I had the very first IBM Selectric in the service in Europe at headquarters USAFE (Wiesbaden 1961-64) and I can assure you that the superscript "th" was NOT on that little ball. I had three different type fonts available and none of them had superscript. You could hit a key and shift the normal print up slightly to signify the "th" but it was the same size as the rest of the type, not a true superscript. To change the type ball you squeezed two little metal "tangs" on the top of the ball and lifted it straight up. You did the reverse to install a new ball. One of those I had contained normal Times New Roman (called Bodoni in those days) and another had the same font, but in italics. When you wanted to insert a word in italics you had to change the ball. Those were tremendously fast machines in that you couldn't jamb keys together like the old Remington typewriters. Not bragging but I was at 80+ wpm in those days and not being able to jamb the keys meant something. Now you simply his the backstroke key. I love it!
formatting link
rged
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
T
The earnest one
"John Kinney" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@www.smoke-island.com...
formatting link
>
Sorry, but typewriters (at least none I ever used as a journalist and newspaper editor over many, many years) had authentic superscript. Some had a shift-type key you used which would raise the letters or numbers up slightly. This was done to give the impression of a "th" or in some instances a square or cube indication behind a number. I even used the lower case o raised with that shift-type key mentioned to simulate the degree mark. As far as your concern about requiring presidents to have a military background before committing men to battle need I mention Rooselvet. That guy was confined to a wheel chair and was so concerned that it might affect most Americans this fact was kept from the public for a long, long time. Incidentally, were you aware that when Rooselvet took office it would have taken less than $1 from every man, woman and child in the US to pay off the national debt. However, when he died the tally was more than $1,000 for each person! Now, should we tear down his record for that type of spending? I don't think so since we were at war part of the time he was in office and coming out of a depression prior to that. In fact, some credit the war effort as helping the economy. BTW for those uninformed of politics in that era, Hoover proposed programs like the WPA, CCC and others to help put people back to work and the Democratic-controlled congress kept stone-walling his efforts. Then, along came Rooselvet, he said the same thing and everyone said "Horrah for Rooselved!" Go figure. We have many instances where presidents (such as Lincoln) never served in the military but knew how to conduct a war-time policy. Most CEOs of large corporations never stooped to do the work required under their supervision but that doesn't mean they don't know how to run the company. I doubt the head of any car company today has ever gone out on the production line and twisted bolts. Besides, I would certainly not want any of the fellows I served with sitting in the oval office. That is not to degrade any of them its just that being in battle definitely doesn't qualify one to be president...or senator for that matter. As far as Kerry "expressing unpopular convictions when he returned" the least he could have done is just expressed his concern about the war without trashing the guys he left behind. In my opinion he definitely is "Unfit for Command".
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.