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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (202496)	9/16/2004 6:26:29 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574097

combjelly, I am saying that wasn't evidence the documents were forged. If a widespread doubt over the documents being genuine is cast, we need to see evidence that the document is genuine, and CBS needs to produce it for independent verification. I am saying that wasn't evidence the documents were forged. And OJ Simpson jury believed there was not enough evidence to convict him. Some people believe that there was not enough evidence to convict him. And there were some way out there who believed that OJ was actually innocent. Are you in this group, that believes that the documents are genuine? Joe

To: combjelly who wrote (202496)	9/16/2004 6:30:05 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1574097

re: And if you subscribe the the Microsoft Word theory, then why don't all of the characters have the same baseline? None of the elaborate theories about how the documents were generated with Word have explained that. I'm very reluctant to get into fontgate... but it seems to me that the docs were probably transcribed some time between the time they were written, and before word processors came into common use. BWTFDIK? The WH passed on the docs. They either thought they were authentic, and thus agreed with the content (as supported by other sources), or they were complicit in a scam (doubtful, but not beyond my imagination). Bottom line, Bush was a young slothful scumbag. Does that reflect on his adulthood? That's for individuals to decide. I just want to see it kept in the news. Maybe another 5 weeks or so, with the Texans for Truth ads running in key states. The reps and blogs can nail Dan Rather to a cross, but Bush is being taken down with him. Fine with me... look at the polls. John

To: combjelly who wrote (202496)	9/16/2004 7:26:09 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574097

And if you subscribe the the Microsoft Word theory, then why don't all of the characters have the same baseline? None of the elaborate theories about how the documents were generated with Word have explained that. It isn't "theory" at this point. It has been proven, not beyond the shadow of a doubt, but absolutely and indisputably. An expert (Ph.D., specialist in typography) was interviewed at least twice yesterday who had used a technique that simply cannot be disputed. He printed the document in MS Word with its DEFAULT settings onto a transparency, and laid it over the original. The match was perfect, and if you know anything about Word you could do the same. I commonly use this technique in confirming the registration of laser printers and it works. Period. It is not even vaguely conceivable these documents were produced on anything other than Word. I don't know what "baseline" issues you're referring to; the copies I've seen had nothing out of the ordinary. I can't believe people are still debating this. I'm not sure what kind of cognitive problem would cause someone to still be arguing these documents might be real.