divided the screen
into character blocks of 5 x 7 or 7 x 9 etc and then designed character sets
which would work in the available spaces. So every word processing character
set is designed to look correct when draw with - dots.

Before the 1980's typefaces were generated by some artist sitting around and
designing them and then a machinist with clockwork skills would cut these
typefaces into molds with a machine under magnification. The machine didn't
drill holes, it was a cutting blade and the machinist had to be somewhat of
an artisan himself. He would make the mold as accurately to the sketches as
he could.

So, you see, a single glance should suffice to allow absolutely anyone to
see that the documents in question (dated 1973) were manufactured AFTER 1985
or so when word processors began to get the ability to kern and
proportoinally space.

At least one of the documents I observed had hard right hand limits. This
was available ONLY on typeset documents and on the very rare and difficult
to use IBM Selectric Composer.

Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of
superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with
extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been used.
So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to:

1) Type each line as it would be in the finished document.
2) Record the readings on a couple of dials that would allow you to set the
spacing and kerning characteristics for that line
3) Set the dials correctly
4) Type the identical line again. Any mistakes would lead you to throw away
your work and start again.
5) When attempting to superscript you'd have to hit the half space UP key,
change out the ball to a smaller type font type the superscript, remove the
ball and replace with the original, and remember to hit the half space DOWN
key. Any mistakes would require you to retype everything in this same
tedious manner.

Each line would have to be dealt with in exactly the same manner. Each line
would have to be measured and kerned separately. The typewriter has no
memory and no way of showing the user what's going on except to make a
mistake and throw it away.

And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980.

Actually I could write about these rediculous forgeries for hours but I'll
refrain since most of you would have no idea what the hell I was talking
about. But the fact is that I studied this business very closely since I was
in on the writing of word processors from the very beginning.

So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
Absolutely none.

And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and
graphics generators.

Tom Kunich

September 14th 04, 04:58 AM

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ummm, if it were created to begin with with Word, that last issue is a
> non-issue. You create it, forge the signature and then run it through
> a copier to disguise the age. The longest part of the process is
> forging a reasonable signature.

Take almost two seconds. The person who did this had access to some of the
real memos and scanned them and used the parts he wanted (the signature and
the initials in the corners) on the document.

Are you aware that money is being forged all the time with modern equipment
that it takes only a few days to gather?

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 05:20 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Robert Chung makes a silly comment about reproducing the typeface as if
> that sort of thing was possible or even likely, because he is
> completely ignorant of the printer's trade despite whatever other
> education he might have.

[snip]

> So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
> Absolutely none.

Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972." It
should only take you a moment to do. Try it.

Howard Kveck

September 14th 04, 09:20 AM

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

(snipper)

> Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available in
> the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was only
> used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface.

"Some analysts outside CBS News say they believe the typeface on these
memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS
News that it has been available since 1931."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

Furthermore:

"Courier¹s vanquisher was Times New Roman, designed in 1931 by Stanley
Morison, Typographical Advisor to the Monotype Corporation, with the
assistance of draughtsman Victor Lardent. The Times of London first used it
the following year. Linotype and Intertype quickly licensed the design,
changing its name for their marketing purposes to Times Roman. Times Roman
became an original core font for Apple in the 1980s and Times New Roman MT
became one for Windows in the 1990s. (Ironically, at the same time IBM
invited Frutiger to adapt Univers for the Selectric Typewriter, they asked
Morison to do the same with Times New Roman.)"
http://journal.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentAlias=_getfullarticle&aid=%23.%5E
G%2F%0A

> That is, it was designed to compress the font together so that wide and
> narrow letter are squashed together to use the maximum space on a line.
> Typewriters have character stamps that are the same width and so kerned
> typefaces look badly when typed with such spacings. They invented entirely
> new typefaces for typewriters that would look acceptably attractive.

The IBM Executive typewriters would do proportional spacing.

> What should have leaped off of the page aside from the fact that both
> character sets are identical, save for the number of times they've been
> reproduced, in every detail - is that they are PIXELATED. Count the dots
> m'lads. They are a standard MS character grid.

Hmmm, maybe those characters are pixelated because they are part of a
computer generated COPY of the original doc. You know, the document got
scanned and made into a jpeg, bitmap or other image file. Which are made up
of PIXELS. The density of which can vary.

> Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of
> superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with
> extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been used.
> So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to:

According to one guy who spent 13 years working on those machines, they
could be put together (in the field) with customizeable key sets that would
do the superscripted letters. Speaking of which, people have made a big
deal about the superscripted letters on these docs as proof of forgery. But
those superscripted "th"s turn up on many other docs that had already been
released. Are those also forgeries?

> And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980.

1931.

> Actually I could write about these rediculous forgeries for hours but I'll
> refrain since most of you would have no idea what the hell I was talking
> about. But the fact is that I studied this business very closely since I was
> in on the writing of word processors from the very beginning.
>
> So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
> Absolutely none.

So you've seen and examined the ORIGINALS that CBS has, Tom, and not
just the computer-generated copies online? The Niger/Yellowcake forgeries
were obvious to those who knew the area and people (Niger) because of flaws
like wrong letterheads and wrong people listed as signatories. These docs
have issues that only an expert looking at the ORIGINALS could make any
kind of accurate pronouncement from. Which is why it's too earlier to
emphatically declare them forgeries.

> And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and
> graphics generators.

(Oh my.)

Once again, why hasn't the White House disputed what the documents
allege? And did GWB fulfill his obligation in the Guard?

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 09:38 AM

Howard Kveck wrote:

[snip]

Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

BTW, these copies are clearer than the link I gave earlier:
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/77/NATION1.PDF
(The earlier link I gave was for the six "USA Today" memos--this link is
for the four "CBS" memos.)

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 02:35 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:46:11 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>The claim on LGF was that the memos could be re-created using MS Word
>defaults, in a few minutes. Try it with the memo dated "04 May 1972."

Don't follow. The date in Word isn't a format issue. You can type in
anything you want. There is an issue if you want Word to autofill the
date, but that is something entirely different.

In Excel the date is a very minor issue and can be formatted ten ways
to Sunday in moments.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 02:40 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:24:41 +1200, Stewart Fleming
> wrote:

>So how to explain the White House comment that they did not dispute
>authenticity? More "up is down"?

More along the lines of why bother. The bloggers are in full attack,
even liberal and middle-of-the-road journalists are saying it is a
screw up, some of the CBS participants are backing down, their own
authenticator has added a bunch of caveats. And the Bush campaign
simply has to stand to the side and let it play out.

And frankly, someone should have told Terry Mcauliffe to do the same
thing. That way, its just CBS against the world - and they will lose,
now the moment to reexamine the right way has passed. That stupid 'the
Republicans are probably responsible' comment is his latest lead
baloon.

The only conspiracy this time appears to be the Clinton hold-outs
making sure that there isn't a Democratic incumbent when Hillary wants
to run for President.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 02:46 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:20:25 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972." It
>should only take you a moment to do. Try it.

Really don't know why you are bringing this up. I have no problem
whatsoever with the date or any other aspect of the memo. With the
quotes, you seem to be specific to the date. Even setting it up to
autofill with that format takes, what, about 5 seconds? There is
nothing special about the rest of the memo.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 03:11 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:20:25 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
>> Excellent. Then, using MS Word, type in the memo dated "04 May 1972."
>> It should only take you a moment to do. Try it.
>
> Really don't know why you are bringing this up. I have no problem
> whatsoever with the date or any other aspect of the memo. With the
> quotes, you seem to be specific to the date. Even setting it up to
> autofill with that format takes, what, about 5 seconds? There is
> nothing special about the rest of the memo.
>

I'm not saying that you should only type in the date. I'm saying you
should type in the memo and re-create it in MS Word. The memo that appears
on the second page here:
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/77/NATION1.PDF
(That's the memo dated 04 May 1972).

Here's the thing: everyone has been looking at the memos as they are
written and pointing out that there are features that (as Tom and RonSonic
say) could not be produced by a typewriter, and therefore must have been
produced by a modern word processor. So, let's do that. Pretend that you
are the forger and you are trying to produce this particular memo in MS
Word. Use the default settings, just as was claimed on LGF. Use 12 point
Times New Roman, just as was claimed on LGF.

You've said you have no problem whatsoever with any aspect of this memo.
So type it in and tell us how easy it was to match the format as it
appears.

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 03:14 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?

OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
document.

All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 04:48 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
>> Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?
>
> OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
> slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
> superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
> document.
>
> All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

Dan Connelly

September 14th 04, 04:52 PM

Robert Chung wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?
>>
>>OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
>>slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
>>superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
>>document.
>>
>>All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.
>
>
> Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?
>
>
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 04:59 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:11:16 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>You've said you have no problem whatsoever with any aspect of this memo.
>So type it in and tell us how easy it was to match the format as it
>appears.

Easy enough. The only issue is the spacing that is used as a default,
and something easily changed. I personally changed the spacing when
I'm forced to use Times Roman. Doesn't even require actual kerning.

That done and understanding that the experts have said the memo was
copied several times (i.e. there is somewhat wavy text at times), the
only thing that is different in Word 2003 is the superscript, which is
identical but slightly lower. Doubt if multiple copies would cause
that. OTOH, I don't have a prior copy of Word to check that issue.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 05:08 PM

Dan Connelly wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?
>>>
>>> OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
>>> slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
>>> superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
>>> document.
>>>
>>> All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.
>>
>>
>> Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?
>>
>>
>
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526_Bush_Guard_Documents-_Forged

Right. That's why I was specifically asking about the 04 May 1972 memo,
not the 18 Aug 1973 memo.

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 05:46 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?

No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
item. So I don't see anything special about it.

I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
something that would shift that high just from copying.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 05:53 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:46:19 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

>I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
>it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
>to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
>2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
>something that would shift that high just from copying.

After reading that web reference, I did a print and its correct - the
superscript does print higher than the normal text (and higher than on
screen) and is the same as the pdf. Its pretty much a match dead-on.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 07:07 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
> To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
> increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
> it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
> rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
> item. So I don't see anything special about it.

Bingo. And that's exactly what I do see as special. You have to tell it
specifically not to automatically superscript the "111th" and the "1st,"
but then you *do* have to let Word superscript the "111th" in paragraph 2.
You also have to specifically insert a soft return on the "MEMORANDUM"
line after the word "Houston" and tab over even though it appears that
there's enough space at the end of the line for the word "Texas." If you
were forging a memo out of whole cloth, why would you do that? You did
what you just did because you were copying an existing memo and trying to
match it--but there'd be no need to do that if you were making it up. And,
for the numbered paragraphs you have to reverse the autoformatting or else
it indents and hangs the paragraphs.

Each of these things is simple and easy, but in total they require a
certain amount of conscious decision-making. So why would a forger
consciously undo the superscripted "111th" and "1st," and insert soft
returns, and over-ride the default formatting, and not override the 111th
in paragrph 2?

Alternatively, if you turned off all formatting everywhere (though you'd
still have to hit the return and tab after "Houston") you'd have to
highlight and superscript the "th" in "111th" in paragraph 2. Why would
you superscript only one of them?

Why pay so much attention to formatting and then do it on a word processor
rather than digging up an old typewriter?

Not-so-BTW, I'm not claiming that the memos are authentic. I'm claiming
that you can't make a judgement about its authenticity based on typefaces
and fonts and kerning and special superscripted characters. Tom's been
focusing on those things, but that's a red herring. The real issue is the
format of the letter, not the shape of the characters.

Stewart Fleming

September 14th 04, 08:45 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?
>
>
> No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
> increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
> it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
> rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
> item. So I don't see anything special about it.

The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 09:13 PM

Stewart Fleming wrote:
>
> The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

Yeah, but to be fair, the forger, if there was one, might not have used
default settings.

My only real point was that people were focusing on typefaces and fonts
and the arcana of kerning when it seems the documents in question had been
photocopied and faxed and re-faxed multiple times. I actually don't know
whether the documents are authentic or fake and in some sense, I don't
really care--my opinion of the President is determined by what he's done
in the last four years, not what happened in 1972 or 1973.

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 09:54 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 20:07:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>You did
>what you just did because you were copying an existing memo and trying to
>match it--but there'd be no need to do that if you were making it up. And,
>for the numbered paragraphs you have to reverse the autoformatting or else
>it indents and hangs the paragraphs.

None of it is surprising or unusual to me. It is common for people to
have different, conscious conventions for titles and other parts of a
header versus what you see in the body. That's why many places have
everyone type their letter and then send it to the secretary/admin
assistant for final formatting to maintain consistency.

None of the items that you mention are unusual or in any way represent
unusual levels of attention. I regularly have to reverse autofills and
autocorrects. Hard and soft tabs fall into the "whatever" area for me.
So I still think it is probably a forgery. More importantly, there are
enough red flags and issues for CBS to hold off using these memos.
They used them anyway and now refuse to do a open review - which will
IMO play to an image of Dan Rather crouched over his pile of memos
snarling and growling while many people (the polls I've seen are about
5-1) believing the memos are probably fake.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 10:11 PM

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:45:52 +1200, Stewart Fleming
> wrote:

>The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...

To be accurate, my Word is not using the default settings. The only
thing that I changed in actual settings was the font spacing. This is
something that I generally do not have at the default. For all I know
I corrected it to the default.

Reversing the autocorrect is hardly deviating from the default
settings. There are a lot of items/conventions that do not look
appropriate when in a title or header line. I reverse the autocorrect
all the time.

The issue is that this memo appears far more likely to, at best, be a
re-creation and, at best, with the original person signing the
recreated memo at a date other than what is on the document. Not a
good thing when the purpose of this was to show a 'CYA thought' at the
time.

What it is not likely to be, based what evidence available, is an
original memo from the period with an original signature. It may very
well be a complete forgery. CBS chose to ignore this or not vet it
enough to catch what others did catch. And they then chose to not
contribute to an open review of the memos.

As to what was possible on a military IBM of that period, most I
remember used the same old basic font ball. There wasn't a lot of
creative use of unique font balls. We have the two primary IBM font
balls down the hall (for forms) and neither are remotely like this
memo.

Most of us that used the IBM Selectrics for memos did not know how to
set centered text (notice that some of the headers are autocentered on
the margins, not where most people would do a title if centering by
space bar). I think some of you people arguing this memo didn't spend
much time in the IBM Selectric world or in the world of offices and
typing in general. For one thing, most non-secretaries in the military
would probably use a mill - an all capital typewriter used by the
military for most internal uses.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
And someone that did a lot of typing in the military from 1971 to
1979, mostly on mills and continuous paper.

gym gravity

September 14th 04, 10:26 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:45:52 +1200, Stewart Fleming
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The key phrase here that you missed is "using the default settings"...
>
>
> To be accurate, my Word is not using the default settings. The only
> thing that I changed in actual settings was the font spacing. This is
> something that I generally do not have at the default. For all I know
> I corrected it to the default.
>
> Reversing the autocorrect is hardly deviating from the default
> settings. There are a lot of items/conventions that do not look
> appropriate when in a title or header line. I reverse the autocorrect
> all the time.
>
> The issue is that this memo appears far more likely to, at best, be a
> re-creation and, at best, with the original person signing the
> recreated memo at a date other than what is on the document. Not a
> good thing when the purpose of this was to show a 'CYA thought' at the
> time.
>
> What it is not likely to be, based what evidence available, is an
> original memo from the period with an original signature. It may very
> well be a complete forgery. CBS chose to ignore this or not vet it
> enough to catch what others did catch. And they then chose to not
> contribute to an open review of the memos.
>
> As to what was possible on a military IBM of that period, most I
> remember used the same old basic font ball. There wasn't a lot of
> creative use of unique font balls. We have the two primary IBM font
> balls down the hall (for forms) and neither are remotely like this
> memo.
>
> Most of us that used the IBM Selectrics for memos did not know how to
> set centered text (notice that some of the headers are autocentered on
> the margins, not where most people would do a title if centering by
> space bar). I think some of you people arguing this memo didn't spend
> much time in the IBM Selectric world or in the world of offices and
> typing in general. For one thing, most non-secretaries in the military
> would probably use a mill - an all capital typewriter used by the
> military for most internal uses.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
> And someone that did a lot of typing in the military from 1971 to
> 1979, mostly on mills and continuous paper.

Wow, this thread is fascinating. It reminds me of a quote from the
movie, "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka". A fine film in which Chris Rock makes
his second appearance on the big screen as a customer in a fast food store.

"goddamn, a secretary". But this quote didn't make the list of
memorable quotes at imdb: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095348/quotes

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 10:42 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:26:02 -0400, gym gravity
> wrote:

>Wow, this thread is fascinating. It reminds me of a quote from the
>movie, "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka". A fine film in which Chris Rock makes
>his second appearance on the big screen as a customer in a fast food store.
>
>"goddamn, a secretary". But this quote didn't make the list of
>memorable quotes at imdb: http://imdb.com/title/tt0095348/quotes

If you mean me from the 'lot of typing', the answer is no. However, a
Chinese Mandarin Intercept person does a lot of typing every day. The
mills meant you could get up to about 100 wpm on piece of ****
machinery, soley on no need to hit the cap key. (The continuous feed
paper meant that you could light up the bottom of the paper and watch
it burn to the top while waiting to see how long the guy typing would
take to notice - it was fairly safe as other than the paper and the
people, nothing could catch fire).

OTOH when on the U.S. side of the world I was located close enough to
the officers to see the Selectric side of life - when dropping off
real work. When they learned to feed a piece of paper through the
typewriter without wrinkling, they got promoted or a ribbon, I can't
remember which.

My real experience with Selectrics when I started in business and had
my own secretary - before my own network eliminated most of them.
Diablo dot matrix printers, IBM PCs with streaming Tallgrass
harddrives and thick cable enet.

Was always impressed with a real secretary that could take a letter
with a mistake, line it up perfectly, erase and correct. Real skill
set.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

John Forrest Tomlinson

September 14th 04, 11:02 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:46:19 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:48:59 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
>wrote:
>
>>Great. Can you post the .doc (or a .pdf)?
>
>No easy way. To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
>increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
>it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
>rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
>item. So I don't see anything special about it.
>
>I'm curious if anyone has Word 97 to check the superscript to see if
>it is higher in previous versions. I'm not aware that there is any way
>to change this easily as a setting and since the superscript in Word
>2003 is about dead flat with the top of the numbers, it isn't
>something that would shift that high just from copying.

Given that men have been using movable type for hundreds of years, and
standards of typefaces and spacing used in business correspondence
haven't changed all that much in the last several decades, the
question shouldn't be do the memos look like they were produced in MS
Word? Of course they do -- the defauls in Word are set up to look
like normal typography.

Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.

JT

As a footnote,the real question is was Bush AWOL but he cannot be
trusted to answer that truthfully.

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Curtis L. Russell

September 14th 04, 11:10 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:02:08 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> wrote:

>Given that men have been using movable type for hundreds of years, and
>standards of typefaces and spacing used in business correspondence
>haven't changed all that much in the last several decades, the
>question shouldn't be do the memos look like they were produced in MS
>Word? Of course they do -- the defauls in Word are set up to look
>like normal typography.
>
>Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
>that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
>memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.

That's not completely accurate. There are a variety of spacings that
are commonly used out of Word that are not commonly used with
typewriters. There are settings that come more from the publishing
world than that of typewriters and secretaries. The whole issue of
kerning is a publishing issue, and is approximated by only the most
expensive typewriters. Kerning is on the opposite side of fixed type
spacing typewriters. There are attributes that are commonly used with
Word (centered on margins, as an example, in common memos) that were
not common with typewriters, or easily done until the typewriters that
held memory. Even then, it was more a feature available to the
secretary and not the common user that would more likely space over to
start a centered title.

For the record, at least two people close to this person said he would
be more likely to handwrite than type such a memo. He evidently was
not a power user of the IBM Selectric.

That said, the conclusion is that it is remotely possible that the
Times Roman font was available for a military typewriter. If I read
the article right, the only typewriter that it would be available on
would be the Selectric and the font ball would have been a rare one at
that time.

IOW, the odds are are that it is a fake or, at best, a 'replica' of an
original memo.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung

September 14th 04, 11:19 PM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
> that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
> memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.
>
> As a footnote,the real question is was Bush AWOL but he cannot be
> trusted to answer that truthfully.

As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I actually don't think these are
the right questions at all. Whether the memos are real or fake, or whether
he fulfilled his military obligations 30 years ago or not, won't affect
most opinions of his accomplishments over the last four years, or their
expectations about his actions in the future should he win the November
election. The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he
the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?

TritonRider

September 14th 04, 11:40 PM

>From: "Robert Chung"

>The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
>from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he
>the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?
>
>

Not even close, but maybe top 10.
Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.
Bill C

John Forrest Tomlinson

September 14th 04, 11:48 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:10:12 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:02:08 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> wrote:
>
>>Given that men have been using movable type for hundreds of years, and
>>standards of typefaces and spacing used in business correspondence
>>haven't changed all that much in the last several decades, the
>>question shouldn't be do the memos look like they were produced in MS
>>Word? Of course they do -- the defauls in Word are set up to look
>>like normal typography.
>>
>>Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
>>that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
>>memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.
>
>That's not completely accurate. There are a variety of spacings that
>are commonly used out of Word that are not commonly used with
>typewriters. There are settings that come more from the publishing
>world than that of typewriters and secretaries. The whole issue of
>kerning is a publishing issue, and is approximated by only the most
>expensive typewriters. Kerning is on the opposite side of fixed type
>spacing typewriters. There are attributes that are commonly used with
>Word (centered on margins, as an example, in common memos) that were
>not common with typewriters, or easily done until the typewriters that
>held memory. Even then, it was more a feature available to the
>secretary and not the common user that would more likely space over to
>start a centered title.

Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc. As I said, could
typewriters produce text that looks like the text in the memo? And did
the unit in question use them?

What is common in typewriters is not the point. The point is, did
units like the Air Foce use typewriters that could produce text like
the memos. IBM has prodcued typewriters that could do proportional
spacing, for example. Did the Air Force have them? Are there other,
authenticated memos that look like the memo in question? Just because
my family or yours had a typewriter doing monospace only is not
relevant.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

TritonRider

September 15th 04, 12:22 AM

>From: John Forrest Tomlinson
>Date: 9/14/2004 6:48 PM Eastern

>Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
>tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc.

Why does "Dude" coming from JT just seem so wrong to me?
Bill C

Tom Kunich

September 15th 04, 03:48 AM

"Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote:
>
> (snipper)
>
> > Time Roman, the older typeface was slightly different and was available
in
> > the 40's. However, it was never made available to typewriters and was
only
> > used in Linotypes because IT IS A KERNED typeface.
>
> "Some analysts outside CBS News say they believe the typeface on these
> memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.
>
> But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told
CBS
> News that it has been available since 1931."
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

Such an argument ignores the fact that the script was in a grod-dot network
which is a form of the typeface which was developed by ---Monotype is the
1980's.

> > That is, it was designed to compress the font together so that wide and
> > narrow letter are squashed together to use the maximum space on a line.
> > Typewriters have character stamps that are the same width and so kerned
> > typefaces look badly when typed with such spacings. They invented
entirely
> > new typefaces for typewriters that would look acceptably attractive.
>
> The IBM Executive typewriters would do proportional spacing.

I wonder why you would say this. Let's assume that you're typing a letter -
a PRIVATE MEMO to one's self - explain how you would proportionally space a
memo. Would you type it out a dozen or more times in order to make sure that
the borders are even?

Aside from typesetters, almost no one could do this. In fact it wasn't even
considered by typists until the advent of the CRT screen on which the
typists result would show and be corrected BEFORE it went on paper.

How do you propose that Killian or his secretary would proportionally space
such a one-off document.

> Hmmm, maybe those characters are pixelated because they are part of a
> computer generated COPY of the original doc. You know, the document got
> scanned and made into a jpeg, bitmap or other image file. Which are made
up
> of PIXELS. The density of which can vary.

Again you show ignorance of the media. Computer generated documents have a
resolution of a 1,310,720 pixels to an entire screen. This is reproduced on
a laser printer or copy machine with a resolution of around 1,440,000 dots
per INCH. This is about 300 times greater resolution than plainly reproduces
the difference between a dot and a line.

> > Moreover, in at least two of the six documents there is a form of
> > superscript that wasn't available to anyone before the 1980 save with
> > extremely tedious work. To wit - a Selectric Composer could have been
used.
> > So in order to write EACH LINE of the document you would have to:
>
> According to one guy who spent 13 years working on those machines, they
> could be put together (in the field) with customizeable key sets that
would
> do the superscripted letters.

And according to the man who was a professor of computer technology and
wrote the book on computer fonts the chances of this occurring are as close
to zero as to make no difference.

> Speaking of which, people have made a big
> deal about the superscripted letters on these docs as proof of forgery.
But
> those superscripted "th"s turn up on many other docs that had already been
> released. Are those also forgeries?

Firstly they are not in Times Roman

> > And remember that TIMES NEW ROMAN typeface wasn't invented until 1980.
>
> 1931.

I provided the link to the definitive description of the Times font story.
If you wish to ignore it that's your business but the fact remains that this
wasn't in use on typewritters in the 70's because it is a font that looks
strange and unbalanced unless it is kerned.

> > So, there is NO questioning the fact that these documents were forged.
> > Absolutely none.
>
> So you've seen and examined the ORIGINALS that CBS has, Tom, and not
> just the computer-generated copies online?

Get a life! Every other network and most of the Liberal blogs as well have
stated catagorically that these are obvious forgeries. But as long as See-BS
is stonewalling you might as well believe anything you wish. I'll bet you
believed Nixon's stonewalling about Watergate as well.

> > And yes, I designed some of those early video boards, character sets and
> > graphics generators.
>
> (Oh my.)
>
> Once again, why hasn't the White House disputed what the documents
> allege? And did GWB fulfill his obligation in the Guard?

What service were you in Howard and when?

Tom Kunich

September 15th 04, 03:50 AM

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:38:08 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
> >Using MS Word, re-create the memo dated "04 May 1972." Easy, or hard?
>
> OK, did the entire memo. The only issue - which may be either from a
> slightly different font set or from the copy process - is the
> superscript on the 111th is slightly lower in an original Word 2003
> document.
>
> All of the remainder can be easily reproduced.

As well as remember that laser printers vary in the way they reproduce fonts
depending on the language that is used to communicate with them. There are
three or four different methods and the results will be slightly different
depending on the translator written for each.

Tom Kunich

September 15th 04, 04:12 AM

"Robert Chung" > wrote in message
...
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> >
> > To create it is easy enough for anyone, though. Just
> > increase the spacing in the font to get the spacing on the memo, tell
> > it to reverse the autocorrection on the first superscript and type the
> > rest. It comes close for all practical purposes except for the one
> > item. So I don't see anything special about it.
>
> Bingo. And that's exactly what I do see as special. You have to tell it
> specifically not to automatically superscript the "111th" and the "1st,"
> but then you *do* have to let Word superscript the "111th" in paragraph 2.

Look, the typist noticed while typing that the th superscripted and back
spaced and re-wrote it. When I do that in my copy of Word it accepts that as
being something that I want the way I typed it. On my home copy it doesn't
do that so it must be some setup that I'm not familiar with.

Later on when typing, if you have a slow machine, you might miss the
superscripting. I've done this a hundred times myself in every day
documents. I have to type instructions for assembly workers and I don't want
super or sub scripting because it is so small and easy to misinterpret.

> You also have to specifically insert a soft return on the "MEMORANDUM"
> line after the word "Houston" and tab over even though it appears that
> there's enough space at the end of the line for the word "Texas." If you
> were forging a memo out of whole cloth, why would you do that? You did
> what you just did because you were copying an existing memo and trying to
> match it--but there'd be no need to do that if you were making it up. And,
> for the numbered paragraphs you have to reverse the autoformatting or else
> it indents and hangs the paragraphs.

I just did a copy from the document and guess what - if you hit the DEFAULT
tab in the memorandum heading the result is:

MEMORANDUM FOR 1st Lt.George W. Bush, 5000 Longmont #8, Houston,
Texas 77027.

Try THAT on a typewriter. The TAB is exactly the same spacing as on the
memo.

Howard Kveck

September 15th 04, 04:32 AM

In article >,
"Robert Chung" > wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> > Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
> > that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
> > memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.
> >
> > As a footnote,the real question is was Bush AWOL but he cannot be
> > trusted to answer that truthfully.
>
> As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I actually don't think these are
> the right questions at all. Whether the memos are real or fake, or whether
> he fulfilled his military obligations 30 years ago or not, won't affect
> most opinions of his accomplishments over the last four years, or their
> expectations about his actions in the future should he win the November
> election. The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
> from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he
> the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?

You are quite correct on this. When I said in an earlier post (or two)
that the main question was whether he'd fulfilled his obligation, I was
thinking of that in terms of *this* issue (the papers).

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich

September 15th 04, 04:36 AM

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Rather, the question should be was the Air Force using typewriters
> that could produce text that looked like the memos. If yes, then the
> memos may be real. If no, then they are fake.

The answer to that is NO.

However, See-BS and a few diehards are arguing that there MIGHT have been a
special Selectric Composer, a person that knew how to use it (strange - LC
Killiam's secretary only remembers a standard manual typewriter) and somehow
they might have gotten a special Times Roman typeface ball made for it and
been able to produce these documents.

And above all close examination of the memos under high magnification
reveals a dot-grid character set which spells only one thing - Word
Processor.

Tom Kunich

September 15th 04, 04:42 AM

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
> tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc. As I said, could
> typewriters produce text that looks like the text in the memo? And did
> the unit in question use them?

A manual typewriter - no without any question whatsoever. A manual
typewriter spaces with a gear drive and hence can only step full spaces with
nothing in between.

The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
companies.

Tom Kunich

September 15th 04, 04:51 AM

"Robert Chung" > wrote in message
...
>
> As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I actually don't think these are
> the right questions at all. Whether the memos are real or fake,

Doesn't it matter that someone has gone to such lengths to forge documents?
And isn't it equally silly to think that he didn't put in his time when his
own roommate also missed the physical more than once and when LC Killian's
secretary said that many other pilots missed their physicals as well. In
other words missing the physical was common enough that it wasn't considered
all that bad. Moreover this was in his fifth year of service and close to
getting out. I don't know about other's but when I was a short timer I
didn't pay a lot of attention to orders unless they were important to the
service. There was a lot of shop cleanup that never happened on my shift.
But the bombers alway flew with good computers.

Killian's son was also in the ANG and said that his father always spoke
highly of Bush.

The question should be why are people willing to denigrate the President to
the extent that they would commit criminal forgery?

And if that doesn't frighten the bejesus out of you, perhaps you should
remain permanently in France.

Robert Chung

September 15th 04, 06:13 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> And if that doesn't frighten the bejesus out of you, perhaps you should
> remain permanently in France.

Yikes, *that's* the kind of stuff that frightens the bejesus out of you?
Oh, Tom, don't be such a girlie man.

Donald Munro

September 15th 04, 09:12 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
>>tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc.

TritonRider wrote:
> Why does "Dude" coming from JT just seem so wrong to me?

Its the performance enhancing drugs he's been testing since crit pro
started posting that are affecting his mental state. He's even developed
a BART like alter ego that surfaces occasionally in response to
particularly stupid rbr posts.

Robert Chung

September 15th 04, 10:30 AM

TritonRider wrote:
>> From: "Robert Chung"
>
>> The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
>> from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is
>> he the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?
>
> Not even close, but maybe top 10.
> Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.

Hoover, top 3? Ouch. That's harsh. I think he's unfairly maligned; he
didn't have the data or tools he needed--which is not to say that if he
did have the data and tools, he would have done the right things, just
that he gets an incomplete on that score. GWB ignores data he has
available, and misuses tools in his hands.

Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to include
Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In order to be
the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.

The only real competition is Buchanan, and even then it's not a clear-cut
thing.

As long as I'm at it, Merckx was better than Coppi.

Curtis L. Russell

September 15th 04, 02:27 PM

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:09 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to include
>Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In order to be
>the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.

Grant was not corrupt, although his administration certainly was.
Grant was never seen acting to enrich himself or his friends. OTOH, he
was a pathetic administrator and his some of his friends were more
than able to enrich themselves.

Grant died in the process of producing the book that prevented his
wife from being impoverished. Although I guess you could argue he was
corrupt, but too inept to do it well.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Robert Chung

September 15th 04, 02:37 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:09 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
>> Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to
>> include Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In
>> order to be the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.
>
> Grant was not corrupt, although his administration certainly was.
> Grant was never seen acting to enrich himself or his friends. OTOH, he
> was a pathetic administrator and his some of his friends were more
> than able to enrich themselves.
>
> Grant died in the process of producing the book that prevented his
> wife from being impoverished. Although I guess you could argue he was
> corrupt, but too inept to do it well.

You're exactly right, and I stand corrected. I meant that Grant presided
over a corruption-riddled administration and he either did not or could
not see what was happening around him, not that he himself was corrupt.
Same goes for Harding (unless you think of having numerous dalliances as
corruption). Thanks for the catch.

Curtis L. Russell

September 15th 04, 02:47 PM

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:48:22 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
wrote:

>Aside from typesetters, almost no one could do this. In fact it wasn't even
>considered by typists until the advent of the CRT screen on which the
>typists result would show and be corrected BEFORE it went on paper.

Well, not exactly. The better Selectrics had a small display that
permitted composing over several lines before printing. From memory,
they came out in the late 1970s, which would precede large scale use
of word processing at the desk by several years.

OTOH, they were almost entirely the province of the secretaries typing
for an office. You don't stick what was then a $ 1,800 - $ 2,500
machine in an exec's office. Can't see CYA memos from the ANG finding
their way to the few top of the line Selectrics.

Two people that are evidently even more interested in this sideline
than myself have identified the one 'typewriter' that would come
close. Evidently there was a 1972 $ 3,600 machine (1972 dollars)
called the Selectric Composer (mini-typesetter rather than a true
typewriter) that could come awfully darned close. Except it required
changing font sets to do the superscript as in the memo and when they
got closer to the actual memo it revealed that the Times Roman used by
the Selectric font ball - a rarity - did not come that close to
matching in certain areas.

I agree that this is a sideline, but its the type of thing that swings
elections if allowed (by the Democrats) to continue. It doesn't even
have to escalate and the eventual fraud (my opinion) doesn't have to
be tied directly to the Democrats or anyone associated with the DNC or
the Kerry election group.

This is about swing voters. The Republican Convention created real
momentum and at the point that Kerry has to stop that momentum and
move it in his direction, you have this grabbing the headlines. Terry
Mcauliffe's remarks to the contrary, no one else is linking this to
the Republican side (although it does make interesting conspiracy
theory, all tied to a certainty that Rather and CBS couldn't resist
the bait). This is bad for the Democrats and it only has to live
another couple of weeks to make the difference. THE difference.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Jack Hollis

September 15th 04, 02:58 PM

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:40:34 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

>The only conspiracy this time appears to be the Clinton hold-outs
>making sure that there isn't a Democratic incumbent when Hillary wants
>to run for President.

This document forgery affair is so obvious that you have to wonder if
they've come from someone who is looking to hurt Kerry rather than
help him.

I doubt that CBS would be fooled by some Republicans providing the
forged documents. Perhaps it was a Democrat looking to torpedo Kerry
to insure Hillary a clear path in 2008.

Stranger things have happened.

gym gravity

September 15th 04, 03:29 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>
> If you mean me from the 'lot of typing', the answer is no. However, a
> Chinese Mandarin Intercept person does a lot of typing every day. The
> mills meant you could get up to about 100 wpm on piece of ****
> machinery, soley on no need to hit the cap key. (The continuous feed
> paper meant that you could light up the bottom of the paper and watch
> it burn to the top while waiting to see how long the guy typing would
> take to notice - it was fairly safe as other than the paper and the
> people, nothing could catch fire).

You must have seen the movie. Because right after that quote, the two
guys start chumming it up about their tour of duty as secretaries, and
the guy with the patch on his eye confesses to having lost the eye in an
office stapler battle.

Curtis L. Russell

September 15th 04, 04:41 PM

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:29:10 -0400, gym gravity
> wrote:

>You must have seen the movie. Because right after that quote, the two
>guys start chumming it up about their tour of duty as secretaries, and
>the guy with the patch on his eye confesses to having lost the eye in an
>office stapler battle.

The real thing could be more vicious...

OTOH, only two guys that I know of actually went really South in the
process. One second lieutenant went really into high grade paranoia.
From our perspective (the linguist bay) the fun part was that he
started to think the people speaking foreign languages were talking
about him. Until then we spoke mostly English (what else?) but after
that we started using Chinese, Vietnamese and Khmer a lot more. That's
when he started blinking a lot and flinching.

He's also the one that flunked aspirin count. We pretty much worked
six days on, one day off, twelve hours a day. The rest of the time we
worked on hangovers. So we had a huge bottle of aspirin. The newbies
were told to count the aspirin - then everyone would deliberately walk
by and grab aspirin from the wrong pile on the counter. He kind of
blew up somewhere on day two.

The burning of the paper and inventive uses of Kaopectate were mostly
inflicted on friends. And I was able to use that I knew varnish burns
with an almost invisible flame to good use as well. Learned that in
language school when my desk accidentally caught fire.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

gym gravity

September 15th 04, 05:06 PM

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> OTOH, only two guys that I know of actually went really South in the
> process. One second lieutenant went really into high grade paranoia.
> From our perspective (the linguist bay) the fun part was that he
> started to think the people speaking foreign languages were talking
> about him. Until then we spoke mostly English (what else?) but after
> that we started using Chinese, Vietnamese and Khmer a lot more. That's
> when he started blinking a lot and flinching.
>
> He's also the one that flunked aspirin count. We pretty much worked
> six days on, one day off, twelve hours a day. The rest of the time we
> worked on hangovers.

I'm not clear about something...you were working on hangovers? or
working on acquiring hangovers?

> So we had a huge bottle of aspirin. The newbies
> were told to count the aspirin - then everyone would deliberately walk
> by and grab aspirin from the wrong pile on the counter. He kind of
> blew up somewhere on day two.
>
> The burning of the paper and inventive uses of Kaopectate were mostly
> inflicted on friends. And I was able to use that I knew varnish burns
> with an almost invisible flame to good use as well. Learned that in
> language school when my desk accidentally caught fire.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

September 15th 04, 05:51 PM

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:06:17 -0400, gym gravity
> wrote:

>
>I'm not clear about something...you were working on hangovers? or
>working on acquiring hangovers?

It would depend on the particular 12 hour period.

At least none of us was driving. The only trick was crossing the
highway back to the base. And avoiding the occasional water buffalo.

Tricky part about the last one is that they were easily confused with
some of the bar girls in the daylight. Or vice versus.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

John Forrest Tomlinson

September 15th 04, 05:52 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message >...
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
> > tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc. As I said, could
> > typewriters produce text that looks like the text in the memo? And did
> > the unit in question use them?
>
> A manual typewriter - no without any question whatsoever. A manual
> typewriter spaces with a gear drive and hence can only step full spaces with
> nothing in between.
>
> The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
> loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
> companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
> generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
> companies.

I don't care about when you first saw one or when I got one or when
the CEO of General Motors's secretary got one. That's irrelevant and
focusing on that is perhaps an attempt to perpetuate doubt. The
question is, did the unit in question have one? Or perhaps did a
similar unit in the Guard have them? The way to answer this question
is to either see if there is evidence that that unit may have had it,
perhaps through purchasing records or diverse testimony of some kind.
Or else to look at other, less controversial documents produced by
that or similar units or offices to see if they had some of the
features that typical typewriters do not have.

JT

gwhite

September 15th 04, 06:10 PM

TritonRider wrote:
>
> >From: "Robert Chung"
>
> >The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
> >from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he
> >the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?
> >
> >
>
> Not even close, but maybe top 10.
> Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.

FDR would have to be the worst, bar none. Our government is not supposed to
establish any religion. FDR got away with establishing socialism, which is
nothing but a religion. It is a persistant festering sore which continues to
infect/affect the USA to this day.

Today we are so infected with socialism that it is impossible to have a
reasonable political discussion without superstitions like "social justice,
social engineering, social responsibility," and on and on, creeping into our
consideration. These considerations are usually taken as axiomatic reasonable!

The Fatal Conceit [Hayek] is the presumption and acceptance that our
civilization is "designed" by humans and has a "purpose" (the essence of the
religious and irrational nature of socialism), and that we can further "improve
upon the design of our society." The presumption that because humans can design
small things, they can also "design and set purpose to the whole," is the
grandest fallacy of composition ever committed.

We can tie this religious belief to socialist thinkers. Take Einstein, for
example, and his teleological argument for the existance of god.
http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_24/philosophy_questions_2496.html

It is not hard to see why an arguer for/of "intelligent design" like Einstein
would be attracted to the religion of socialism, which by definition teaches
"intelligent design." Again it is the "intelligent design" religious belief (no
basis in fact) that is the foundation of socialism.

FDR gets #1 for the lasting violation of the #1 amendment. People are granted
the right to worship socialism in their neighborhood churches/temples/mosques,
but not to coerce those views upon their fellow citizens.

"Set my people free." -- Moses

"The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
-- Ludwig von Mises

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

September 15th 04, 08:03 PM

Robert Chung wrote:

> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:30:09 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Grant was corrupt but if you're going down that road you'd have to
>>>include Harding; no, I think simple corruption isn't quite enough. In
>>>order to be the worst you have to be an "all-around" player.
>>
>>Grant was not corrupt, although his administration certainly was.
>>Grant was never seen acting to enrich himself or his friends. OTOH, he
>>was a pathetic administrator and his some of his friends were more
>>than able to enrich themselves.
>>
>>Grant died in the process of producing the book that prevented his
>>wife from being impoverished. Although I guess you could argue he was
>>corrupt, but too inept to do it well.
>
>
> You're exactly right, and I stand corrected. I meant that Grant presided
> over a corruption-riddled administration and he either did not or could
> not see what was happening around him, not that he himself was corrupt.
> Same goes for Harding (unless you think of having numerous dalliances as
> corruption). Thanks for the catch.
>
>

I think in a sense the two issues (president and administration) have
to be considered together. Certainly Nixon was probably as personally
corrupt or more than Grant or Harding, but undoubtedly accomplished more
than either. I seem to remember a quote about Harding from his
father--something to the effect of "it's a good thing he wasn't born a
girl--he'd always be in a family way".
Certainly Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan were all considered
mediocrities at best, and then of course there's Andrew Johnson and
Grant. That's a pretty long stretch of mediocrity or worse, interrupted
only by Lincoln. (not that Hayes or Garfield were stars either).

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

September 15th 04, 08:07 PM

gwhite wrote:

>
> TritonRider wrote:
>
>>>From: "Robert Chung"
>>
>>>The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
>>
>>>from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is he
>>
>>>the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not even close, but maybe top 10.
>> Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.
>
>
> FDR would have to be the worst, bar none. Our government is not supposed to
> establish any religion. FDR got away with establishing socialism, which is
> nothing but a religion. It is a persistant festering sore which continues to
> infect/affect the USA to this day.
>
> Today we are so infected with socialism that it is impossible to have a
> reasonable political discussion without superstitions like "social justice,
> social engineering, social responsibility," and on and on, creeping into our
> consideration. These considerations are usually taken as axiomatic reasonable!
>
> The Fatal Conceit [Hayek] is the presumption and acceptance that our
> civilization is "designed" by humans and has a "purpose" (the essence of the
> religious and irrational nature of socialism), and that we can further "improve
> upon the design of our society." The presumption that because humans can design
> small things, they can also "design and set purpose to the whole," is the
> grandest fallacy of composition ever committed.
>
> We can tie this religious belief to socialist thinkers. Take Einstein, for
> example, and his teleological argument for the existance of god.
> http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_24/philosophy_questions_2496.html
>
> It is not hard to see why an arguer for/of "intelligent design" like Einstein
> would be attracted to the religion of socialism, which by definition teaches
> "intelligent design." Again it is the "intelligent design" religious belief (no
> basis in fact) that is the foundation of socialism.
>
> FDR gets #1 for the lasting violation of the #1 amendment. People are granted
> the right to worship socialism in their neighborhood churches/temples/mosques,
> but not to coerce those views upon their fellow citizens.
>
>
>
> "Set my people free." -- Moses
>
>
> "The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
> in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
> so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
> admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
> refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
> -- Ludwig von Mises
>
>
> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
security system.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

gwhite

September 15th 04, 09:33 PM

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:
>
> gwhite wrote:

....
> > "The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
> > in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
> > so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
> > admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
> > refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
> > -- Ludwig von Mises
> >
> >
> > “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> > prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
>
> That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
> security system.

Imagine the puzzled look on your patient's faces when you inform them a little
abscess is healthy for them.

gwhite

September 15th 04, 09:36 PM

Robert Chung wrote:
>
> TritonRider wrote:
> >> From: "Robert Chung"
> >
> >> The questions you've listed are merely side issues that detract
> >> from the real question, the central question in this entire debate: is
> >> he the worst President ever, or only somewhere in the top three?
> >
> > Not even close, but maybe top 10.
> > Andy jackson, Hoover and Grant pop to mind quickly for top 3.
>
> Hoover, top 3? Ouch. That's harsh. I think he's unfairly maligned; he
> didn't have the data or tools he needed--which is not to say that if he
> did have the data and tools, he would have done the right things, just
> that he gets an incomplete on that score.

We're all dead in the long run. Right?

> GWB ignores data he has
> available, and misuses tools in his hands.

Is it time for you to post your "question" again?

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

September 15th 04, 09:42 PM

gwhite wrote:

>
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:
>
>>gwhite wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>>"The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
>>>in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
>>>so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
>>>admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
>>>refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
>>> -- Ludwig von Mises
>>>
>>>
>>>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
>>
>> That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
>>security system.
>
>
> Imagine the puzzled look on your patient's faces when you inform them a little
> abscess is healthy for them.

I guess that's why I have the licence--whoops--socialism again!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

Robert Chung

September 15th 04, 10:09 PM

gwhite wrote:
>
> Is it time for you to post your "question" again?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/employment_growth_aug04.png ?

gwhite

September 15th 04, 10:29 PM

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:
>
> gwhite wrote:
>
> >
> > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:
> >
> >>gwhite wrote:
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >>>"The idea of Socialism is at once grandiose and simple.... We may say,
> >>>in fact, that it is one of the most ambitious creations of the human spirit,
> >>>so magnificent, so daring, that it has rightly aroused the greatest
> >>>admiration. If we wish to save the world from barbarism we have to
> >>>refute Socialism, but we cannot thrust it carelessly aside."
> >>> -- Ludwig von Mises
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> >>>prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
> >>
> >> That's why GWB is going to work so hard to abolish that bad, bad social
> >>security system.
> >
> >
> > Imagine the puzzled look on your patient's faces when you inform them a little
> > abscess is healthy for them.
>
> I guess that's why I have the licence--whoops--socialism again!

Scary stuff.

gwhite

September 15th 04, 10:54 PM

Robert Chung wrote:
>
> gwhite wrote:
> >
> > Is it time for you to post your "question" again?
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/employment_growth_aug04.png ?

Thanks.

Benjamin Weiner

September 16th 04, 12:05 AM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
> loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
> companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
> generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
> companies.

You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain old
type-ball Selectrics. Not that I think any of this **** matters.
At bottom, everyone is arguing about whether a putative decades-old memo
_proves_ something that they all more or less assume to be true
(GWB had a easy time in the ANG). It's funny hearing the same people
that tolerated that Swift Boat Veterans ad go off about standards of
historical accuracy. I'm not voting on the grounds of what happened
in 1972, anyway. I have enough evidence from the last four years to
make up my mind on the candidates.

gwhite

September 16th 04, 12:23 AM

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>

> I have enough evidence from the last four years to
> make up my mind on the candidates.

Yeah, I'll probably vote for Badnarik too.

TritonRider

September 16th 04, 12:30 AM

>From: John Forrest Tomlinson

>Using family influence to avoid dangerous service is understandable --
>a lot of people would've done that if they could. But to do it, or
>maybe even have been AWOL, and then have the gall to fly onto a
>military ship, dressed up like a pilot, saying Mission Accomplished,
>all while undercutting the professional leadership in our military,
>screwing over people who joined the service now and are serving in a
>hazardous situations, is appalling.
>
>JT
>

Amen
Bill C

John Forrest Tomlinson

September 16th 04, 12:31 AM

On 15 Sep 2004 16:05:40 -0700, (Benjamin Weiner)
wrote:

>"Tom Kunich" > wrote:
>
>> The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
>> loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
>> companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
>> generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
>> companies.
>
>You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
>even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain old
>type-ball Selectrics. Not that I think any of this **** matters.

Using family influence to avoid dangerous service is understandable --
a lot of people would've done that if they could. But to do it, or
maybe even have been AWOL, and then have the gall to fly onto a
military ship, dressed up like a pilot, saying Mission Accomplished,
all while undercutting the professional leadership in our military,
screwing over people who joined the service now and are serving in a
hazardous situations, is appalling.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Tom Kunich

September 16th 04, 12:35 AM

"John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>...
> > "John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
> > > tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc. As I said, could
> > > typewriters produce text that looks like the text in the memo? And did
> > > the unit in question use them?
> >
> > A manual typewriter - no without any question whatsoever. A manual
> > typewriter spaces with a gear drive and hence can only step full spaces
with
> > nothing in between.
> >
> > The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
> > loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
> > companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
> > generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
> > companies.
>
> I don't care about when you first saw one or when I got one or when
> the CEO of General Motors's secretary got one. That's irrelevant and
> focusing on that is perhaps an attempt to perpetuate doubt. The
> question is, did the unit in question have one? Or perhaps did a
> similar unit in the Guard have them? The way to answer this question
> is to either see if there is evidence that that unit may have had it,
> perhaps through purchasing records or diverse testimony of some kind.
> Or else to look at other, less controversial documents produced by
> that or similar units or offices to see if they had some of the
> features that typical typewriters do not have.

According to Killian's secretary (Marian Carr Knox)the memos in question
were not typed by her, had to have been if they were real, and that the
terminology used wasn't Guard but Army terminology.
(http://www.drudgereport.com/bushtang.htm)

And one of See-BS's own handwriting experts told them that the signature
wasn't Killian's.
(http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_04091
4.html)

Just how much proof do you need?

BTW, one year after these memos were sent Killian's secretary was still
writing on a manual typewriter.

Tom Kunich

September 16th 04, 12:38 AM

"Robert Chung" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > And if that doesn't frighten the bejesus out of you, perhaps you should
> > remain permanently in France.
>
> Yikes, *that's* the kind of stuff that frightens the bejesus out of you?
> Oh, Tom, don't be such a girlie man.

Think about this Robert. It isn't funny.

Tom Kunich

September 16th 04, 12:58 AM

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 02:48:22 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
> wrote:
>
> >Aside from typesetters, almost no one could do this. In fact it wasn't
even
> >considered by typists until the advent of the CRT screen on which the
> >typists result would show and be corrected BEFORE it went on paper.
>
> Well, not exactly. The better Selectrics had a small display that
> permitted composing over several lines before printing. From memory,
> they came out in the late 1970s, which would precede large scale use
> of word processing at the desk by several years.

NOT in 1972! The only displays available were extremely crude CRT displays
and Nixie Tubes which were only available in numbers or a few letters. You
have to remember that in 1970 I obtained the FIRST Sylvania solid state
memory ICs and tested them. They could store 16 bits and the die was
mis-wired so that half of the bits were high true and the other half were
low true. By 1972 the VERY first LED numeric displays were hitting the
market and were almost unobtainable unless you were a pocket calculator
manufacturer and were ordering them by the millions.

So there really wasn't anything available in 1972 that cold display an
entire line for a typewritten page.

> Two people that are evidently even more interested in this sideline
> than myself have identified the one 'typewriter' that would come
> close. Evidently there was a 1972 $ 3,600 machine (1972 dollars)
> called the Selectric Composer (mini-typesetter rather than a true
> typewriter) that could come awfully darned close. Except it required
> changing font sets to do the superscript as in the memo and when they
> got closer to the actual memo it revealed that the Times Roman used by
> the Selectric font ball - a rarity - did not come that close to
> matching in certain areas.

I haven't seen a single reference to any Times Roman script balls and have
some real doubts because they would be of such extremely limited demand.
Making these balls was VERY expensive since the tooling had to be all hand
made.

> I agree that this is a sideline, but its the type of thing that swings
> elections if allowed (by the Democrats) to continue. It doesn't even
> have to escalate and the eventual fraud (my opinion) doesn't have to
> be tied directly to the Democrats or anyone associated with the DNC or
> the Kerry election group.

It's my belief that this all stems from the Clinton group who intend to keep
Kerry out in order to have a plausible platform for Hillary in '08.

> This is about swing voters. The Republican Convention created real
> momentum and at the point that Kerry has to stop that momentum and
> move it in his direction, you have this grabbing the headlines. Terry
> Mcauliffe's remarks to the contrary, no one else is linking this to
> the Republican side (although it does make interesting conspiracy
> theory, all tied to a certainty that Rather and CBS couldn't resist
> the bait). This is bad for the Democrats and it only has to live
> another couple of weeks to make the difference. THE difference.

Electioneering has always been a dirty business but network news owes their
entire fortunes to the fact that they are licensed to send their commercials
ot over public airwaves. If that's the case they OWE us the very least of
presenting as neutral a news reporting as possible.

Over the years the networks have been moving further and further to the
left. Not as a purposeful shift but because they tend to hire journalists
who agree with the bosses and don't make waves and that sort of thing causes
those sorts of shifts.

But now it is so outrageous I believe that the FCC will have to step in with
some sort of "Fairness Doctrine" that all stations must abide by or lose
their licenses.

TritonRider

September 16th 04, 01:02 AM

>From: "Tom Kunich"

>But now it is so outrageous I believe that the FCC will have to step in with
>some sort of "Fairness Doctrine" that all stations must abide by or lose
>their licenses.

Not going to happen and Rather has done this before.

You might not like the source but the information is easy enough to verify.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp

Bill C

Bob Schwartz

September 16th 04, 02:05 AM

What I don't get is the plays to the undecided voters. How
anyone could be undecided in this election escapes me.
I think that anyone who is undecided at this date has a
patriotic duty to stay the hell home on election day, since
they're obviously not paying attention.

The downside of the low number of undecideds is that the
only way to gain ground is to drive your opponents voters
away from the polls. A long time ago I expected this to
be one of the dirtiest elections ever and I don't think
the last weeks will prove me wrong.

Bob Schwartz

Benjamin Weiner

September 16th 04, 06:51 AM

gwhite > wrote:
> Benjamin Weiner wrote:

> > I have enough evidence from the last four years to
> > make up my mind on the candidates.
>
> Yeah, I'll probably vote for Badnarik too.

Damn, I didn't even realize Chuck Bednarik was running!
He was tough as nails, he might be a little old though.

"A linebacker is like an animal. He's like a lion or a tiger
and he goes after prey. He wants to eat him, he wants to kick"
the ---- out of him. That's a linebacker." - Bednarik

http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Bednarik_Chuck.html

It would be even cooler if he picked Chuck Palahniuk, the
guy who wrote Fight Club, as his VP. A Bednarik-Palahniuk
ticket would carry the Rust Belt from Pittsburgh to Chicago
on the names alone.

Although, hardly anybody lives in the Rust Belt anymore.

-Ben
Rust Belt expatriate

Benjamin Weiner

September 16th 04, 07:01 AM

John Forrest Tomlinson > wrote:
> (Benjamin Weiner) wrote:

> >type-ball Selectrics. Not that I think any of this **** matters.
>
> Using family influence to avoid dangerous service is understandable --
> a lot of people would've done that if they could. But to do it, or
> maybe even have been AWOL, and then have the gall to fly onto a
> military ship, dressed up like a pilot, saying Mission Accomplished,
> all while undercutting the professional leadership in our military,
> screwing over people who joined the service now and are serving in a
> hazardous situations, is appalling.

That's a fair statement. What I said was poorly worded. The truth or
falsity of this memo **** doesn't matter much to me. Because it's
arguing about whether GWB used influence or not and showed up or not,
while it's undisputed that he copped easy duty, whether through good
fortune or family influence or whatever. The rest of your argument
follows from that alone. The memo is a distraction, something for
bloggers and Beltway professionals to argue about and keep in the
headlines to avoid discussing any real issues. If it turns out to
be fake, is GWB exonerated of hubris? Not to me.

Stewart Fleming

September 16th 04, 07:04 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> No. Fax yourself a memo and you'll see that it doesn't get pixelated, it
> gets smeared.
>
> And if they were Faxed, explain why See-BS has a set on their site that look
> almost original.

Easy to check now. Go to Kinko's in Abilene and check out their fax
machine. Now famous for more than just the Nancy Griffith song...

Matt Cahill

September 16th 04, 05:53 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message t>...
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "John Forrest Tomlinson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Dude, I work in desktop publishing a lot and am familiar with kerning,
> > > > tracking, leading, superscripts,etc, etc. As I said, could
> > > > typewriters produce text that looks like the text in the memo? And did
> > > > the unit in question use them?
> > >
> > > A manual typewriter - no without any question whatsoever. A manual
> > > typewriter spaces with a gear drive and hence can only step full spaces
> with
> > > nothing in between.
> > >
> > > The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
> > > loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
> > > companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
> > > generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
> > > companies.
> >
> > I don't care about when you first saw one or when I got one or when
> > the CEO of General Motors's secretary got one. That's irrelevant and
> > focusing on that is perhaps an attempt to perpetuate doubt. The
> > question is, did the unit in question have one? Or perhaps did a
> > similar unit in the Guard have them? The way to answer this question
> > is to either see if there is evidence that that unit may have had it,
> > perhaps through purchasing records or diverse testimony of some kind.
> > Or else to look at other, less controversial documents produced by
> > that or similar units or offices to see if they had some of the
> > features that typical typewriters do not have.
>
> According to Killian's secretary (Marian Carr Knox)the memos in question
> were not typed by her, had to have been if they were real, and that the
> terminology used wasn't Guard but Army terminology.
> (http://www.drudgereport.com/bushtang.htm)
>
> And one of See-BS's own handwriting experts told them that the signature
> wasn't Killian's.
> (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_04091
> 4.html)
>
> Just how much proof do you need?
>
> BTW, one year after these memos were sent Killian's secretary was still
> writing on a manual typewriter.

Also from Marina Knoxx
(included in AP Story, 'CBS Softens Defense of Bush Documents', Sep
16, 2004)

CBS on Wednesday flew Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox,
86, from Texas to New York for an interview. In the interview, Knox
said she believed the documents were fake but their content accurately
reflected Killian's opinions.

"I know that I didn't type them," she said. "However, the information
in those is correct."

----

But I suppose the type of typewriter she used is more important to you
than the truth of what was said.

Robert Chung

September 16th 04, 08:10 PM

TritonRider wrote:
>
> Army Recruiting In Trouble?

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html

John Forrest Tomlinson

September 16th 04, 11:06 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
t>...
>
> According to Killian's secretary (Marian Carr Knox)the memos in question
> were not typed by her, had to have been if they were real, and that the
> terminology used wasn't Guard but Army terminology.
> (http://www.drudgereport.com/bushtang.htm)
>
> And one of See-BS's own handwriting experts told them that the signature
> wasn't Killian's.
> (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_04091
> 4.html)
>
> Just how much proof do you need?

That's fine proof. I was objecting to your nonsensical comments that
simply because typewriters that could do proportional spacing were
rare, therefore the documents were forged. That's logically flawed.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Curtis L. Russell

September 17th 04, 01:12 PM

On 15 Sep 2004 16:05:40 -0700, (Benjamin Weiner)
wrote:

>It's funny hearing the same people
>that tolerated that Swift Boat Veterans ad go off about standards of
>historical accuracy. I'm not voting on the grounds of what happened
>in 1972, anyway. I have enough evidence from the last four years to
>make up my mind on the candidates.

Except there is nothing similar being waved about by the equivalent of
a CBS - the exception being the Kerry diaries and they aren't being
disputed by either side. Several commentators on the more liberal side
have also said that the Swift Boat Veterans were more transparent and
open with their evidence than CBS - even if they don't agree with it.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

September 17th 04, 01:16 PM

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:05:59 -0000, Bob Schwartz >
wrote:

>What I don't get is the plays to the undecided voters. How
>anyone could be undecided in this election escapes me.
>I think that anyone who is undecided at this date has a
>patriotic duty to stay the hell home on election day, since
>they're obviously not paying attention.

Or maybe they are paying plenty of attention, but find that they have
more than one issue that concerns them, and neither candidate clearly
wins on all issues.

Your comment really means, "I don't understand why anyone that isn't a
dip**** voting for the other side hasn't already decided to vote with
our side."

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell

September 17th 04, 01:19 PM

On 16 Sep 2004 01:22:46 GMT, (TritonRider) wrote:

> Wait until the next one especially if Bush wins and Hillary runs in 2008. You
>aint seen nothin' yet. That'll start out as a train wreck and get uglier every
>day.

Except the whole premise is based on some assumption that our current
elections are even remotely as unpleasant as in the past. Perhaps
since the mid 1900s, but 2000, 2004 and probably 2008 will not
remotely approach the worst elections. Nasty perhaps, and not what we
would want from the election. But not in the top 10 for being nasty
overall.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

TritonRider

September 17th 04, 01:35 PM

>From: Curtis L. Russell

>Or maybe they are paying plenty of attention, but find that they have
>more than one issue that concerns them, and neither candidate clearly
>wins on all issues.
>
>Your comment really means, "I don't understand why anyone that isn't a
>dip**** voting for the other side hasn't already decided to vote with
>our side."
>
>Curtis L. Russell
>Odenton, MD (USA)
>Just someone on two wheels...
>

I'll guarantee that if Bush wins we will hear a ton more from the left about
how stupid Americans are and how bad this country sucks. They won't even
consider the fact that calling the majority of Americans who are in the middle
names is not conducive to winning. Neither is running cadidates that have
voting records from the fringes. If Gore hadn't let the Brady boobs lead him
around by the nads and had stuck to his original position on guuns he would
have beaten Bush by 10 points easy. Instead he loses his own home state.
The arrogance coming off the coasts does not play well in most of the south
and middle America. We already know there is no chance in hell of the
Republicans putting up a moderate, you'd think that the Democrats would get it
and run one and start winning these elections. They've managed to elect 1
president sinc the 60s. Carter doesn't count because after Ford/Nixon they
could,ve run a bowling ball and won. This should be a clue that they need to
change something that they are doing, not jsut **** and moan about how mean
spirited and stupid Americans are.
How about giving us palatable alternatives?
Bill C

TritonRider

September 17th 04, 01:40 PM

Sorry for the spelling and punctuation mess. Got to start triple checking
everything.
Bill C

Curtis L. Russell

September 17th 04, 02:04 PM

On 17 Sep 2004 12:35:05 GMT, (TritonRider) wrote:

> How about giving us palatable alternatives?

That would require starting a new party located somewhere in the
center. Have pretty much gone through the available organizations -
probably have been on about 50 websites - and none are really
centrist. Most are further out on the spectrum or single/few issue
parties. I did notice that some groups (not parties) still want John
Anderson to run again...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

TritonRider

September 17th 04, 02:15 PM

>From: Curtis L. Russell

>That would require starting a new party located somewhere in the
>center. Have pretty much gone through the available organizations -
>probably have been on about 50 websites - and none are really
>centrist. Most are further out on the spectrum or single/few issue
>parties. I did notice that some groups (not parties) still want John
>Anderson to run again...
>
>Curtis L. Russell
>Odenton, MD (USA)
>Just someone on two wheels...

Hadn't seen that about Anderson, but other than that sounds like we found the
same things.
What a mess.
Heard a great bit on Imus this morning about a converstion Joe Biden had with
Chirac. basically Biden told Chirac that if Kerry wins France better be ready
to put it's money and troops where it's mouth has been on debt relief,
peacekeeping, and human rights. Biden told him that if there isn't immediate
action after Kerry wins that he will lead a campaign to bring ALL US troops
home from Europe and review our committment to Nato. Chirac response was that
is terrible! You would not do that you are our friend. Biden's response was
that we are tired of subsidizing Europe's defense while they are giving nothing
in return.
Going to be fun.
I am taking this from Imus' recounting of the interview not primary source
material so some of it could be wrong, but that's what Imus is putting out.
Bill C

gwhite

September 17th 04, 05:22 PM

CowPunk wrote:
>

> It's like they say, "absolute power corrupts, absolutely...".

"They" didn't say it, Lord Acton said it. I doubt you'll be voting for
democrats (especially) or republicans if you truly appreciate Lord Acton.

http://www.acton.org/about/lordacton/

TritonRider

September 17th 04, 05:39 PM

>From: gwhite

>"They" didn't say it, Lord Acton said it. I doubt you'll be voting for
>democrats (especially) or republicans if you truly appreciate Lord Acton.
>
>http://www.acton.org/about/lordacton/
>

Thanks for the link. More research for me to do.
Bill C

gwhite

September 17th 04, 05:40 PM

TritonRider wrote:
>
> >From: Curtis L. Russell
>
> >Or maybe they are paying plenty of attention, but find that they have
> >more than one issue that concerns them, and neither candidate clearly
> >wins on all issues.
> >
> >Your comment really means, "I don't understand why anyone that isn't a
> >dip**** voting for the other side hasn't already decided to vote with
> >our side."

Exactly.

> I'll guarantee that if Bush wins we will hear a ton more from the left about
> how stupid Americans are and how bad this country sucks.

You'll hear that whether Bush wins or not.

Of course, being overly nationalistic is a misdirection of aim, and
"conservatives" tend to be more nationalistic (in at least a direct sort of way)
than those who are considered "liberals" (they aren't liberals really, they are
basically socialists in North America). Of course those "liberals" get very
nationalistic when it comes to imposing tariffs and favoring special interest
group pocketbooks. It is a more subtle and devious form of "nationalism." As
such, it is perhaps more important to expose the deception, since it is not as
clearly seen.

It is amusing how the crys from the left about "fair labor practices" for
foriegn workers, seem to turn an about face when their own special interest
group gets impacted as those foreign workers begin to compete with *them*. "All
animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." LOL --
DoubleSpeak

Tom Kunich

September 18th 04, 12:32 AM

"Matt Cahill" > wrote in message
om...
>
> CBS on Wednesday flew Killian's former secretary, Marian Carr Knox,
> 86, from Texas to New York for an interview. In the interview, Knox
> said she believed the documents were fake but their content accurately
> reflected Killian's opinions.
>
> "I know that I didn't type them," she said. "However, the information
> in those is correct."
>
> But I suppose the type of typewriter she used is more important to you
> than the truth of what was said.

So explain how an 86 year old woman who typed probably 10's of thousands of
reports would remember something like that? Bush wasn't anyone of any more
importance and it isn't as if he was there for that long. Furthermore Guard
records apparently show that something like 1/3rd of all flight physicals
are missed so it couldn't be that rare for her to have been typing out memos
to pilots to get their physicals rescheduled. What would have made Bush's
missed physical stand out in her mind?

I don't know about you but when I was in the service there was endless
paperwork about everything. I couldn't even tell you the number of forms and
logs and orders and crap that I filled out every day. How is it that this
woman could remember any of it from 30 years ago beyond the broad brush of
"they're using the wrong terminology"?

The answer is she isn't.

Since she also said that she thought that Bush had been awarded the
Presidency by the Supreme Court and hadn't won it in Florida (now what is
all of this about 30,000 New York Liberals double voting in Florida as
well?) it is easy to see where her memories of Bush's missed physical come
from. And of course Killian's son and wife who both claimed that he would
never have written himself a memo (let alone a CYA memo) because he was the
sort of person that kept his thoughts to himself, contradict the idea that
she typed memos "like those".

BTW, you are aware that ANG uses a point system to determine if you had
enough service in to get out? Bush had way more points than necessary since
he spent a year full time in the Air Force.

Tom Kunich

September 18th 04, 12:38 AM

"Benjamin Weiner" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote:
>
> > The ANG was highly unlikely to have a Selectric in 1972. For crying out
> > loud, I didn't even see one until the mid-80's in anything but huge
> > companies. Selectrics were extremely expensive for typewriters and were
> > generally only available for the bosses private secretary at large
> > companies.
>
> You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
> even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain old
> type-ball Selectrics.

I wonder what the hell kind of school you went to. I couldn't get a
Selectric in 1985! And you had a school room full in 1980? Amazing.
Composers were VERY RARE. And they didn't operate like a standard Selectric.
They had dials that adjusted the space bar spacing and the space between
characters.

And Selectrics didn't have a Times Roman typeface ball.

> At bottom, everyone is arguing about whether a putative decades-old memo
> _proves_ something that they all more or less assume to be true
> (GWB had a easy time in the ANG). It's funny hearing the same people
> that tolerated that Swift Boat Veterans ad go off about standards of
> historical accuracy. I'm not voting on the grounds of what happened
> in 1972, anyway. I have enough evidence from the last four years to
> make up my mind on the candidates.

Obviously not someone who has read "Unfit for Command". I suggest you get a
copy of it and read it. Kerry's Vietnam record is discussed in fine detail.
I do find it interesting that you would suggest that 254 guys who were there
are less accurate than a guy who has recanted many times now and continues
to "vote for it before voting against it."

Tom Kunich

September 18th 04, 12:48 AM

"TritonRider" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tom Kunich"
>
> >But now it is so outrageous I believe that the FCC will have to step in
with
> >some sort of "Fairness Doctrine" that all stations must abide by or lose
> >their licenses.
>
> Not going to happen and Rather has done this before.
>
> You might not like the source but the information is easy enough to
verify.
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp

Yeah, someone else referred that to me this morning. I hadn't known about
that and if I had, I would have started political campaigning at that
moment.

No society can remain free and not have an honest news media. The actions of
a gradually increasingly biased media simply drive other media in opposite
extremes. It's getting pretty bad when Sean Hannity is providing LESS biased
news than SeeBS news.

When you have this heavily biased news the politicians grab headlines by
making blatantly extremist statements and that causes the populace to
fragment into extremist camps. And that's good for no one.

My own politics are very slightly to the right of middle of the road. I've
taken many tests designed to determine your politics and they always report
the same thing. But I really do believe that the Liberal left is a serious
threat to this country and to the world. Look what happened becase Bill
Clinton was fiddling while Rome burned. I don't think that a nation like the
USA can be asleep at the switch in this day of WMD.

Carl Sundquist

September 18th 04, 01:07 AM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
> >
> > You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
> > even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain old
> > type-ball Selectrics.
>
> I wonder what the hell kind of school you went to. I couldn't get a
> Selectric in 1985! And you had a school room full in 1980? Amazing.
> Composers were VERY RARE. And they didn't operate like a standard
Selectric.
> They had dials that adjusted the space bar spacing and the space between
> characters.

I'm almost positive we had the ball type IBMs when I was in HS in the late
70's. Little did I know what relevance it would have 25 years later.

Howard Kveck

September 18th 04, 03:45 AM

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> BTW, you are aware that ANG uses a point system to determine if you had
> enough service in to get out? Bush had way more points than necessary since
> he spent a year full time in the Air Force.

--------------------
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm

"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."

-------------------

As for spending a year in the Air Force, that's not quite accurate. He
claimed that the time he spent attending flight school (November 1968 to
December 1969) was considered to be active duty in the Air Force. The Air
Force, however, considers ANG members to be 'guardsmen on active duty'
while receiving pilot training, not full members of the Air Force.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Benjamin Weiner

September 18th 04, 04:51 AM

Tom Kunich > wrote:
> "Benjamin Weiner" > wrote in message

> > You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
> > even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain old
> > type-ball Selectrics.

> I wonder what the hell kind of school you went to. I couldn't get a
> Selectric in 1985! And you had a school room full in 1980? Amazing.
> Composers were VERY RARE. And they didn't operate like a standard Selectric.
> They had dials that adjusted the space bar spacing and the space between
> characters.

http://www.etypewriters.com/history.htm

Selectric II introduced 1971, Selectric III introduced 1980.
I found this page in 0.41 seconds using Google. I went to a
large, newish, very gritty urban public middle school. Apparently
I still came out ahead of you, Tom.

> And Selectrics didn't have a Times Roman typeface ball.

I was just flaming you about the date of intro of Selectrics.
I don't give a **** about the Composer-ness of the memos, for
reasons I already explained:

> > At bottom, everyone is arguing about whether a putative decades-old memo
> > _proves_ something that they all more or less assume to be true
> > (GWB had a easy time in the ANG). It's funny hearing the same people
> > that tolerated that Swift Boat Veterans ad go off about standards of
> > historical accuracy. I'm not voting on the grounds of what happened
> > in 1972, anyway. I have enough evidence from the last four years to
> > make up my mind on the candidates.

> Obviously not someone who has read "Unfit for Command". I suggest you get a
> copy of it and read it. Kerry's Vietnam record is discussed in fine detail.
> I do find it interesting that you would suggest that 254 guys who were there
> are less accurate than a guy who has recanted many times now and continues
> to "vote for it before voting against it."

More mush from the wimp.

RonSonic

September 18th 04, 05:41 AM

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:16:30 -0400, Curtis L. Russell
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:05:59 -0000, Bob Schwartz >
>wrote:
>
>>What I don't get is the plays to the undecided voters. How
>>anyone could be undecided in this election escapes me.
>>I think that anyone who is undecided at this date has a
>>patriotic duty to stay the hell home on election day, since
>>they're obviously not paying attention.
>
>Or maybe they are paying plenty of attention, but find that they have
>more than one issue that concerns them, and neither candidate clearly
>wins on all issues.
>
>Your comment really means, "I don't understand why anyone that isn't a
>dip**** voting for the other side hasn't already decided to vote with
>our side."

X ring. Perfect shot. I feel that way myself so can say.

Ron

RonSonic

September 18th 04, 05:58 AM

On 17 Sep 2004 12:35:05 GMT, (TritonRider) wrote:

>>From: Curtis L. Russell
>
>>Or maybe they are paying plenty of attention, but find that they have
>>more than one issue that concerns them, and neither candidate clearly
>>wins on all issues.
>>
>>Your comment really means, "I don't understand why anyone that isn't a
>>dip**** voting for the other side hasn't already decided to vote with
>>our side."
>>
>>Curtis L. Russell
>>Odenton, MD (USA)
>>Just someone on two wheels...
>>
>
> I'll guarantee that if Bush wins we will hear a ton more from the left about
>how stupid Americans are and how bad this country sucks. They won't even
>consider the fact that calling the majority of Americans who are in the middle
>names is not conducive to winning. Neither is running cadidates that have
>voting records from the fringes. If Gore hadn't let the Brady boobs lead him
>around by the nads and had stuck to his original position on guuns he would
>have beaten Bush by 10 points easy. Instead he loses his own home state.
> The arrogance coming off the coasts does not play well in most of the south
>and middle America. We already know there is no chance in hell of the
>Republicans putting up a moderate, you'd think that the Democrats would get it
>and run one and start winning these elections. They've managed to elect 1
>president sinc the 60s. Carter doesn't count because after Ford/Nixon they
>could,ve run a bowling ball and won. This should be a clue that they need to
>change something that they are doing, not jsut **** and moan about how mean
>spirited and stupid Americans are.
> How about giving us palatable alternatives?

The smoke filled rooms produced a better candidate. Both parties, but especially
the Dems need to look into some way to vet their field down to a small number of
serious candidates before the primaries. Through the primaries they were running
on who hates Bush and his war the most. Then they realized that wasn't going to
work and Dean who seemed to be winning by the earlier standard appeared to be at
serious risk of apoplexy on stage. So they settled on Kerry as the anti-war
candidate most likely to win, besides it was his turn. Then Kerry finds out that
the whole anti-war thing wasn't working with the electorate as well as it did
for the party and started getting seriously squirrelly.

The whole idea of running on Bush hatred was flawed from the beginning. Almost
exactly half the electorate voted for him. Lose those and there isn't a whole
lot of margin left to win on. Telling people they voted for stupid-chimp-hitler-
guy isn't going to win 'em over.

Oh well. Maybe they'll figure it out. Or maybe they're doomed. We'll see.

Ron

Tom Kunich

September 19th 04, 04:02 AM

"Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

Well, then they have the proper paperwork saying so. Where is it again?

> As for spending a year in the Air Force, that's not quite accurate. He
> claimed that the time he spent attending flight school (November 1968 to
> December 1969) was considered to be active duty in the Air Force. The Air
> Force, however, considers ANG members to be 'guardsmen on active duty'
> while receiving pilot training, not full members of the Air Force.

So what you're saying is that being full time in the Air Force ISN'T being
full time in the Air Force if you're ANG. It must certainly be easy to make
these kinds of distinctions if you're never been in the service.

Tom Kunich

September 19th 04, 04:08 AM

"RonSonic" > wrote in message
...
>
> The whole idea of running on Bush hatred was flawed from the beginning.
Almost
> exactly half the electorate voted for him. Lose those and there isn't a
whole
> lot of margin left to win on. Telling people they voted for
stupid-chimp-hitler-
> guy isn't going to win 'em over.

Seems to work for Robert Chung though. But you've zeroed in on the real
effect of the extreme Bush hatred. The half who voted for him figure that
he's getting a really raw deal and dig their heels in and vote for him
again. Half of those who voted against him figure that if Kerry hates him
that badly there has to be something wrong with Kerry and they vote against
Kerry.

But under it all is the reality that the Republicans have stayed pretty
middle of the road while the Democrats have grown further and further to the
left. For awhile it seemed like they were going to pull the whole country
there by claiming that there should be compromise to a middle ground.

But 9/11 changed all that. Suddenly people saw that our enemies won't accept
a middle ground. They won't accept anything but total victory. That means
that we have to accept no compromises either.

And Kerry is campaigning on "let's compromise" when he isn't campaigning on
"let's all hate Bush".

Tom Kunich

September 19th 04, 04:13 AM

"Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
> > > even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain
old
> > > type-ball Selectrics.
> >
> > I wonder what the hell kind of school you went to. I couldn't get a
> > Selectric in 1985! And you had a school room full in 1980? Amazing.
> > Composers were VERY RARE. And they didn't operate like a standard
> Selectric.
> > They had dials that adjusted the space bar spacing and the space between
> > characters.
>
> I'm almost positive we had the ball type IBMs when I was in HS in the late
> 70's. Little did I know what relevance it would have 25 years later.

Would it have relevance if you knew that the time in question was 1973 and
not "the late 70's"? Would it make a difference if you knew that a ball
writer could not have reproduced a text which was composed of dots and not
lines regardless? How about the fact that the National Guard memos and
papers a year after Bush was gone were still being typed on a manual
typewriter?

Hell, the only people that claim to believe those documents are real are Dan
Rather and his SeeBS bosses.

Tom Kunich

September 19th 04, 04:26 AM

"Benjamin Weiner" > wrote in message
news:414bb0ce$1@darkstar...
> Tom Kunich > wrote:
> > "Benjamin Weiner" > wrote in message
>
> > > You must mean a Selectric Composer. At least I hope you do, because
> > > even my public middle school had a typing class in 1980 using plain
old
> > > type-ball Selectrics.
>
> > I wonder what the hell kind of school you went to. I couldn't get a
> > Selectric in 1985! And you had a school room full in 1980? Amazing.
> > Composers were VERY RARE. And they didn't operate like a standard
Selectric.
> > They had dials that adjusted the space bar spacing and the space between
> > characters.
>
> http://www.etypewriters.com/history.htm
>
> Selectric II introduced 1971, Selectric III introduced 1980.
> I found this page in 0.41 seconds using Google. I went to a
> large, newish, very gritty urban public middle school. Apparently
> I still came out ahead of you, Tom.

I'm not so sure. Apparently your English comprehension leaves something to
be desired. I wasn't arguing that Selectrics weren't available but that they
cost about 5 times what a manual typewriter did and in even large companies
such as Singer Business Machines the only Selectric in the entire company
was owned by the Boss's private secretary.

But you, apparently, went to a school that could afford to buy and entire
classroom full. At Castlemont High School in Oakland our type class had
pre-WW II manual typewriters that were donated by the federal government.

> > And Selectrics didn't have a Times Roman typeface ball.
>
> I was just flaming you about the date of intro of Selectrics.
> I don't give a **** about the Composer-ness of the memos, for
> reasons I already explained:

Actually you don't appear to give a **** about much.

> > > At bottom, everyone is arguing about whether a putative decades-old
memo
> > > _proves_ something that they all more or less assume to be true
> > > (GWB had a easy time in the ANG). It's funny hearing the same people
> > > that tolerated that Swift Boat Veterans ad go off about standards of
> > > historical accuracy. I'm not voting on the grounds of what happened
> > > in 1972, anyway. I have enough evidence from the last four years to
> > > make up my mind on the candidates.
>
> > Obviously not someone who has read "Unfit for Command". I suggest you
get a
> > copy of it and read it. Kerry's Vietnam record is discussed in fine
detail.
> > I do find it interesting that you would suggest that 254 guys who were
there
> > are less accurate than a guy who has recanted many times now and
continues
> > to "vote for it before voting against it."
>
> More mush from the wimp.

Mush huh? At least I'm not the one attempting to denigrate 254 people with
the claim that they have a grudge against Kerry and would lie because of
that grudge.

So, the Swift Boat Vets have proven themselves to be so historically
inaccurate that the Kerry camp has admited that Kerry wasn't in Cambodia
(which he claimed ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE was "seared SEARED in my
brain". He has admited that he was the only one that ran away the day that
Rassmussin ended up in the water. He has admited that his first Purple Heart
was improperly awarded which means that his exiting Vietnam was improper.

Yeah, those inaccurate Swifties sure have been falling back in disarray.

Curtis L. Russell

September 19th 04, 06:48 PM

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:32:17 GMT, "Tom Kunich" >
wrote:

>So explain how an 86 year old woman who typed probably 10's of thousands of
>reports would remember something like that?

And she contradicted two earlier comments that she had made concerning
Bush. She evidently tailors her comments to the interview and what
they are looking for. Just being agreeable, I guess.

I'm starting to change one opinion about the mess. Kerry seems to be
taking different positions within hours of each other now - more and
more like a local politician not used to being quoted on pages one
through three of every paper. Maybe the Kerry campaign is better off
with this destraction taking the spotlight from the candidates while
the Democrats work on message and training Kerry better.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Tom Kunich

September 19th 04, 11:10 PM

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kerry is working to lose this election and I think from that
> perspective, he is being very successful. He could have won, he should
> have won, but right now I don't think he will.

I think that it was a stupid idea to nominate someone during a time of war
who voted against military funding 75 times and voted to reduced the
military and or intelligence 125 times.

I wonder why anyone would vote for Kery at all.

Howard Kveck

September 20th 04, 05:05 AM

In article <414bb0ce$1@darkstar>, Benjamin Weiner >
wrote:

> Tom Kunich > wrote:
> > "Benjamin Weiner" > wrote in message

> > Obviously not someone who has read "Unfit for Command". I suggest you get a
> > copy of it and read it. Kerry's Vietnam record is discussed in fine detail.
> > I do find it interesting that you would suggest that 254 guys who were there
> > are less accurate than a guy who has recanted many times now and continues
> > to "vote for it before voting against it."
>
> More mush from the wimp.

Ben, I find it hard to believe that you don't think O'Neill and co. are
credible. After all, he was set up in '71 by Watergate thug Charles Colson:

³He was a thorn in our flesh. He was very articulate, a credible leader
of the opposition. He forced us to create a counterfoil. We found a vet
named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just
Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do
to boost his group.²

It is interesting that for most of a month, the media reported what SBVT
said and did no investigating into it. Once they finally started to compare
what was said to the Navy records and what other people who were there
said, the SBVT started taking on water "big time."

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

September 20th 04, 05:05 AM

In article t>,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "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.
>
> Well, then they have the proper paperwork saying so. Where is it again?

Ok, let me phrase that a little differently, Tom. The White House has
made a series of claims regarding why they think GWB did fulfill the terms
of his 6 year obligation to the ANG. US News and World report showed how
each different version did not actually do what the White House claimed.
Are you saying USN&WP is some lefty rag that's manipulating the facts?

> > As for spending a year in the Air Force, that's not quite accurate. He
> > claimed that the time he spent attending flight school (November 1968 to
> > December 1969) was considered to be active duty in the Air Force. The Air
> > Force, however, considers ANG members to be 'guardsmen on active duty'
> > while receiving pilot training, not full members of the Air Force.
>
> So what you're saying is that being full time in the Air Force ISN'T being
> full time in the Air Force if you're ANG. It must certainly be easy to make
> these kinds of distinctions if you're never been in the service.

No, it's easy to make these distinctions when the USAF and ANG
regulations say it's so. It's your decision to engage in willful and
perverse ignoring of the facts on the ground (or air, as it were).

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

WTD

September 20th 04, 05:34 AM

>
> I wonder why anyone would vote for Kery at all.

With all your intemperate, misinformed Kerry bashing, I'm not
suprised. Kerry is spelled with two "r"s by the way.

John Forrest Tomlinson

September 20th 04, 11:51 AM

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:05:58 GMT, Howard Kveck
> wrote:

>
>http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8481
>-------------------------------------
> "It was Congressman Cheney, after all -- not Senator Kerry -- who
>contradicted his own party during the height of the Cold War and called for
>President Ronald Reagan to ³take a whack² at defense spending. It was
>Defense Secretary Cheney -- not Senator Kerry -- who in 1992 blocked
>critical intelligence reforms and bragged to Congress about gutting defense
>spending."
> (snip)
> "What Cheney leaves out of his stump speeches is the ironic fact that
>almost all of the cuts Kerry voted for were endorsed or originally proposed
>by Cheney himself."
> (snip)
> "But it was Defense Secretary Cheney who gloated that he had ³put an end
>to more than 100 systems² in less than three years. In December 1991, he
>bragged to the Washington Post that he was setting ³an all-time record as
>Defense Secretary for canceling or stopping production² of weapons and
>equipment."
>----------------------------------
>
> Cheney is no stranger to contradictions and hypocrisy.
>
>http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8498
>------------------------------------

But Howard, since Prospect magazine is generally liberal, even facts
stated in it should be ignored. Remember, there is a liberal media
conspiracy...

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

TritonRider

September 20th 04, 12:50 PM

>From: Howard Kveck

Lots snipped

>> I wonder why anyone would vote for Kery at all.
>
> Me too. KeRRy, on the other hand, is a different matter.
>
>--
> tanx,
> Howard
>

Howard YOU KNOW that you're not supposed to question, or look up what Cheney
and Scumsfeld did in the past. That's not fair.
But thanks for pointing that stuff out.
Bill C

Dan Gregory

September 20th 04, 08:15 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
> I wonder why anyone would vote for Kery at all.
Because he's not Bush??
;-{0
Dan

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/04

Tom Kunich

September 21st 04, 03:19 AM

"Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote:
>
> > "Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "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.
> >
> > Well, then they have the proper paperwork saying so. Where is it again?
>
> Ok, let me phrase that a little differently, Tom. The White House has
> made a series of claims regarding why they think GWB did fulfill the terms
> of his 6 year obligation to the ANG. US News and World report showed how
> each different version did not actually do what the White House claimed.
> Are you saying USN&WP is some lefty rag that's manipulating the facts?

I'm saying that Bush had WAY more points than necessary to get out of the
National Guard. Moreover, he was an F-102 interceptor pilot. That was an
aircraft that was being obsoleted. He was getting out anyway, so why should
he take up a flying slot from some new guy especially when it would have
meant retraining into another fighter type. The whole idea is preposterous
if you know anything at all about the service. It's those who were never in
the service who have been making all these silly statements about Bush. The
Guard put Bush on desk duty just to run out his time. They didn't want to
pay for retraining a pilot who was getting out and they wanted to save the
available F-102 time for the senior pilots - like Bush's commander LC Jerry
Killian who got one of the rare F-102 slots in Vietnam.

> > > As for spending a year in the Air Force, that's not quite accurate.
He
> > > claimed that the time he spent attending flight school (November 1968
to
> > > December 1969) was considered to be active duty in the Air Force. The
Air
> > > Force, however, considers ANG members to be 'guardsmen on active duty'
> > > while receiving pilot training, not full members of the Air Force.
> >
> > So what you're saying is that being full time in the Air Force ISN'T
being
> > full time in the Air Force if you're ANG. It must certainly be easy to
make
> > these kinds of distinctions if you're never been in the service.
>
> No, it's easy to make these distinctions when the USAF and ANG
> regulations say it's so. It's your decision to engage in willful and
> perverse ignoring of the facts on the ground (or air, as it were).

Howard, stop playing word games. Calling him ANG is technically accurate but
when he was living in the same barracks with Air Force pilots, flying the
same missions in the same aircraft with Air Force Pilots and eating at the
same table with Air Force pilots - that put him in the Air Force and not
the kiddy patrol as you seem to want to redefine the world.

In SAC we didn't have ANG but they were with the weather squadron and we had
to (not) salute them the same as any Air Force officer.

Tom Kunich

September 21st 04, 03:22 AM

So what you're saying is that you're not voting for Kerry, you're voting
again VP Cheney?

As you said, "That's rich."

"Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote:
>
> > "Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Kerry is working to lose this election and I think from that
> > > perspective, he is being very successful. He could have won, he should
> > > have won, but right now I don't think he will.
> >
> > I think that it was a stupid idea to nominate someone during a time of
war
> > who voted against military funding 75 times and voted to reduced the
> > military and or intelligence 125 times.
>
> Heh. That's rich.

Tom Kunich

September 21st 04, 03:28 AM

"WTD" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > I wonder why anyone would vote for Kery at all.
>
> With all your intemperate, misinformed Kerry bashing, I'm not
> suprised. Kerry is spelled with two "r"s by the way.

Hmm, how long before Kerry begins to criticize the Israelis for protecting
themselves? oh, that's right. He already has....

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040304-082410-7067r.htm

"In an October speech to the Arab American Institute in Michigan, Mr. Kerry
depicted the barrier as an impediment to peace. "I know how disheartened
Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line -
cutting deep into Palestinian areas," the Massachusetts Democrat declared.
"We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive
measures only harm Israelis' security over the long term, increase the
hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an
eventual settlement that much harder."
After supporters of Israel objected that Mr. Kerry had given Israel's
legitimate security concerns short shrift, the senator's spin team went into
action. Sources inside the Kerry campaign told the Jerusalem Post last week
that Mr. Kerry's real objection was to the route of the fence. According to
the Kerry spokesmen, he only objected to the fact that the barrier deviates
from the Green Line -Israel's pre-1967 border with the West Bank."

But what do the Jews think about all this? That is real thinking Jews and
not the Hollywood elitists Jews who last practiced before the Germans
invaded Poland?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/halevi_israeli_victory.php3?printer_friend
ly

During those same six months, the Israeli army destroyed most of what
remained of Hamas's organization in the West Bank and a substantial part of
its infrastructure in Gaza. Just last week, Israeli gunships rocketed a
Hamas training camp in Gaza, killing 15 operatives. Hamas leaders, who once
routinely led rallies and gave interviews to the media, don't dare show
their faces in public anymore. Even their names are kept secret. Hardly a
night passes without the arrest of a wanted terrorist. Hamas's ranks have
become so depleted that the organization is now recruiting teenagers: At the
Gaza border, Israeli forces recently broke up a Hamas cell made up of
16-year-olds.

Meanwhile, life inside Israel has returned to near normalcy. The economy,
which was shrinking in 2001, is now growing at around 4 percent per year.
Even the tourists are back: Jerusalem's premier King David Hotel, which a
few years ago was almost empty, recently reached full occupancy. All summer,
Israel seemed to be celebrating itself, with music and film festivals and a
nightly crafts fair in Jerusalem that brought crowds back to its
once-deserted downtown. Everyone knows a terrorist attack can happen at any
time. Still, Israeli society no longer lives in anticipation of an attack.
The Beersheba bombing, which once would have seemed to Israelis part of an
endless and unwinnable war, is now perceived as an aberration. Terror that
no longer paralyzes is no longer terror.

....<deleted for brevity>...

Americans would be wise to study this final lesson, too: Perhaps the
greatest danger in fighting terrorism is the polarizing effect such a
campaign can have - not just internationally, but domestically. To avoid
this pitfall, a strong political consensus for military action is necessary.
That means the president must actively reach out to domestic opposition. But
American leaders must also heed Sharon's other lessons. That means an
ability to endure criticism from abroad and even to risk international
isolation, a willingness to define the war on terrorism as a total war, and
a commitment to focus one's political agenda on winning, not on divisive or
extraneous concerns. Fulfilling those conditions does not guarantee success.
But it does make success possible - as Israel is, at great cost, showing the
world.

TritonRider

September 21st 04, 03:30 AM

>From: "Tom Kunich"

>Howard, stop playing word games. Calling him ANG is technically accurate but
>when he was living in the same barracks with Air Force pilots, flying the
>same missions in the same aircraft with Air Force Pilots and eating at the
>same table with Air Force pilots - that put him in the Air Force and not
>the kiddy patrol as you seem to want to redefine the world.
>
>In SAC we didn't have ANG but they were with the weather squadron and we had
>to (not) salute them the same as any Air Force officer.
>
>
>

Guys lets put this on the back burner for a day or two. My wife is AF
personnel and will get attempt to get you guys a definitive ruling in the next
few days. This seems to be a gray area.
Bill C

Tom Kunich

September 21st 04, 03:47 AM

"Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
...
> It is interesting that for most of a month, the media reported what
SBVT
> said and did no investigating into it. Once they finally started to
compare
> what was said to the Navy records and what other people who were there
> said, the SBVT started taking on water "big time."

Not nearly so interesting as the fact that they weren't brought onto a
single mainstream media outlet if they were so easy to disprove.

Fact is that Colson might HAVE provided soto vox support for O'Neil who had
been trying to break into the media since he'd returned from Vietnam to
counter the absolute lies of John Kerry.

But in case you've missed it -

So far those lying Swifties have gotten the Kerry campaign to admit that:

1) Kerry's statement before the Senate and several speeches before civic
groups claiming that he was in Cambodia on a secret mission for President
Nixon at Christmas 1968 was "mistaken". All it took was the fact that the
memory "seared, SEARED, into my brain" (Kerry before the Senate) couldn't
have been true because
a) Nixon wasn't President
b) Kerry's own crew claimed otherwise
c) Kerry's own personal journal, quoted in his biography stated that he
was in An Thoi at that time.
(Kerry has since claimed that "I was close" - An Thoi was 55 miles from
Cambodia and about as far as you could get and still be in South Vietnam)

2) Kerry's first Purple Heart was probably not deserved. Again all it took
was:
a) The testimoney of his commanding officer that the wound was
(accidently) self inflicted in the absence of any enemy fire.
b) The testimoney of the attending physician that the would could hardly
be detected when fresh and that the piece of shrapnel Kerry claimed to have
been the cause appeared to be from an American grenade like the launcher
that Swifties had on patrol.
c) Again his own personal journal written weeks later claimed "We STILL
haven't seen any enemy fire".

3) Kerry's three citations for his Silver Star represent something entirely
out of procedures. Even more so since two of those who were supposed to have
signed these citations never commanded Kerry nor ever read the citations let
alone signed them. Let's not forget that there was an appendage to the
original citation, a "V" for Valor, that is NEVER award with a Silver Star
because the award itself is for extreme Valor.

So far the "untruths" that the Swifties have been shown to have committed
involved parsing their comments.

Howard Kveck

September 21st 04, 09:15 AM

In article et>,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> I'm saying that Bush had WAY more points than necessary to get out of the
> National Guard.

Did you read the whole article, T? It lays it out pretty plainly that he
DID NOT have enough points. If that one wasn't good enough for you, read on.

> The Guard put Bush on desk duty just to run out his time.

Ahh, "desk duty". Must be a new euphemism for "being down to the bar."
The problem is that he didn't show up, or fulfill many other requirements,
Tom. For example, not one other pilot remembers seeing him in Alabama.
There are $60,000 in rewards for anyone who can place him there - no
takers. Here's a simple chronology that comes from an article in Salon
(which requires a day pass)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/20/bush_guard_records/index.html

----------------------------------

Consider the following anomalies:

(Note that statements below that certain documents do not exist, or that
Bush failed to obtain proper authorization, are based on the White House's
repeated insistence that all relevant Bush military documents have been
made public. Some of these documents, of course, may yet turn up.)

Bush flew for the last time on April 16, 1972. Upon entering the Guard,
Bush agreed to fly for 60 months. After his training was complete, he owed
53 months of flying.

But he flew for only 22 of those 53 months.

Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his
parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot
training.

But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.

In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to
Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization
before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama.

But Bush failed to get the authorization.

In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in
1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received
relocation counseling.

But no such document exists.

He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation
from his unit.

But Bush did not.

He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas
unit commander.

But Bush did not.

He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National
Guard adjutant general.

But Bush did not.

He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force
Reserves.

But Bush did not.

On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his "permanent address."

But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working
for on a temporary basis.

On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty
code.

But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94
pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an
officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.

On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air
Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a
transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained
pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his
remaining two years of flight obligation.

But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.

Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air
Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to
attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in
Houston.

But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and
September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at
the time.

According to Air Force regulations, "[a] member whose attendance record
is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one
less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record
made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by
personal letter."

But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the
fact that he missed drills for months on end.

Bush's unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center
at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed
unsatisfactory participation for an officer.

But his unit never reported Bush's absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.

In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which
is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the
formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances
surrounding Bush's failure.

But no such FEB was convened.

Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders
could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted.

But Bush's commanders made no such request.

On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William
Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group
in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8
and Nov. 4-5, 1972.

But there's no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000,
Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A
self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his
categorical claim.)

However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are
unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and
Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail,
including Bush's formal request as well as authorization and supervision
documents.

But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match
the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.

When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or "unit training assemblies"
(UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and
earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point
on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush's substitute
service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day.

But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two
points.

Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 -- a Thursday,
Friday and Saturday.

But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday,
two for Saturday.

Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May
1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with
attending a single weekday UTA.

But after 1972, when Bush's absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his
credited UTAs were for weekdays.

To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are
tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately
before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill,
according to Guard regulations at the time.

But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell
outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks
in advance.

On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a
flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief
of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that
he had received word of his grounding.

But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan
Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever
been grounded.

Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn't undergo a physical
while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston.

But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.

Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.

But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally
discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a
required physical for 42 months.

Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have
prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and
inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units
across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on
the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted
what's known as a DD Form 44, "Record of Military Status of Registrant."

But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's
draft board in Houston.

Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military
dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973.

But Bush's request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and
November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that
remains unclear.

Each of Bush's numerous substitute service requests should have formed a
lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a's, with the name of the
officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the
officer who supervised the training and Bush's own signature.

But no such documents exist.

During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed
nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with
substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in
circumstances that are "beyond the control" of the Guard member.

But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what
the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority
of his assigned drills in his last year.

Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served
two days.

But at the end of April, when Bush's Texas commanders had to rate him for
their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: "Lt. Bush has
not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed
Bush's commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit,
where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush's
duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information.

But Bush's commanders ignored the request.

Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit
July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points.

But that's not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month -- one
on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four
days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just
twice a month. The other days are known as "Appropriate Duty," or APDY.

On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School,
signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another
unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.

But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill
his obligation.

Despite the laundry list of Guard discrepancies, Bush, when asked about
his service this weekend, insisted, "I did everything [my superiors] asked
me to do."
-------------------------------------

> > No, it's easy to make these distinctions when the USAF and ANG
> > regulations say it's so. It's your decision to engage in willful and
> > perverse ignoring of the facts on the ground (or air, as it were).
>
> Howard, stop playing word games. Calling him ANG is technically accurate but
> when he was living in the same barracks with Air Force pilots, flying the
> same missions in the same aircraft with Air Force Pilots and eating at the
> same table with Air Force pilots - that put him in the Air Force and not
> the kiddy patrol as you seem to want to redefine the world.

Tom, you said he was FULL TIME AIR FORCE. That's not the same as Weekend
Warrior in the eyes of the USAF. Your time counts as Air Force only when
you are on active duty. (No disrespect to any Guardsmen intended by the
Weekend Warrior comment, either: all the Guard guys I know (and have known)
refer to themselves as that.)

--
tanx,
Howard

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
Albert Einstein

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Donald Munro

September 21st 04, 09:22 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Hmm, how long before Kerry begins to criticize the Israelis for protecting
> themselves? oh, that's right. He already has....
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040304-082410-7067r.htm
...
>But American leaders must also heed Sharon's other lessons. That means an
>ability to endure criticism from abroad and even to risk international
>isolation, a willingness to define the war on terrorism as a total war,
>and a commitment to focus one's political agenda on winning, not on
>divisive or extraneous concerns. Fulfilling those conditions does not
>guarantee success. But it does make success possible - as Israel is, at
>great cost, showing the world.

Perhaps it would be much harder for terrorist organizations to recruit new
suicide bombers if it was not for Israels illegal occupation of
Palestinian territory.

Donald Munro

September 21st 04, 09:25 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:

> So what you're saying is that you're not voting for Kerry, you're voting
> again VP Cheney?

Makes sense to me. Can't be much worse than than Boy George and Slimey.

Clovis Lark

September 21st 04, 09:38 PM

Dan Gregory > wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>> I wonder why anyone would vote for Kery at all.

Because his opponent thinks he's Mao swimming the Yellow River?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1414189627d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&selm=ce8ldu%24dl1%241%40hood.uits.indiana.edu&rnum=1

> Because he's not Bush??
> ;-{0
> Dan

> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/04

Howard Kveck

September 22nd 04, 07:58 AM

In article >,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, how long before Kerry begins to criticize the Israelis for protecting
> > themselves? oh, that's right. He already has....
> >
> > http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040304-082410-7067r.htm
> ..
> >But American leaders must also heed Sharon's other lessons. That means an
> >ability to endure criticism from abroad and even to risk international
> >isolation, a willingness to define the war on terrorism as a total war,
> >and a commitment to focus one's political agenda on winning, not on
> >divisive or extraneous concerns. Fulfilling those conditions does not
> >guarantee success. But it does make success possible - as Israel is, at
> >great cost, showing the world.
>
> Perhaps it would be much harder for terrorist organizations to recruit new
> suicide bombers if it was not for Israels illegal occupation of
> Palestinian territory.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.275.gif

--
tanx,
Howard

A billion + 2 followups...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Curtis L. Russell

September 22nd 04, 02:45 PM

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:57:58 GMT, Howard Kveck
> wrote:

> By the way, you keep mentioning that the media is so far to the left
>that they can't be objective in covering the present administration. If
>that were indeed true, then why have we heard nothing at all in the
>mainstream media about this issue, or the Cheney/Halliburton/Iran story,
>among many others?

My question is what newspapers do you read that haven't reported it in
multiple aritcles? I'm guessing that of the four papers in our area
(Washington DC-Baltimore-Annapolis), only the Annapolis Capital
hasn't. Then, again, they would report a nuclear attack on DC with the
following headlines:

Route 50 backup to Eastern Shore
Traffic Boon to Local Merchants

Redskin Game in Doubt on Sunday

National Capital reported missing (in much smaller print)

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Tom Kunich

September 23rd 04, 05:51 AM

"Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote:
>
> > I'm saying that Bush had WAY more points than necessary to get out of
the
> > National Guard.
>
> Did you read the whole article, T? It lays it out pretty plainly that
he
> DID NOT have enough points. If that one wasn't good enough for you, read
on.

Here's the rule Howard - In order to put in your time you have to have 50
points per year. For a six year hitch that's 300 points.

Bush accumulated 253 points his first year, and a total of 589 points in the
succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucwb/20040920/cm_ucwb/theinfluencebehindw&e=1

> > The Guard put Bush on desk duty just to run out his time.
>
> Ahh, "desk duty". Must be a new euphemism for "being down to the bar."

When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

Howard Kveck

September 23rd 04, 09:01 AM

In article >,
"Tom Kunich" > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "Tom Kunich" > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm saying that Bush had WAY more points than necessary to get out of
> the
> > > National Guard.
> >
> > Did you read the whole article, T? It lays it out pretty plainly that
> he
> > DID NOT have enough points. If that one wasn't good enough for you, read
> on.
>
> Here's the rule Howard - In order to put in your time you have to have 50
> points per year. For a six year hitch that's 300 points.
>
> Bush accumulated 253 points his first year, and a total of 589 points in the
> succeeding three years, before his Alabama leg and his discharge.
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucwb/20040920/cm_ucwb/theinflue
> ncebehindw&e=1

That article contradicts every other one I've seen on the issue - why is
that? Oh, and Bill Buckley determines the rule on this?

> > > The Guard put Bush on desk duty just to run out his time.
> >
> > Ahh, "desk duty". Must be a new euphemism for "being down to the bar."
>
> When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

Would Merckx have won the Tour in '73 if he'd chosen to race it? That
question has exactly the same bearing on this issue. Have you raced
bicycles professionally, Tom? Then (by the standards you like to toss out)
how do you feel qualified to discuss pro bike racing?

--
tanx,
Howard

A billion + 2 followups...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck

September 23rd 04, 09:07 AM

In article >,
Curtis L. Russell > wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 06:57:58 GMT, Howard Kveck
> > wrote:
>
> > By the way, you keep mentioning that the media is so far to the left
> >that they can't be objective in covering the present administration. If
> >that were indeed true, then why have we heard nothing at all in the
> >mainstream media about this issue, or the Cheney/Halliburton/Iran story,
> >among many others?
>
> My question is what newspapers do you read that haven't reported it in
> multiple aritcles? I'm guessing that of the four papers in our area
> (Washington DC-Baltimore-Annapolis), only the Annapolis Capital
> hasn't. Then, again, they would report a nuclear attack on DC with the
> following headlines:
>
> Route 50 backup to Eastern Shore
> Traffic Boon to Local Merchants
>
> Redskin Game in Doubt on Sunday
>
> National Capital reported missing (in much smaller print)

You're correct, Curtis, that "heard nothing" is an overstatement -
apologies for that. There has been some coverage in the print media, but it
seems to be quite sparse on TV. But I haven't seen much in the mainstream
media that take Cheney to task for criticizing Kerry for voting for his own
proposals. The fact that people are still making the point that Kerry voted
against defense spending tells me *that* story hasn't hit the public's
perceptions with as much vigor as the one's that the Bush campaign are
pushing ("Kerry cuts defense spending").

Your Annapolis Capital bit is good, btw. There's reasons why small(ish)
town newspapermen usually *stay* small town newspapermen. A couple years
ago, an older woman got hit by a train in Palo Alto, Calif - the headline
on the local paper read (in huge type), "She Had No Next Of Kin".

--
tanx,
Howard

A billion + 2 followups...

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Robert Chung

September 23rd 04, 09:24 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
military service.

Donald Munro

September 23rd 04, 10:25 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

Robert Chung wrote:
> I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
> military service.

Getting laid ?

Carl Sundquist

September 23rd 04, 01:10 PM

"Robert Chung" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >
> > When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?
>
> I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
> military service.
>

http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/rbr8.html

(2nd from bottom) ?

Robert Chung

September 23rd 04, 01:44 PM

Carl Sundquist wrote:
> "Robert Chung" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?
>>
>> I don't know about Howard, but I had other priorities in the '60s than
>> military service.
>>
>
> http://www.kenpapai.com/cycling/rbr/rbr8.html
>
> (2nd from bottom) ?

My first experience with a fixed gear.

Tom Kunich

September 23rd 04, 03:18 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message >...
>
> When were you in the service Howard and what service was it?

By the way, Howard, that isn't an attack. I'm trying to find out if
you've been in the service and so whether you actually have had
experience with the way it works.

Those who chose not to offer their service to the country are allowed
that option in this country. Those who do find that service life isn't
much like the real world out there at all.

In the days of the draft those who couldn't be trained for anything
else ended up as clerks and cooks and military police. Some turned out
to be good at their jobs but most didn't want to be there and were a
continuous pain in the butt.

Things like paperwork that COULD be avoided often was and so it isn't
unusual to see gaps in records. And remember, these same guys would
join the Guard after they got out because they generally could pick up
a load of rank as experienced servicemen, make a little pay, get the
government to pay for education and only have to serve a couple of
weeks a year and some weekends.

The flip side of this coin is that becoming a fighter pilot in the Air
Force was DAMNED HARD. There was all hell and gone a ton of
competition and regardless of Bush's abilities it's unlikely that he
could have made it. In the ANG he stood a whole lot better chance and
indeed the ratings demonstrate that he took that position seriously.
His fellow officers and his commanding officers thought well of him.

You would think from the SeeBS follow-up report that missing a
physical was the same thing as going AWOL despite the fact that 1/3rd
of the pilots missed a physical at some time in their service lives.
Fact is that it was no big deal and you came off flight duty, had to
do all of the scut office duty, and had to wait for the next cycle of
physicals. In other words - it was worse for the guy who missed his
physical than the service.

The real problem here isn't with Bush's service which while perhaps
not exemplary was a hell of a lot better than mine. I was put up on
charges for doing my job TOO GOOD!

One of the other airmen and myself got in a competition to see who
could do a Terrain Avoidance Radar Alignment the fastest. Originally
the alighment took about 12 hours. And the computer's expected
lifespan was 11 hours between shop alighnments. Doesn't work out does
it?

Slowly the field alignment came down to 8 hours as we memorized the
procedures and didn't have to read each step out loud. Then we started
putting working teams together - one guy to sit at the radar target to
set the echo return knobs. Another to sit there and read each step out
of the procedure (required by regulation) and the third to actually do
the alignment.

I did a 7 hour alignment and John did a 6. I did a 5 hour alignment
and John did a 4. Finally I was on a shift that didn't get any
alignments for awhile and John got in a lot of practice and pull off a
3 hour alighment. Our NCOIC of the shop put him in for a commendation
and he got it.

So I went out on a TA with the expectations of setting the record to
where John couldn't beat it. I took the two best guys for the job (who
also happened to be the only two guys on the shift besides me) and we
did an alignment in 1 hour and 45 minutes. As I dropped out of that
overheated oven I was pretty happy-go-lucky and there was a Colonel
standing below the hatchway that I almost stepped on.

"What's up Airman," he asked? Like some smartass I said, "Well sir, we
just pencil whipped a TA out in record time." (Pencil whipped was a
term of derision usually meaning that instead of fixing something you
just wrote it up as being repaired - this was because some flight
officers would invent malfunctions to "keep the troops busy.")

When I got back to the shop it was shift change and everyone was
unusually quiet. The two super-sargeants were going out the door
without so much as saying boo and they took my truck with the TA gear
on it. The NCOIC asked me to stay and clean up the shop. This wasn't
really unusual but it wasn't normal.

After two hours the super-sargeants came back in smiling and handed
over the terrain avoidance plots which were the best I've ever seen.
Perfectly flat with only two small dips in the clearance plane. The
NCOIC got on the phone and called someone and talked for a couple of
minutes and then got off and the story came out.

That Colonel was the assistant wing commander and Sgt Scott, our NCOIC
of the shop, had made such a big deal about how difficult the TA
alignment was and what an unusually good technician John was, that the
1:45 I told the Colonel made him think that I was serious about
"pencil whipping" a TA.

Terrain Avoidance radar was an EXTREME safety-of-flight item. A
failure of that made it even chances that a crew on a TA mission would
end up dead. It happened several times when I was in so I know this
wasn't a joke.

The assistant wing commander didn't take well to my joviality and
actually filed charges immediately. He retracted them when the backup
paperwork showed a nearly perfect alignment.

But instead of getting a commendation (which was what I was going for
- anythnig to put on in John's eye) I barely avoided court martial.

THAT'S the way the service works Howard.