Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (55553)	9/12/2004 10:37:29 PM
From: upanddown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Have you seen this? No, my friend, I have not seen "this" and I don't care to see "this" and I have no interest whatsoever in becoming a document production expert. You may have misunderstood my question. My question was.....how could anyone involved in this MAJOR operation make such a laughably obvious and simplistic mistake when a early-70s machine was easily available for peanuts??????

To: unclewest who wrote (55553)	9/12/2004 10:48:34 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

In that analysis example you cite: flounder.com I think special notice should be taken of the left side blowups of characters. If you notice the WORD document the superscript "th" do not connect to each other, the "8" has a top loop and a bottom loop of the same size, and the "7" has a little line (I think it's called a serif). The blowup for the 18 august memo shows that the "th" superscript run into each other, the "8" has a smaller loop on the top than on the bottom, and there is no serif on the "7". This is why I wanted to see something more concrete than just everyone eyeballing the fuzzy documents. It's more obvious than ever that the memo does not match Microsoft WORD Times New Roman format. TP