TANG Docs - Another consideration

One thing I have rarely seen in this debate about 'th' superscript and proportional fonts is the irregular spacing of the lines.

Observe this diagram of the document.  The lines are uneven.

It is highly unlikely that a computer word processor would make these mistakes.  These mistakes are more becoming of a typewriter than a computer.

These mistakes appear on the other documents as well.

•  asdf

  Good catch -- but that could be the result of all the photocopying and pdf'ing of the document.

  by pontificator on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 01:17:34 PM PDT

  •  unlikely

    by Winger on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 01:20:55 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      It's unlikely that the copying would have altered the line placement so drastically.

      The copying would, at most, add noise around the letters.

      The most significant part of this is that the lines aren't irregular in a consistent direction.

      by Demigod Mac on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 01:24:52 PM PDT

  •  don't think so

    
    I'd go for pre-typed/printed letterhead on otherwise empty pages.

    That would also put the (overblown, since centering isn't that a big deal) centering idiocy to rest.
    

    by Felix Deutsch on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 01:40:20 PM PDT

    •  Bingo!

      I was thinking that myself, but you beat me to the post.

      by osterizer on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 03:02:36 PM PDT

•  Good Work

  I noticed that myself.  Given the degradation it would be difficult to tell if it was a standard label, preprinted or typed.

  It's a given that it would be on a lot of correspondance so I would think that they just print up a batch of them ahead of time.  It always seems slightly off kilter in the docs.

  by Gryn on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 01:37:52 PM PDT

•  Baseline's off center

  More irregularities that a computer would not do:

  http://www.dailykos.com/diary_edit/2004/9/10/195750/537

  by Demigod Mac on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 01:55:16 PM PDT

  •  Bad link

    Here's a pic instead

    

    by Demigod Mac on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 01:58:15 PM PDT

•  check the 01 august memo

  the one dated "01 august 1972" has the most profound misalignment, IMO.  it looks like the header and the date are completely skewed relative to the body.

  and the one for 04 may 1972 - the order to bush - looks like the lines kind of fan out from left to right.

  by zeke L on Sun Sep 12, 2004 at 02:52:36 PM PDT