On Saturday 11 September 2004 06:12 am, R. Myles Green wrote: > > > Sorry, recent events have overtaken us. The Kerry operatives have > > > just hit an all-time logic deficit (not that the Bush campaign > > > won't catch up, politics being what it is): all who believe that a > > > document using current word processing techniques was typed in the > > > 1970's by a military officer who didn't know how to type (per his > > > wife) please go to the end of the line and try again. > > > > Where'd we'd find the bush campaign huxters with their 'official' > > documents of his military record that uses a font that didn't exist > > at the time. > > http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/09/10/bush_memo040910.html > > I think you'll find that the "font" question is in reference to the > same documents Collins was talking about, according to the article at > the above link. At least, that's what I got from article.
You can see the same phenomenon in official Bush military records, released by Bush himself in February.. Go to http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm and open "Miscellaneous." On page three of that pdf (you'll have to rotate it), on the second line is a superscript "th." It's dated 4 Sep 68. On the ninth line is a non-superscript "th." So, go figure. -- Ed Jabbour _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
