<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fake Letter Mania</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/</link>
	<description>General interest observations and true web-log.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:31:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AHC</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-2/#comment-1212</link>
		<dc:creator>AHC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1212</guid>
		<description>Rather pedantic of you Dr. Pedant,

In addition to the above rebuttals, on page 25  of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/1-Enlistment_Packet.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;FOIA packet on Bush&lt;/a&gt;, you will see the name Bentsen, Lloyd C III.  Care to venture a guess who that may be?  Wouldn&#039;t happen to be another senator&#039;s son, would it?  Also, if you look thru the other pages, you will see a number of names of people that are obviously not rich good ole white boys, i.e. Ruth (a boy called Ruth?),  Karen,  Avianantos or Pasquarella.

Also curious, on page 13, Bush certifies that he is not conscientious objector, nor dodging a draft induction.  Anyone know what Selective Service category II-S means?

And on page 14, he admits to being arrested for disorderly conduct  for which charges were dropped.   Ah, the bane of reckless youth.  Seems to me that a lot of young men chose to join the military in exchange for dropping relatively minor charges in those days--maybe that&#039;s how &amp; why he got in.  

In the end, when Bush enrolled in Harvard Business School, he was granted an early out, instead of pursuing 3 dubious purple hearts.

If, according to urban myths, getting a slot in the reserve componet is &quot;reserved&quot; for priviliged folks, then how did young Kerry get into the Navy Reserves?  This after being rejected for a deferment to study in Paris.  Had he done his homework like Slick, he should have gotten himself enrolled before asking for the deferment, instead of &quot;promising&quot; to attend if excused.  

Kerry volunteered for safe Stateside shore duty and his twice-bad karma landed him in Nam.  He never volunteered for Nam, his reserve unit was ordered there after he joined.  Observing the easy job of the Swift Boats, a lightbulb goes off: JFK=combat boat=hero=POTUS, but after transferring, the Swifties were moved from safe coastal patrol to dangerous brown-water patrols.  

Alternatively, when Bush joined, his unit was already in Nam and only during pilot training did the unit get sent back home.  Interceptors weren&#039;t of much use in SE Asia, taking up limited ramp space and resources, better suited to intercepting Soviet Bears (recce plans) off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.  Furthermore, the F102s were in the hi-risk category for accidents -- sounds like a job for a shirker (look up the annual stats).  

Last point, &lt;b&gt;if&lt;/b&gt; Bush lied when he said he was both Air Force and Guard, then Kerry lied in saying he was Navy, when he should be claiming strictly to be a Reservist.  Or are we supposed to forget that he was an activated reservist?

Anyhoo, this is OT, since the question concerns forgeries.  Speaking of which, why would Kerry have 3 citations for  the same Silver Star, all signed by different people, and denied by one?  

BTW, isn&#039;t it a federal felony to forge official government documents?

John Dvorak; in answer to your question about the TX vs  Texas, I was in both the MI &amp; TX ANG.  

In my ten years, IIRC I have seen &quot;Michigan ANG&quot;, &quot;MichANG&quot;, &quot;MIANG&quot; but never &quot;MANG&quot;, which conceiveably could have gained common usage after my time (circa 1980 - 1984).  And I&#039;ve seen &quot;Texas ANG&quot;, &quot;TXANG&quot; &amp; &quot;TANG&quot;, but never &quot;TexANG&quot; which obviously was before my time (1984 - 1990.  I believe using &quot;TANG&quot; is something used internally within Texas or Tennessee since the mid-80s, while using other abbreviations before the &quot;ANG&quot; differeniciated States with the same initial.  I suspect the two character abbreviation followed the postal addressing format as that gained popularity.

I&#039;ve kept most of my paperwork, unfortunately they&#039;re in storage half-way accross the country, I&#039;d love to dig it up and see how the earlier stuff was formatted.  However, I&#039;ve posted a couple samples that I once used as part of my online resume, including the &lt;a href=&quot;www.amerikahaus.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;NGB Form 22&lt;/a&gt;.  

Back to the aforementioned FOIA package, while Bush&#039;s NGB 22 version is older (Page 8) than mine, there is enough information in it, and in his DD Form 214 (page 9), to adequately demonstrate that time spent in training and other certain types of TDY is considered Active Duty and credited as Air Force service, not ANG.   When compared, it would appear that my 22 is a blend of both Bush&#039;s 22 &amp; 214.

All in all, methinks that this event will go down in history as the dethroning of the 4th estate by the pajama-pundits -- ironic that the VC &quot;won&quot; Nam in their PJs.  

This is good, as all of the mainstream media should devote more resources to fact checking each other and calling their rivals on their shortcomings and maybe winning a&lt;strike&gt;Pulitzer&lt;/strike&gt; pajama prize or two.

Cheers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rather pedantic of you Dr. Pedant,</p>
<p>In addition to the above rebuttals, on page 25  of the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/1-Enlistment_Packet.pdf" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FOIA packet on Bush</a>, you will see the name Bentsen, Lloyd C III.  Care to venture a guess who that may be?  Wouldn&#8217;t happen to be another senator&#8217;s son, would it?  Also, if you look thru the other pages, you will see a number of names of people that are obviously not rich good ole white boys, i.e. Ruth (a boy called Ruth?),  Karen,  Avianantos or Pasquarella.</p>
<p>Also curious, on page 13, Bush certifies that he is not conscientious objector, nor dodging a draft induction.  Anyone know what Selective Service category II-S means?</p>
<p>And on page 14, he admits to being arrested for disorderly conduct  for which charges were dropped.   Ah, the bane of reckless youth.  Seems to me that a lot of young men chose to join the military in exchange for dropping relatively minor charges in those days&#8211;maybe that&#8217;s how &#038; why he got in.  </p>
<p>In the end, when Bush enrolled in Harvard Business School, he was granted an early out, instead of pursuing 3 dubious purple hearts.</p>
<p>If, according to urban myths, getting a slot in the reserve componet is &#8220;reserved&#8221; for priviliged folks, then how did young Kerry get into the Navy Reserves?  This after being rejected for a deferment to study in Paris.  Had he done his homework like Slick, he should have gotten himself enrolled before asking for the deferment, instead of &#8220;promising&#8221; to attend if excused.  </p>
<p>Kerry volunteered for safe Stateside shore duty and his twice-bad karma landed him in Nam.  He never volunteered for Nam, his reserve unit was ordered there after he joined.  Observing the easy job of the Swift Boats, a lightbulb goes off: JFK=combat boat=hero=POTUS, but after transferring, the Swifties were moved from safe coastal patrol to dangerous brown-water patrols.  </p>
<p>Alternatively, when Bush joined, his unit was already in Nam and only during pilot training did the unit get sent back home.  Interceptors weren&#8217;t of much use in SE Asia, taking up limited ramp space and resources, better suited to intercepting Soviet Bears (recce plans) off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.  Furthermore, the F102s were in the hi-risk category for accidents &#8212; sounds like a job for a shirker (look up the annual stats).  </p>
<p>Last point, <b>if</b> Bush lied when he said he was both Air Force and Guard, then Kerry lied in saying he was Navy, when he should be claiming strictly to be a Reservist.  Or are we supposed to forget that he was an activated reservist?</p>
<p>Anyhoo, this is OT, since the question concerns forgeries.  Speaking of which, why would Kerry have 3 citations for  the same Silver Star, all signed by different people, and denied by one?  </p>
<p>BTW, isn&#8217;t it a federal felony to forge official government documents?</p>
<p>John Dvorak; in answer to your question about the TX vs  Texas, I was in both the MI &#038; TX ANG.  </p>
<p>In my ten years, IIRC I have seen &#8220;Michigan ANG&#8221;, &#8220;MichANG&#8221;, &#8220;MIANG&#8221; but never &#8220;MANG&#8221;, which conceiveably could have gained common usage after my time (circa 1980 &#8211; 1984).  And I&#8217;ve seen &#8220;Texas ANG&#8221;, &#8220;TXANG&#8221; &#038; &#8220;TANG&#8221;, but never &#8220;TexANG&#8221; which obviously was before my time (1984 &#8211; 1990.  I believe using &#8220;TANG&#8221; is something used internally within Texas or Tennessee since the mid-80s, while using other abbreviations before the &#8220;ANG&#8221; differeniciated States with the same initial.  I suspect the two character abbreviation followed the postal addressing format as that gained popularity.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve kept most of my paperwork, unfortunately they&#8217;re in storage half-way accross the country, I&#8217;d love to dig it up and see how the earlier stuff was formatted.  However, I&#8217;ve posted a couple samples that I once used as part of my online resume, including the <a href="www.amerikahaus.com" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">NGB Form 22</a>.  </p>
<p>Back to the aforementioned FOIA package, while Bush&#8217;s NGB 22 version is older (Page <img src='http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_cool.gif' alt='8)' class='wp-smiley' /> than mine, there is enough information in it, and in his DD Form 214 (page 9), to adequately demonstrate that time spent in training and other certain types of TDY is considered Active Duty and credited as Air Force service, not ANG.   When compared, it would appear that my 22 is a blend of both Bush&#8217;s 22 &#038; 214.</p>
<p>All in all, methinks that this event will go down in history as the dethroning of the 4th estate by the pajama-pundits &#8212; ironic that the VC &#8220;won&#8221; Nam in their PJs.  </p>
<p>This is good, as all of the mainstream media should devote more resources to fact checking each other and calling their rivals on their shortcomings and maybe winning a<strike>Pulitzer</strike> pajama prize or two.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry R Duncan</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-2/#comment-1198</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry R Duncan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 00:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1198</guid>
		<description>I secured an early release from active duty in the US Army to return to college  in 1960 just as the Army was in need of people with my PMOS (111.10 at the time, light weapons infrantryman) or so I was told by my company commander.   Do you really think that all of us who got &quot;early outs&quot; failed to fulfill our obligations?  The Army apparently didn&#039;t think so - you see they later gave me an honorable discharge.  Never sent anybody looking for me either.

Larry R Duncan
Mission, Texas and places South in case the Army has changed its mind since September 1960</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I secured an early release from active duty in the US Army to return to college  in 1960 just as the Army was in need of people with my PMOS (111.10 at the time, light weapons infrantryman) or so I was told by my company commander.   Do you really think that all of us who got &#8220;early outs&#8221; failed to fulfill our obligations?  The Army apparently didn&#8217;t think so &#8211; you see they later gave me an honorable discharge.  Never sent anybody looking for me either.</p>
<p>Larry R Duncan<br />
Mission, Texas and places South in case the Army has changed its mind since September 1960</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Man</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-2/#comment-1188</link>
		<dc:creator>The Man</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1188</guid>
		<description>More documents uncovered.  This time on Dan Rather.

http://gopandthecity.blogspot.com/2004/09/dan-rather-exclusive.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More documents uncovered.  This time on Dan Rather.</p>
<p><a href="http://gopandthecity.blogspot.com/2004/09/dan-rather-exclusive.html" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://gopandthecity.blogspot.com/2004/09/dan-rather-exclusive.html' rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://gopandthecity.blogspot.com/2004/09/dan-rather-exclusive.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John C. Dvorak</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-2/#comment-1182</link>
		<dc:creator>John C. Dvorak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:10:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1182</guid>
		<description>I &#039;m also wondering about the use of TX as opposed to Texas and did make that mistake in the letter. I suspect it&#039;s small blunders like this that get this stuff exposed.  But it is possible that the abbrev was  ok in 1972. Hopefully someone will dredge that up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I &#8216;m also wondering about the use of TX as opposed to Texas and did make that mistake in the letter. I suspect it&#8217;s small blunders like this that get this stuff exposed.  But it is possible that the abbrev was  ok in 1972. Hopefully someone will dredge that up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1175</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1175</guid>
		<description>I just read the analysis at flounder.com cited above... wow!  How can CBS ignore this?  
Jim
www.lietothepollsters.com == let&#039;s take back our choices!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just read the analysis at flounder.com cited above&#8230; wow!  How can CBS ignore this?<br />
Jim<br />
<a href="http://www.lietothepollsters.com" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://www.lietothepollsters.com' rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.lietothepollsters.com</a> == let&#8217;s take back our choices!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1174</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:58:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1174</guid>
		<description>It seems with so much expertise abroad in the land that CBS could&#039;ve easily vetted these docs.  They chose to look at the handwriting instead.  Shoddy work (or intentional fraud perpetration) on their part.  Wouldn&#039;t it be fun if it turned out that CBS produced these memos themselves?  Now that would be a good time.
Jim
www.lietothepollsters.com -- let&#039;s take back our opinions!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems with so much expertise abroad in the land that CBS could&#8217;ve easily vetted these docs.  They chose to look at the handwriting instead.  Shoddy work (or intentional fraud perpetration) on their part.  Wouldn&#8217;t it be fun if it turned out that CBS produced these memos themselves?  Now that would be a good time.<br />
Jim<br />
<a href="http://www.lietothepollsters.com" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://www.lietothepollsters.com' rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.lietothepollsters.com</a> &#8212; let&#8217;s take back our opinions!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roundguy</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1172</link>
		<dc:creator>Roundguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1172</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Pedant,</p>
<p>See the following if you still don&#8217;t believe Bush served. These are from his released records:</p>
<p>After training with the USAF, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.</p>
<p>According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).</p>
<p>Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. . . .</p>
<p>That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).</p>
<p>Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.</p>
<p>“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”</p>
<p>So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.</p>
<p>Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.</p>
<p>In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.</p>
<p>Then, at his request, he was given permission to go</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gadfly</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1171</link>
		<dc:creator>Gadfly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 07:10:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1171</guid>
		<description>Re: your own fake, when did 2-letter state abbreviations become the convention? I&#039;m looking through some old correspondence and am not finding it being used in 1972. Anyone know?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: your own fake, when did 2-letter state abbreviations become the convention? I&#8217;m looking through some old correspondence and am not finding it being used in 1972. Anyone know?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dfayer</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1166</link>
		<dc:creator>dfayer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:08:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1166</guid>
		<description>This link should absolutely refute the CBS documents. THe PCMag link was ok but this is really in depth from a guy who really knows his #$@%!! 
Read all of it and then listen for the death bell tolling for Dan Rather.
http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This link should absolutely refute the CBS documents. THe PCMag link was ok but this is really in depth from a guy who really knows his #$@%!!<br />
Read all of it and then listen for the death bell tolling for Dan Rather.<br />
<a href="http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm' rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.flounder.com/bush.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JLawson</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1164</link>
		<dc:creator>JLawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1164</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not necessary to show that the documents are false - what is necessary is to show that they are authentic.  Authenticity is a very binary thing - any single point can falsify the authenticity of a document.   

If you were to find a fair hand copy of the Consitution, using the proper inks, proper paper/parchment, proper pen nibs, spelling virtually identical all the way through - yet Button Gwinnet&#039;s signature was replaced by Bill Gates - it would be a forgery.  No matter how good a forgery it is technically - one detail invalidates it completely.

And in this case - there&#039;s just too many things that one has to accept for these to be real.  That an ultra-luxe word processor was available on an ANG base, that just happened to be made available to a colonel who didn&#039;t type, who just happened to have 8.5x11 paper, who just happened to use the exact same defaults and fonts and type spacing as the pre-eminent word processer 30 years later would use... and who apparently typed these things without a single mistake - no lightly struck letters, no misspellings... that he&#039;d make rookie mistakes in date and heading formats... that he&#039;d complain about being influenced by someone who retired 18 months before...

Do I need to go on?  All you need is one thing, and the documents are forgeries.  The burden is on CBS to completely prove that these aren&#039;t forgeries.  And, unless they&#039;ve got the originals - that&#039;s going to be impossible.

J.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not necessary to show that the documents are false &#8211; what is necessary is to show that they are authentic.  Authenticity is a very binary thing &#8211; any single point can falsify the authenticity of a document.   </p>
<p>If you were to find a fair hand copy of the Consitution, using the proper inks, proper paper/parchment, proper pen nibs, spelling virtually identical all the way through &#8211; yet Button Gwinnet&#8217;s signature was replaced by Bill Gates &#8211; it would be a forgery.  No matter how good a forgery it is technically &#8211; one detail invalidates it completely.</p>
<p>And in this case &#8211; there&#8217;s just too many things that one has to accept for these to be real.  That an ultra-luxe word processor was available on an ANG base, that just happened to be made available to a colonel who didn&#8217;t type, who just happened to have 8.5&#215;11 paper, who just happened to use the exact same defaults and fonts and type spacing as the pre-eminent word processer 30 years later would use&#8230; and who apparently typed these things without a single mistake &#8211; no lightly struck letters, no misspellings&#8230; that he&#8217;d make rookie mistakes in date and heading formats&#8230; that he&#8217;d complain about being influenced by someone who retired 18 months before&#8230;</p>
<p>Do I need to go on?  All you need is one thing, and the documents are forgeries.  The burden is on CBS to completely prove that these aren&#8217;t forgeries.  And, unless they&#8217;ve got the originals &#8211; that&#8217;s going to be impossible.</p>
<p>J.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jackson zed</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1161</link>
		<dc:creator>jackson zed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:31:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1161</guid>
		<description>Hey Neil,

If you look at the samples at the PCMag link you posted you can tell the  Selectric output immediately: no curly quotes.

Sorry.

:jackson</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Neil,</p>
<p>If you look at the samples at the PCMag link you posted you can tell the  Selectric output immediately: no curly quotes.</p>
<p>Sorry.</p>
<p>:jackson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Sowder</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1160</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Sowder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:55:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1160</guid>
		<description>Thank you for your comment on this inept attempt to excuse CBS for its incompetence. I edited a small magazine in 1974 that was typeset with an IBM Composer. I never saw the machine, but I talked extensively with the printer about its cost and capabilities. 

The one used for my magazine had a minicomputer attached that handled spell checking and word processing functions like justification. I believe the printer said the package cost about $40,000 dollars. It could store large documents on cassette tape for later reprinting or correction.

But capable as it was, the output cannot match the CBS documents. The letterspacing is not the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for your comment on this inept attempt to excuse CBS for its incompetence. I edited a small magazine in 1974 that was typeset with an IBM Composer. I never saw the machine, but I talked extensively with the printer about its cost and capabilities. </p>
<p>The one used for my magazine had a minicomputer attached that handled spell checking and word processing functions like justification. I believe the printer said the package cost about $40,000 dollars. It could store large documents on cassette tape for later reprinting or correction.</p>
<p>But capable as it was, the output cannot match the CBS documents. The letterspacing is not the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ed</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1159</link>
		<dc:creator>ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:50:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1159</guid>
		<description>One problem with your sample, it&#039;s obvious that the signature is cut and pasted, it&#039;s a darker block.  Otherwise it&#039;s a much better fake than what CBS has.   But then CBS wanted their&#039;s to be true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One problem with your sample, it&#8217;s obvious that the signature is cut and pasted, it&#8217;s a darker block.  Otherwise it&#8217;s a much better fake than what CBS has.   But then CBS wanted their&#8217;s to be true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1158</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2004 22:29:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1158</guid>
		<description>Who wrote this?
&lt;i&gt;&quot;In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

CBS&#039; handwriting expert in the 9/27/2002 issue of  &quot;The Practical Litigator.&quot;  Too bad CBS only gave him photocopies to work with.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who wrote this?<br />
<i>&#8220;In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>CBS&#8217; handwriting expert in the 9/27/2002 issue of  &#8220;The Practical Litigator.&#8221;  Too bad CBS only gave him photocopies to work with.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: leaddog2</title>
		<link>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2004/09/10/fake-letter-mania/comment-page-1/#comment-1155</link>
		<dc:creator>leaddog2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2004 21:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=400#comment-1155</guid>
		<description>Beldar Blog at www.beldar.com has PROOF of Forged documents from a creator of font technology. It is VERY READABLE.

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Beldar Blog at <a href="http://www.beldar.com" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://www.beldar.com' rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.beldar.com</a> has PROOF of Forged documents from a creator of font technology. It is VERY READABLE.</p>
<p><a href="http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a><a href='http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/' rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

