Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The DU Lounge

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,597 posts) Mon Nov 13, 2017, 01:23 PM Nov 2017

Hazards of word processing software:

Retweeted by Dave Weigel: https://twitter.com/daveweigel

See what happens when you take down statues? People forget history.

Link to tweet

Wait, stop the presses. Time for another stealth edit you guys.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/13/united-states-history-slavery-racism-worse-countries/ …

Link to tweet

1795 wasn’t even the abolition of the slave trade. One wonders how they chose these dates. A random number generator?

Link to tweet

They put in one correct date (1794) and didn't realize their word processor thought it was a numbered list.

Link to tweet

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hazards of word processing software: (Original Post) mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2017 OP

Russia didn't free the serfs until 1861, PoindexterOglethorpe Nov 2017 #1

"They put in one correct date (1794) ...; their word processor thought it was a numbered list." NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2017 #2

They're numbers in strict sequence -- 1794, 1795, 1796 ... eppur_se_muova Nov 2017 #3

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,894 posts)

1. Russia didn't free the serfs until 1861,

Reply to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Mon Nov 13, 2017, 01:45 PM

Nov 2017

And Brazil not until 1888, so apparently whoever wrote that timeline just totally invented every bit of it.

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,597 posts)

2. "They put in one correct date (1794) ...; their word processor thought it was a numbered list." NT

Reply to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 13, 2017, 02:23 PM

Nov 2017

eppur_se_muova

(36,284 posts)

3. They're numbers in strict sequence -- 1794, 1795, 1796 ...

Reply to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 13, 2017, 02:25 PM

Nov 2017

probably somebody screwed up a macro.

Reply to this discussion