History of typing… and putting 2 and 2 together
Posted on September 10th, 2004 by
We meant to link to this earlier, but SullyWatch offers a sadly (?) all too plausible explanation for Sullivan’s linking to critiques of Michelle Malkin’s work.
SW also offers a good roundup of “the history of kerning” controversy:
This dispute over the authenticity of the memos is worth a paper by someone somewhere, as it?s an ideal (we think) example of an argument tailor-made for blogging. Thanks to Google, everyone can rather rapidly acquire some expertise on the history of typewriters and type and share it with the world to back up their opinions.
There needs to be an investigation as blogging is totally unfair to liberal arts graduate students whose life as perpetual academics is threatened by bloggers reducing the number of absolutely worthless research topics to single digit levels.
Someone has just lost his/her teaching assistant position because bloggers have stolen “The evolution of typewriter fonts and spacing, and its implication for the poverty rates in Costa Rica” from a deserving sociology doctoral candidate.
You guys know I couldn’t sit this one out… I’m sick of this wingnut bullshit about the so-called “forged documents.”
So, I have created an animated graphic explaining the differences between the CBS Memo and the Times New Roman sample that the so called “experts” in the wingnut site used as “proof” of tampering.
The example they used just doesn’t stand on its own. Close attention actually shows evidence the CBS documents seems to come from a typewriter, not from a modern word processor.
CLICK HERE to view the animation and the article explaining the differences
The whole animation lasts about 1 minute, then loops ad-infinitum.
Enjoy!!! And pass it along to all your friends!!!
See, we too can play this game.
😉