George R. R. Martin writes with a DOS word processor

On Thu, 15 May 2014 06:36:58 +0100, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 5/14/14 10:56 PM, Beamer Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:24:31 -0700, Charles Lindbergh
wrote:

Someone posted this in another news group, it made me chuckle.

"This is kind of funny. I know people who still write with a
typewriter, which doesn't sound quite as bad as using Wordstar."

George R. R. Martin writes with a DOS word processor

http://cnet.co/1ms0xWY

I still wish I had Wordstar.. I loved it back in the day.. Never got
to master Word the same way..
I lost my install discs to a flood some years ago...

Here ya go:
http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/simtelnet/wi...r/wsedit-w.zip
(windows program, but WS key controls)


I'm curious, what would you do if you had them now?

Can you imagine how fast it would be on todays equipment?

Beamer Smith
Out on a limb, Sawing





--
It's a money /life balance.

On Thu, 15 May 2014 00:56:33 -0400, Beamer Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:24:31 -0700, Charles Lindbergh
wrote:

Someone posted this in another news group, it made me chuckle.

"This is kind of funny. I know people who still write with a
typewriter, which doesn't sound quite as bad as using Wordstar."

George R. R. Martin writes with a DOS word processor

http://cnet.co/1ms0xWY

I still wish I had Wordstar.. I loved it back in the day.. Never got
to master Word the same way..
I lost my install discs to a flood some years ago...

Can you imagine how fast it would be on todays equipment?

Beamer Smith
Out on a limb, Sawing

I used to really like "Professional Write". It was simple and did
what I needed. My first GUI WP was Ami Pro, which was purchased by
Lotus / IBM and of course they ruined it.

On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:23:07 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 18:31:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:00:25 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

I was quite happy to laugh without noticing her typing style...for that
matter, even without waiting to be convinced :-)

Gene, that is probably because you have a sense of humor......... ;-)

So do I, but I also have fakery detectors. My sense of humour works
better when I'm not distracted by fakery. And I know which facility I
consider more important. :-)

So, if it is acting, it isn't funny?

On 15/05/2014 11:18, Bob Henson wrote:
choro wrote:

On 15/05/2014 09:38, Bob Henson wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

And even more so if it wasn't a left-handed typewriter she though she was
using. They may have existed, but I never saw one.

The carriage moved left as you typed and at the end of the line you had
to push the carriage back to the beginning of the new line with your
left hand. The big Underwoods were the best! Smooth as anything.

Please don't ask me my age! I am a true geriatric. The doyen of this
group! Any challengers?

My (right-handed) Imperial 60 was a gem. It served my Dad's secretary well
for a whole working career, was sold off cheap when Rolls Royce collapsed,
and ended its days working just fine on my desk at home - until word
processors arrived. I had an Imperial portable too, used for filling in
forms at the pharmacy until I retired a few years back.

When I was young I worked for quite a few years in the news business and
in those days we used to use typewriters. We had a pool of various makes
of these big office typewriters. The Imperials were not bad. Didn't much
care for the Royals. But my favorite was the Underwood. Smooth as
anything. And RSI was unheard of in those days.

http://www.pebblesandbuttons.com/wp-...pewriter1.jpeg

I believe this was the model we used at the office.
--
choro
*****

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:23:07 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 18:31:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:00:25 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

I was quite happy to laugh without noticing her typing style...for that
matter, even without waiting to be convinced :-)

Gene, that is probably because you have a sense of humor......... ;-)

So do I, but I also have fakery detectors. My sense of humour works
better when I'm not distracted by fakery. And I know which facility I
consider more important. :-)

So, if it is acting, it isn't funny?

I didn't say that, you did.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:20:13 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:23:07 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 18:31:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:00:25 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

I was quite happy to laugh without noticing her typing style...for that
matter, even without waiting to be convinced :-)

Gene, that is probably because you have a sense of humor......... ;-)

So do I, but I also have fakery detectors. My sense of humour works
better when I'm not distracted by fakery. And I know which facility I
consider more important. :-)

So, if it is acting, it isn't funny?

I didn't say that, you did.

Did you inadvertently overlook the question mark? :-)

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:20:13 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:23:07 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 18:31:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:00:25 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

I was quite happy to laugh without noticing her typing style...for that
matter, even without waiting to be convinced :-)

Gene, that is probably because you have a sense of humor......... ;-)

So do I, but I also have fakery detectors. My sense of humour works
better when I'm not distracted by fakery. And I know which facility I
consider more important. :-)

So, if it is acting, it isn't funny?

I didn't say that, you did.

Did you inadvertently overlook the question mark? :-)

Which part of "I didn't say that" didn't you understand?

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:57:18 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:20:13 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:23:07 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 18:31:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:00:25 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

I was quite happy to laugh without noticing her typing style...for that
matter, even without waiting to be convinced :-)

Gene, that is probably because you have a sense of humor......... ;-)

So do I, but I also have fakery detectors. My sense of humour works
better when I'm not distracted by fakery. And I know which facility I
consider more important. :-)

So, if it is acting, it isn't funny?

I didn't say that, you did.

Did you inadvertently overlook the question mark? :-)

Which part of "I didn't say that" didn't you understand?

I didn't understand the entire comment. You side-stepped my question
with your reply.

You claimed your sense of humor "works better" when not distracted by
"fakery". As acting, by definition, is largely based upon imagination
and "fakery", I ASKED you, in your opinion, "If it is acting, it isn't
funny?".

I am sorry, I didn't mean to intentionally box you in, I should have
realized you were simply being a sour old geezer.

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:57:18 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:20:13 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:23:07 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 18:31:58 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:00:25 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

I was quite happy to laugh without noticing her typing style...for that
matter, even without waiting to be convinced :-)

Gene, that is probably because you have a sense of humor......... ;-)

So do I, but I also have fakery detectors. My sense of humour works
better when I'm not distracted by fakery. And I know which facility I
consider more important. :-)

So, if it is acting, it isn't funny?

I didn't say that, you did.

Did you inadvertently overlook the question mark? :-)

Which part of "I didn't say that" didn't you understand?

I didn't understand the entire comment. You side-stepped my question
with your reply.

You claimed your sense of humor "works better" when not distracted by
"fakery". As acting, by definition, is largely based upon imagination
and "fakery", I ASKED you, in your opinion, "If it is acting, it isn't
funny?".

I am sorry, I didn't mean to intentionally box you in, I should have
realized you were simply being a sour old geezer.

I resent your assertion that being a sour old geezer is something
trivial. There's nothing "simply" about it, unless it comes naturally,
which to me, it doesn't.

If you want a straight answer to your *question*: Your "if it is acting,
it isn't funny" is obviously not true and obviously not what I meant,
because good acting is not detectable, and even if it were detectable,
it wouldn't completely rule out amusement. Your attempt to put words in
my mouth was, frankly, pretty lame, and I didn't deem it worthy of a
serious answer. That's not sourness; it's rational discourse.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

On Thu, 15 May 2014 19:17:59 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:


I didn't understand the entire comment. You side-stepped my question
with your reply.

You claimed your sense of humor "works better" when not distracted by
"fakery". As acting, by definition, is largely based upon imagination
and "fakery", I ASKED you, in your opinion, "If it is acting, it isn't
funny?".

I am sorry, I didn't mean to intentionally box you in, I should have
realized you were simply being a sour old geezer.

I resent your assertion that being a sour old geezer is something
trivial. There's nothing "simply" about it, unless it comes naturally,
which to me, it doesn't.

Now you are putting words in my mouth, I didn't say being an SOG is
trivial. However, it is very common.

As you say this is not SOP for you, I compliment you on the yeoman's
job of impersonating a journeyman SOG.


If you want a straight answer to your *question*: Your "if it is acting,
it isn't funny" is obviously not true and obviously not what I meant,
because good acting is not detectable, and even if it were detectable,
it wouldn't completely rule out amusement.

Oh please.


Your attempt to put words in
my mouth was, frankly, pretty lame, and I didn't deem it worthy of a
serious answer. That's not sourness; it's rational discourse.

You have risen to the level of discourse you defined above. There is
certainly nothing rational about your comments or participation.

On 15/05/2014 14:57, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-05-15 6:04 AM, choro wrote:

On 15/05/2014 09:38, Bob Henson wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on
the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

And even more so if it wasn't a left-handed typewriter she though she
was
using. They may have existed, but I never saw one.

The carriage moved left as you typed and at the end of the line you had
to push the carriage back to the beginning of the new line with your
left hand. The big Underwoods were the best! Smooth as anything.

Please don't ask me my age! I am a true geriatric. The doyen of this
group! Any challengers?

I typed my thesis on a 3rd or 4th hand upright Underwood. Didn't work
very well, so I plopped it in the Hoover washing machine (it had a side
impeller), and washed it. Then I used fishing reel oil to lubricate the
delicate bits, and that thing flew! Had a lovely worn typeface, too.
Dated from sometime in the 1920s.

FWIW, I'm 74.

A youngster among geriatrics, then! But this is the very first time I
hear of a typewriter being laundered! Hot wash I presume to get rid of
all the grime and old congealed grease! Clever idea, I must admit. You
took the ribbon off, I presume!

Pity you didn't have dishwashers in those days! It would have come out
dry too!
http://www.snotr.com/embed/8965
--
choro
*****

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:36:58 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 5/14/14 10:56 PM, Beamer Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:24:31 -0700, Charles Lindbergh
wrote:

Someone posted this in another news group, it made me chuckle.

"This is kind of funny. I know people who still write with a
typewriter, which doesn't sound quite as bad as using Wordstar."

George R. R. Martin writes with a DOS word processor

http://cnet.co/1ms0xWY

I still wish I had Wordstar.. I loved it back in the day.. Never got
to master Word the same way..
I lost my install discs to a flood some years ago...

I'm curious, what would you do if you had them now?

I would install it and use it.. What else ? grin

Who knows, I might even write more..


Can you imagine how fast it would be on todays equipment?

Beamer Smith
Out on a limb, Sawing

On Thu, 15 May 2014 17:04:33 +0100, Bob Henson
wrote:

choro wrote:

On 15/05/2014 11:18, Bob Henson wrote:
choro wrote:

On 15/05/2014 09:38, Bob Henson wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qteu4ld_SCE?rel=0

The woman went to work after 30 years break and see what happens on the
first day!!!!!!!

It would have been more convincing if she was typing properly.

And even more so if it wasn't a left-handed typewriter she though she was
using. They may have existed, but I never saw one.

The carriage moved left as you typed and at the end of the line you had
to push the carriage back to the beginning of the new line with your
left hand. The big Underwoods were the best! Smooth as anything.

Please don't ask me my age! I am a true geriatric. The doyen of this
group! Any challengers?

My (right-handed) Imperial 60 was a gem. It served my Dad's secretary well
for a whole working career, was sold off cheap when Rolls Royce collapsed,
and ended its days working just fine on my desk at home - until word
processors arrived. I had an Imperial portable too, used for filling in
forms at the pharmacy until I retired a few years back.

When I was young I worked for quite a few years in the news business and
in those days we used to use typewriters. We had a pool of various makes
of these big office typewriters. The Imperials were not bad. Didn't much
care for the Royals. But my favorite was the Underwood. Smooth as
anything. And RSI was unheard of in those days.

http://www.pebblesandbuttons.com/wp-...pewriter1.jpeg

I believe this was the model we used at the office.

From the design, I guess the Imperial 60 was comparatively modern.

http://bit.ly/1nSBXOH

Not having used many different ones, I don't know much about the relative
efficiency. When I come across old documents that I typed, and compare them
with modern laser printed stuff, the typewritten stuff looks archaic.

For awhile, in the early GUI days when fonts were a different kind of
commodity.. Someone created a font that looked like a typwritten page
including letters that looked like the ribbon slipped etc.. was cool
for some things..

-Slightly OT.. I still wonder what kids think that noise is when a
scene in a movie stops? We know it's a needle being dragged accross a
vinyl record... but what do they think?

On 15-May-2014 6:24 AM, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
Someone posted this in another news group, it made me chuckle.

"This is kind of funny. I know people who still write with a
typewriter, which doesn't sound quite as bad as using Wordstar."

George R. R. Martin writes with a DOS word processor

http://cnet.co/1ms0xWY


That was funny, but faked.

A real carriage return would go the other direction (her right to left) :-)

On 16/05/2014 02:40, WayPoint wrote:
On 15-May-2014 6:24 AM, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
Someone posted this in another news group, it made me chuckle.

"This is kind of funny. I know people who still write with a
typewriter, which doesn't sound quite as bad as using Wordstar."

George R. R. Martin writes with a DOS word processor

http://cnet.co/1ms0xWY


That was funny, but faked.

A real carriage return would go the other direction (her right to left)
:-)

You can now laugh at yourself!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRjhbzvrHOs
The carriage return lever was always on the left of the carriage.
Note how at 0'17 he does a carriage return from his left to his right!
--
choro
*****