Offline
beak wrote:
I guess that would only be 'antique' machines? I don't have anything that old, so have never experienced the phenomenon...
Antique models perhaps, but I would also add budget models to the list. I don't own (or have any interest in) any of the antique models, but do have typewriters that do this. I'd have to revisit the machines that I'm thinking off, those no-frills models that were manufactured in and around the Great Depression that were stripped of even the more basic features to make them more affordable, but I seem to recall that some of them lack the universal bar lock that Michael is talking about.
Offline
Oh, no, no, mon amí, I was only making a small point with that reference and avoided naming anyone. The point is that there is plenty of, let us say, misspeaking in modern discourse and we come here to consolidate our knowledge, and so we contribute. If you take the (not worth it) trouble to look back over my posts in this forum, you'll find at least two public apologies I made for more or less silly mistakes, neither so gracious as yours, I agree. Plus a few forehead slaps that I did not make public.
The bigger point is how easy it is to misspeak and that we should clear up misunderstandings before they become folk wisdom. A good example is the assertion in a different form that typewriters should be cleaned with butane-based lighter fluid; that would have stood forever, at least until injuries resulted, except for one respondent correcting it to naptha-base. Similarly the long-running misapprehension regarding pica and elite.
I am sorry for appearing rude. I do not intend that. I value this forum and its camaraderie.
Offline
Fully agree with the sentiments presented in the previous post. It should be our goal to find a common language, and by that I mean typewriter glossary. And preferably one that respects, as much as possible, the nomenclature of the original manufacturers of these machines. This is especially relevant in places such as the Repairs & Maintenance sub-forum where it's often difficult to understand an issue someone is trying to describe because they have created their own typewriter vocabulary. When not corrected others tend to read and adopt these made-up names, and before long technical discussions begin to resemble arguments at the Tower of Babel.
The problem is, how do we achieve this? For a long time I've wanted to create a thorough typewriter glossary post in the FAQ thread (actually, I did start it) that people could refer to, but it seems that very few people actually read the FAQ, and I hate being the guy who constantly asks that others read it. Maybe a glossary thread of its own? Everyone could contribute to it, and the accepted part names could be compiled and kept in the very first post of the thread. Just an idea.
Offline
Uwe, this situation as you stated it just cries out for a wiki. I don't suppose Boardhost offers that, eh?
Offline
That is a brilliant idea. I just searched the WikiIndex and was shocked that one doesn't already exist. You're right that Boardhost doesn't offer such hosting - certainly not for free - but I will do some reading and see if there isn't a cost-effective and relative easy way to create and host a typewriter Wiki.
I did some poking around, and the typewriter.wiki domain is not available. It looks like Mark Adams bought the name in January, 2015 for a three-year term. It also appears that he's not done anything with the name as of yet. Wiki domains are considered a premium, which essentially means they're more expensive than traditional ones, so I would maybe be more inclined to create a different Wiki name. For example, typewriterwiki.com is available, and it's cheap. Anyway, this is veering this thread WAY off-topic, so I'll start a new thread for discussion and to guage everyone's interest in such a project.