🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul24.160603.17656@adobe.com> swirsky@adobe.com (Robert Swirsky) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.140436.13451@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>>
>>As much as I hate to agree with Ron Dippold on anything, his
>>speculation is dead-bang right on this one.  I went to college with
>>Judith Berck, the author of the piece in the Times, and can vouch for
>>her unfamiliarity with anything vaguely resembling hard science.  (For
>>the record, she has a new book out on the daily lives of homeless
>>children; title is something like _In Their Own Voices_.)
>>
>>In case anyone cares, David Sanger -- the idiot who keeps writing
>>pieces in the Times about computers that have "512,000" bytes of RAM
>>-- is also a classmate.  I have no idea what he majored in.
>>
>
>I remember firing off a letter to the _Times_ a few years back after they wrote
>an article on dot-matrix printers. They said that a 5x7 dot matrix printer
>has 35 wires in its printhead. In fact, they even had a diagram of such
>a beast.
>
>I told them that, on all the dot printers someone is likely to encounter,
>there is just a single vertical row of pins. And I pointed out that the
>printhead would move in spurts instead of smoothy across the page if it
>had to print the entire character block at once.
>
>The _Times_ replied that sometimes they simplify thing a bit so they
>can explain them easier.

This is just another case of "all the news that fits" as was written back
a few years by an ex-Timeser.

When I was in public school, we were all given the New York Times page one
for famous dates in history.  Not just the headlines, but a reprint of
*all* of page one.  One day, I decided to read one of them for contemporary
content to help interpret the headline.

Near the bottom of an 1865 (?) edition (Lincoln assassination?) edition is
a small article claiming that a 70-odd year old man is being taken to court
because his 90-odd year old mother insists he is too young to be married.
No useful details are presented as to what legal aspect is being questioned,
or whether there are sanity issues on either (both?) sides of the case,
or perhaps an issue of (dis)inheritance, etc., just the teaser about the
ages of the parties.  

I guess this was just simplified so it could be explained easier as well!

cjl