« The 10 Spot - Monday Edition | Main | There's no way... »

Rather Defends on CBS News (again)

Dan dives in the tank again...

Tonight Dan Rather tried to defend the documents again. He repeated the claim that CBS had multiple experts authenticate the documents but still only showed footage of Marcel B. Manley. He repeated the "but everyone know George Bush sucked" line of defense.

Potentially Dan's weakest moment came when he tried to argue that since one fact in the memo was true, all the memos must be authentic. He said (paraphrased), "See, right here it say Bush was suspended from flying on this date... And in this other document obtained earlier it says he was suspended from flying on that same date. So the documents must be authentic." By Dandy Dans method, since they got Bush's name right the documents can't be forged. Pathetic.

Dan presented 2 people to back up his claims. Both obviously were new to the story, not consulted before the documents were found to be forgeries.

The first was Bill Glennon who used to be a typewriter repair man. He said all the functions (th, proportional spacing, etc) were available as SPECIAL ORDER items at that time. Their typewriter repair guy DID NOT mention which model with be able to do any of these things on the same document. We know the Selectric composer is out..

The second guy was a "software designer" who "noticed" something about the documents. [OK if this was not a liberal pajama wearer I'm a monkey's uncle. -ed] Dan put his defense in the hands of one Richard Katz. Apparently Katz "noticed" that at least one of the number 1's appeared to be using a lowercase "L" as they did on old typewriters. I know I saw a discussion of this and I'm betting this has been debunked. (I'll look for link) I know I saw it discussed on selectcomposer.org. But what impressed me most was they showed a blow up on the screen of the "1" and the "l" and they looked very different to me." (I'll watch this again and grab the frame if needed)

The other thing Mr. Katz noticed was that one of the TH's was small and one was regular size. (May 1972 memo) He claimed that would mean someone would have to go and turn that feature off and on in Word. Not so-- A single space between the 111 and the TH would make Word not automatically make it a superscript. (111th would super, 111 th would not) From the memo you can not tell if there is a space or not. Hardly "definitive" as our friend Dan likes to say.

I should point out it is abundantly clear from this story CBS does not have any more cards in its hand. They have fired all their shells and are now looking thru their emails and skimming blogs looking for ammo. By Wednesday Rather will be quoting Daily Kos.

Update: I told you! In the end, Rather turned to one of the same people he disparaged earlier to defend him. A blogger.

Bill Glennon, a technology consultant and I.B.M. typewriter specialist who had posted his thoughts on the memos on a blog and was quoted over the weekend in publications including The New York Times, said CBS called him Monday morning. The producer asked him to come in and look at the memorandums and say whether he thought that an I.B.M. typewriter could have produced the documents. He said he was initially leery of talking. "Because quite honestly there's some people out there, they're scary," he said. "You don't agree with them, you offer opinions that don't jibe with theirs and you get a target on your back."


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rather Defends on CBS News (again):

» INDC Journal linked with CBS Wavers?

» bLogicus linked with CBS Article Undermines Prior Assertions

» Ipse Dixit linked with Strike Three, You're Out, Dan

» Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil linked with A Public Service Message For Users of Microsoft Word

» Democracy Project linked with When Will Dan be Done?

» Arguing with signposts... linked with Stop digging

» rightpundit.com linked with Dan Rather Transcript & Fisking--Part II

Comments (43)

- However this plays out so... (Below threshold)

- However this plays out so much for the first line BS that CBS "is not carrying on an internal investigation"...Well no....maybe not persee' ... rewrite that to "internal cover your ass panic"....

Was the "L" vs. "1" thing l... (Below threshold)

Was the "L" vs. "1" thing legitimate? I remember when I first learned tp type (in the early 70s) that we would use a small L for the number one.

According to Danny's "exper... (Below threshold)

According to Danny's "expert" you could get "one" (I'm not sure if he was referring to a typewriter, a Yugo or a pizza) "any way you would want it." Really? So, LTC "typingsux Killian" would have special ordered a machine that just so happens to match the default settings of MS Word? I hope he tipped the delivery dude!

This is a bit "fat" for a b... (Below threshold)

This is a bit "fat" for a blogment(c) post...but for anyone out there that thinks this isn't typical of CBS...

- "60 Minutes" may have a sterling reputation (cough cough) in journalism, but it has been burned before by forged documents. In 1997 it broadcast a report alleging that U.S. Customs Service inspectors looked the other way as drugs crossed the Mexican border at San Diego. The story's prize exhibit was a memo from Rudy Comacho, head of the San Diego customs office, ordering that vehicles belonging to one trucking company should be given special leniency in crossing the border. The memo was given to "60 Minutes" by Mike Horner, a former customs inspector who had left the service five years earlier. When asked by CBS for additional proof, he sent another copy with an official stamp on it.
CBS did not interview Mr. Camacho for its story. "It was horrible for him," says Bill Anthony, at the time head of public affairs for the Customs Service. "For 18 months, internal affairs and the Secret Service had him under a cloud while they established that Horner had forged the document out of bitterness over how he'd been treated." In 2000, Mr. Horner admitted he forged the memo "for media exposure" and was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison. "Mr. Camacho's reputation was tarnished significantly," Judge Judith Keep noted.

Mr. Camacho sued CBS and eventually settled for an undisclosed sum. In 1999 Leslie Stahl read an apology on the air: "We have concluded we were deceived, and ultimately, so were you, the viewers."

Supprise Suuuupprise.....

<a href="http://gfx.dagblad... (Below threshold)
Mrs. Davis:
*Yawn*These docume... (Below threshold)


These documents are fake...end of story. The odds that the defaults in Word would match down to the formatting, tabs and spaces are astronomical. It's a sad, sad stretch that Democrats and their willing accomplices in the Media have to go through to try to make this lie work. It's 'possible' monkeys will fly outta my butt, but not likely.

But thanks for the gift, Dan. Perfect timing.

- For what its worth appare... (Below threshold)

- For what its worth apparently O'Rielly has decided to step up to the "Rathergate" plate...He's responding to the flood of Emails the bloggers and bloggettes have unindated him with over the weekend by taking it headon this afternoon.... On air even as we blogviate(c)...

As has been said elsewhere ... (Below threshold)

As has been said elsewhere today - the majority of work done on a miliary office typewriter would have been filling out forms full of little boxes you had to hit precisely. And for that you really do need a good standard monospace typewriter, unless you want to spend the whole day on a single form.

Rather is stuck - CBS is leaking like a sieve and he can't suddenly turn around and claim that these were 'recent transcripts of handwritten notes', because of the signatures. The person who typed them obviously did not study the legitimate FOIA documents, or they would have been wise enough to mimick the look of them more closely. Given the absence of originals, the best scenario I can figure is that the MS Word typist was read them verbatim over the phone, and given exact directions about spacing and indents. They slipped up a couple of times, maybe re-typed later. Then, believing the memos to be reliable copies and from a good contemporary source, they got passed around - someone, at some later time, was tempted to add signatures to their own copies-of-copies. From there they somehow got FAX-ed to news outlets. Everyone in the chain must have been fairly ignorant of the 'look' of a genuine FOIA memo, which suggests they were all under the age of 30. I wonder if a group of young wide-eyed campaign workers got set up with this one?

I'm surprised I haven't see... (Below threshold)

I'm surprised I haven't seen this anywhere else, but it just occurred to me -

Has anyone noticed that CBS spoken out loud is the equivalent of "See B.S."? Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised

Oh no he di'nt?! He actual... (Below threshold)
So It Begins:

Oh no he di'nt?! He actually talked about having to "turn off" the automatic superscript, even though it is completely obvious there is a space between them? Holy Crap, they are in deep and NOW WE KNOW THEY KNOW! This is getting really fun. I love the smell of roasted a**holes in the morning.


Brant,You're not l... (Below threshold)
So It Begins:


You're not looking very hard, are you?

John Schulien covers the mi... (Below threshold)

John Schulien covers the mix of ones and ells in this MSWord document very nicely, here:


via rathergate.com

cbs = "see B.S."... (Below threshold)

cbs = "see B.S."

Good news for CBS, people l... (Below threshold)

Good news for CBS, people like me, that have not watched them in over 10 years are tuning in to see Dan squirm. LOL

Another question about thes... (Below threshold)

Another question about these obvious forgeries that I would love to see Dan Rather answer:

Are you saying Lt Col Killian performed feats of unprecedented typographical gymnastics on memos to himself, while dedicating by all accounts unremarkable/un-noteworthy efforts on OFFICIAL documents entered into the record?

Brant,Do yourself a ... (Below threshold)

Do yourself a favor and start listening to Rush... he put the see BS stuff together a loooong time ago... all hail the maharushie

Also note that if you hit u... (Below threshold)

Also note that if you hit undo immediately after Word creates a superscript the th returns to normal without needing a space. A much simpler process for a competent forger than the process of creating a superscript would be for a man who doesn't like to type.

Considering CBS appears to ... (Below threshold)
Greg F:

Considering CBS appears to have a very loose definition of 'expert', does anybody have a link to more information on Richard Katz? (Seems to be a common name).

I guess I've been outta the... (Below threshold)

I guess I've been outta the loop... sorry

been listening to Dennis Prager more than Rush lately - they're in overlapping time slots here in my neck of the woods. I knew it was too obvious not to have been mentioned somewhere.

I'm finding it hard to beli... (Below threshold)

I'm finding it hard to believe that this is even being discussed. These are crude, obvious forgeries. What is going to happen when a forger within a minimal amount of skill shows up? I just saw Bill O'Reilly and he basically said he had been reading up on this all day and that we needed to "wait for the experts" before we could decide, but he knew Dan Rather personally and trusted him.

Do any of the following violate journalistic standards?

1. Ignored/supressed evidence that didn't support their thesis (e.g. they didn't mention the people they contacted who DIDN'T agree these memos were written by Killian.)

2. Selectively misquoted people. Refuse to acknowledge attempts at correction.

3. Changed the stories they have on the net with no explanation/note.

4. Made misleading statements as to provenance of the memos ("from Killian's private files". The fact that they didn't have the originals was important information. The fact that they're apparently unsure of where they're from is important information.

5. Made misleading statements about how many experts examined these documents, what they testified to. (Does it really take an expert to understand the difference between an actual signature and a photocopied signature? Are these people allowed out without a keeper?).

6. Asked their expert (Mately) to not to talk to press (doesn't seem in the spirit of trying to get to the truth).

O'Reilly's an interesting c... (Below threshold)

O'Reilly's an interesting case. I tend to agree with him a good solid 90%+ of the time. But he sure does have a bug up his butt about internet rabble.

He goes through all kinds of gymnastics to keep his show as even as he can. But sometimes he does make some sacrifices he perhaps oughtn't

I think that Dan is doing C... (Below threshold)

I think that Dan is doing CBS a huge ratings favor by persisting with the authenticity of the documents. Scores of folks who would never look at CBS can't wait to see what Dan says on that network. Could just be a ratings ploy by the network to let Dan roast on the hot ratings.

The 1s / lower case Ls is, ... (Below threshold)

The 1s / lower case Ls is, so to speak, a dead letter. Word produces the same effect with the default settings. My image of this is here.

This kind of desperation makes it worse (if that's possible).

In WORD, if, after you type... (Below threshold)

In WORD, if, after you type "111 th" and then you go back and delete the space, it usually doesn't "fix" it to superscript. Only when you the space bar after "111th" does it superscript. This behavior may be more automatic in Word 2003 -- I've seen no reason to upgrade past Word 2000.

Check out Mately's web site to see just how computer literate he is.

Check out the selectric.org web site to read about an unsucessful attempt to use an IBM Executive to reproduce the memos.

I agree with a href="http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm">Dr. Newcomer who finds all the apologists beyond belief. He likens it to finding a "new" da Vinci painted in acrylic, and arguing that da Vinci might have innvented acrylic in defending the fraud.

Like Rant Wraith, I messed ... (Below threshold)

Like Rant Wraith, I messed around in Word for a few seconds, alternating "1's" and small "L's". Even blown up to 500%, the L is only a bit taller than the 1, and they are shaped the same. I'm not to sure why Rather brought this up since, after a bunch of runs through a photocopier, I don't think it'd be easy to tell which was which, even side by side.

WOW.I mean WOW.</p... (Below threshold)


I mean WOW.

At this point, you have to wonder if Dan isn't just playing this out for ratings. By now it should be obvious these are forgeries and the issue is not going away until he admits that.

Glennon, oddly, is found on... (Below threshold)

Glennon, oddly, is found on Google only in reference to this story. As a 'technology consultant" I would expect a much larger Web identity.

Can't nail down Katz, but there is one at Goddard by the same name.

Hardly the top flight array of experts you'd expect from CBS.

The forger used a lower cas... (Below threshold)

The forger used a lower case l instead of the number one in the documents because he was trying to get around the auto-formatting that produced the super-script.

He didn't have a substitute for the 7 so he ended up with the superscripted 187th!

Someone actually brought this up on his blog days ago as proof of forgery - so the "expert" tonight actually helped him make that case!


I worked as a typewriter re... (Below threshold)

I worked as a typewriter repairman for IBM from 1973 through 1982.
The CBS typewriter expert is correct in one regard. There were custom options available at the time. Proportional spacing was available on the Executive typewriter which cost about double what others cost and on the Selectric Composer which cost about eight times as much. The "th" was available for just about anyone that wanted to pay for a custom typeface but due to the curvature of the roller behind the paper, the "th" wouldn't type above the letters. It would print smaller and next to the upper half of the preceding letter. If it printed above the letter, the top half of the image would be lighter because it wouldn't strike the roller squarely.
The only way to create what is in those memos would be to type the number, roll up half a space, type the "th", then roll back down and complete the line. For a memo to file? By a non-typist?

- Ok - this is huge - norma... (Below threshold)

- Ok - this is huge - normally to fat for a post. But since O'Reilly chose to take the soft peddle approach and at the same time piss on the house of blog here's the Email I just sent him...


Well, I asked for fair and balanced. I guess I'd have to say I got lectured and you circled the wagons.

Ok. So I suppose its too over the top to expect you to skewer one of your own, even if he happens to be palpably guilty. What is he guilty of? Why are the pajama pundits of the blogsphere up in arms? Heres the picture.

If CBS/Dan Rather, and for that matter any other MSM cable or over the air TV/Radio public source for the so-called News stepped up and openly admitted their partisanship for this or that candidate and proceeded to Editorialize, then absolutely no one could have any complaints. Its done every day by a multitude of talk radio and TV shows properly labeled as such. But.

For any news organization to press issues in such a blatant partisan and fraudulent manner as CBS/Rather did in this case is outright politicking of the worst kind. That they do so under the guise of a "News" program, using faked documentation is outright fraud on the American people.

I care not whether Dan Rather is a friend of yours or not, nor whether you think He's a nice guy. What they, The program heads at CBS did, is illegal, and should be called out as such. They tried very deliberately, in cahoots with the DNC, to use faked documents to tear down Bush. Maybe CBS was duped. Thats a possibility. Although similar things have happened in the past in connection with 60 minutes. But lets say they were. Still there's no excuse for the stonewalling or refusal to come clean. Of course they have a right to protect their sources. Thats a given in the News industry. But the original documents or at least the identification of how these documents came into their possession and the organization that provided them is standard and normal.

Sources inside the DNC say the Kerry camp had these memo's for the last two months, looked them over and decided not to touch them because the source couldn't confirm the origin or the validity. In other words the DNC knew they were bogus, or at best questionable. So they hand them to CBS and let them stick their necks out. If I were CBS I'd be really pissed, not running interference for these guys and falling on my sword.

By the way. the statement you made, "while all this is going on it deflects away from the question of Bushes National Guard service". Thats wrong also. As a part of this whole thing, precisely because we got to the truth, it is now fairly well know what Bush was doing and when, documented by "real" material and "real" people that served alongside of Bush. If you took the time to really find out all of that material is available. So in fact both the true details of Bushes record AND the duplicity of CBS have been found and documented.

We also think we know who the source of this whole bogus effort and the fake memo's is. He tried to sell another DNC campaign manager similar papers once before and was laughed off. But. because we could see its virtually unprovable we stopped pursuing it in the chance it could hurt the reputation of a possibly innocent man. Apparently the "blogoshere" is a hell of a lot better at self-control and responsibility than CBS, NYT, AP and others of the MSM, since they think its ok to go after our sitting president with rumors and unproven sources and papers. Even worse there is testimony from some of the very people that CBS cited that the CBS interviewers either "colored" their statements or ignored things that didn't support their arguments. We do neither. We cannot do that.

I'll tell you what IS being overlooked while all this is going on. To this day John Kerry has refused to file a form 180 releasing all of his journals and war papers. Why. Because they contain facts in his own words that directly contradict many of his own statements, some of which creeped accidentally into his book and his bio. The author writing his bio finally got so fed up with being used to deflect the request for the papers, and being lied about and used to stall, he came out and said publicly that Kerry should stop hiding behind him and do the form. Release the entire set of documents, not the partial list on the DNC website. So as FOX is so found of saying. Show us the facts and we'll decide. And.

I would be just incensed if it were someone doing this to Kerry. Trust me on this. It has nothing to do with political affiliation. Its a hell of a lot more serious than that.

You simply chose to white wash using the old defense that an honest, responsible corporation like CBS simply wouldn't do this sort of thing. Aside from begging the entire issue by ignoring the piles of damning evidence and the professional people that worked hard to debunk this whole nefarious scheme, you sort of bitch slapped derisively the blogosphere, labeling us all as fanatics. Well not really but thats the impression most people would come away with from what you said on the program. As if to say we are a bunch of couch jockey geeks. The truth is the bloggers and bloggettes come from every walk of life. Doctors, Lawyers, every sort of professional, and yes, even ex-news casters.

The blogosphere is "we" the people. If you knew about it you would know that the sort of unchecked, non verifiable nonsense that goes on regularly in the MSM gets called out in a matter of minutes on the net. Its actually death on lier's and fraudulent sources very fast and effectively. Time will show you and everyone else that its the most accurate and self-regulated honest source of information in the history of man.

Maybe thats the problem. Maybe you in the media see it as a threat instead of what it actually is. A new source of information, critically accurate information, that you can use to protect yourself and be assured of you position before you air things that are controversial, or worse wrong.

Can it be abused by wingnuts on either side with an agenda? Of course. For about 10 minutes before they will get called out.

Let Me finish with this question. Something that seems odd you aren't asking yourself.

When did we lower the bar to the point where someone, anyone, can walk in off the street and hand you a pile of papers that say "O'Reilly has a bad drug problem and these medical records prove it"....Then Chris Mathews goes on the air and "reports" it as if its a legitimate news item. When did that happen. When did real investigative, but imminently fair, professional journalism die in this country.

We just can't work this way. If we let this happen very soon no one will take anything you say in the news industry seriously. And Americans depend on the fourth estate for much of what we know in this world.

It seems to me that instead of glossing this over and deriding the very people that are seeking an honest open disclosure you should want the same thing, if for no other reason than simple self preservation. You can laugh if you want at the blogosphere but you do so at your own peril. A wiser approach would be to embrace it intelligently and make the best use of it that you can. Many many of that 7.5 share you got in the last ratings are bloggers in fact. Not a good idea to piss us off Bill. What say you. and no blogaviating(c).

Think about it - Hunter

Using a lower case "l" inst... (Below threshold)
Dean Davis:

Using a lower case "l" instead of a "1":
On MS Word the characters are nearly identical but what is not identical? The proportion!
If you type l87th in word the "8" juts right close up next to the "l"
If you type 187th all the numbers get equal spacing.

So, a professional typist would NEVER use a "l" in place on a "1" on any machine that produced proportional type. It looks like crap.
Second look at the memos ANYWHERE you see what appears to be the number "1". Does the next character jut right up next to it or does the character seem to be given the proportion of a numerical "1"? To me, every-time I see what is represented as a "1" has the correct proportions of a "1" not an "l".
I think this is a horrible argument.

I wasn't going to post this... (Below threshold)

I wasn't going to post this, but when I saw TallDave's lead-in of "WOW", I decided to go ahead. I began a comment I sent earlier today to CBS Evening News (and also 60 minutes II) the same way:

I'm a college student, graduating in December. Fortunately in my profession, the people who practiced it before me have done a good job of preserving the integrity of the profession. They did this out of respect for the profession, and out of regard for those who will follow them.

They were not CBS journalists.

Gabe "

Just in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a working, non-traditional college student.

Well I hope Dan Rather cont... (Below threshold)

Well I hope Dan Rather continues to dig his heels in on this. The dems really seem to think this story is their 'silver bullet', and that somehow, when it all unfolds, it will diminish the president.

I am a partisan republican, and as biased as I am, it still seems to me that no one out there in america really gives a damn about this story. They didn't in 1999, they didn't when Michael Moore teamed up with Wesley Clark, and they don't now.

Can we keep this scandal going, please??? All we need to do is run out the clock on John Kerry.

Proportional spacing betwee... (Below threshold)

Proportional spacing between LINES?! These guys are nuts or just plain incompetent.

From cbsnews.com:

"Everything that's in those documents, that people are saying can't be done, as you said, 32 years ago, is just totally false. Not true. Proportional spacing was available. Superscripts were available as a custom feature. Proportional spacing between lines was available. You can order that any way you'd like," said document expert Bill Glennon.

In order to BE leftists, on... (Below threshold)

In order to BE leftists, one must suspend the law of identity.

A is A when you want it to be. If you want A to be B badly enough, then it is. This is the "petard" of liberalism.

The MSM "wants A to be B"--they really really want it. This is why they are slow to understand this scandal's inevitable conclusion.

If they weren't they would have matured out of the value systems they believe in.

Instead they will by slowly "hoisted", it is very entertaining for some of us, and beneficial for all of us.

Either Rather plus his prod... (Below threshold)

Either Rather plus his producers are colossally stupid, really, or they know what they said and hoped to fool some colossally stupid people. i go with Rather is colossally stupid, as follows:

We say they are forgeries because we say someone went out of their way to make them look original.

Here is what Rather said tonight:

1. "We checked the signature handwriting on the copies!"

We say, sure, but I can myself easily go out of my way to make documents with copies of Killian's signature. So could any forger. What's your point?

2. His expert said, "The documents show that the same key was used for a character one and a character ell. If you used different keystrokes in a Word Processor a laser printer would never print them the same!"

We say, sure, but I can myself easily go out of my way to make documents with the same key used for a character one and a character ell. So could any forger. What's your point?

2. His expert said, "The documents have a superscript 'th' and same-size-lower-justified 'th'. Someone using a word processor would have to go out of their way to duplicate that!"

(Uh, gee, can't even brain-dead Dan Rather see through that one????)

We say, sure, but I can myself easily go out of my way to make a superscript 'th' and same-size-lower-justified 'th'. So could any forger. What's your point?

(Not to mention that the Blogs are full of the fact tonight that clearly lowercase ells were used to turn off auto-superscripting!!!")

4. Rather says, "Look here, some of the dates in our documents match some other dates known in the public domain. That contributes to their authenticity."

This is really getting tiresome. Dan Rather really is as stupid as he looks.

We say, sure, but I can myself easily go out of my way to find public domain dates to put into a document. So could any forger. What's your point?

5. I wasn't going to add this because it doesn't have the same idoitic obvious flavor of the others, but it bears saying.

That "expert" Glennon (let's hear it for 15 minutes of fame!) says that all of the features in the memo were existent at that time and could be ordered as special features. Rather said essentially the same thing in his first defense on Friday.

We have no interest in a general assertion of that nature. Show us the machine that had ALL of them simultaneously, period. And I add, that machine must have the pseudo-kerning of the documents, it must tuck the "r" under the "f" in "from" and it must do it in a reasonably automatic way that would make us think a 1972 Lt. Col. would use it to dash off memos.

(All of those type capabilities probably existed SOMEWHERE in 1950, 1925, 1875? I'm just guessing. The issue is not did the type capabilities exist but did they exist in one machine that a 1972 Lt. Col. would use to dash off memos?)

So, really, multiple times tonight Rather and his experts used the defense "you would have to go out of your way to get those results in a WORD PROCESSOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Uh, yes, that is by definition what a forgery is.

So, I reiterate, if Rather could not see that he is monumentally stupid (my explanation) or, it was so painfully obvious the extraordinarily transparently bad logic that I had to consider the possibility that he knows better and just figured it would totally dupe his stupid listeners. I admit I had to re-play the part about the 1's & l's to fully grasp the total stupidity what they were saying, so maybe Dan is right and can get away with it.

Respectfully submitted,


Washington Post <a href="ht... (Below threshold)
Greg F:

Washington Post hits CBS right between the eyes.

the 111th mystery in Word i... (Below threshold)

the 111th mystery in Word is not difficult to settle.

Word 2000 only auto corrects if you make a space after the word you have typed--sometimes leading to errors...

So if you type 111th the th will auto superscript

if you type 111 th and then go back into the text (mouse back and back space one space) the 111th will not autocorrect unless you arrow over and hit a space after the "th"

Try it yourself--

All the best!

One thing I haven't seen me... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that one way you can get text like "147th" without a superscripted "th" is to simply type "147th" then press CONTROL-Z (COMMAND-Z on a Mac). This also works for text like "1st" and "3rd".

The reason this works is than any autoformating is done as a separate "operation" following your typing. Thus the first undo removes the autoformating operation (any further undos start to remove the text you typed).

Yes, it really *is* fun wat... (Below threshold)

Yes, it really *is* fun watching Rather try to defend the authenticity. *However*...

A commenter above was astonished that Rather could possibly be so stupid to think any of his abysmally weak explanations would stand up. I think the explanation's far simpler:

In 20-some years of doing the CBS news, Rather has almost certainly learned a great deal about Americans and their thought processes. And I'm thinking the conclusion he's reached is that the average U.S. voter *IS* a moron. Two weeks from now, the only people who will have anything more than the most vague feeling that this happened will be 35 bloggers!

OTOH, if Rather or CBS were to apologize, it would be a real 'shot heard 'round the world.'

My prediction: Neither Rather nor CBS will apologize or retract in *any* meaningful way.


sf - he has to apologize or... (Below threshold)

sf - he has to apologize or his media colleagues will hand him his head.

And on your other point, you might scroll down and read where I talk about Rather taking a page from the Clinton playbook.

The reason someone would ty... (Below threshold)
Paul DeMott:

The reason someone would type a small "l" rather than the number "1" on a WORD document would be to prevent the auto text from creating the superscripted "st". Thus, the use of the small "l" rather than the number "1" seems to me to further support that the document was a crude forgery created in Microsoft Word.

I saw the CBS story on the ... (Below threshold)

I saw the CBS story on the satellite network Orbit we have in our BDOC office here in Iraq. Since it was quiet, no indirect fire like we have been getting lately, I went to my computer and was able to do exactly what Kevin 12:29 post described. What Mr. Katz said about the "th" immediately struck me as screwy as I have had Word do all sorts of things when I am using it, usually due to my clumsy fingers. I am no computer or tech guru and I was able to spot and disprove an assertion by a televised big media expert in less than half an hour (I type slow..) that is truely pathetic on CBS's part.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy