Yay

[da]

1) I may be writing an article on the perl debugger for beginners; more on that if it goes ahead.

2) the chocolate-chip peanut-butter cookies I made last night are better on the second day than the first.

3) First appearances can be deceiving. Just because somebody sends me a photocopy of a document that looks like it came straight from an Underwood typewriter, does not mean I can assume anything about the sophistication of the sender. (Taking another look, I'm pretty sure it is an Underwood...)

Comments

[mynatt.livejournal.com]

I would like to own an Underwood with which to compose my correspondance. I actually tried to find one briefly for my grandfather, when old age made it difficult to use his beloved electric typewriter (the keys were too sensitive) and he wanted something clunky and manual. Unfortunately, he died before I came across one...

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

My parents have one, and I think my father still uses it. Yep, they sure are clunky. How typists in the old days didn't get RSI is beyond me.

I have to wonder how many people have them rusting in their garages- or better, just collecting dust in their attics. Free the Underwoods!

Of course, once they are freed, where do they go? They aren't particularly easy to transport. (Though, my memories of trying to move one are probably tempered by the fact that I was just a kid...)

not that bad

[(Anonymous)]

[fishbot]: I have one, it's a "portable", which means that it is just slightly smaller and lighter than a modern CPU tower. But it has a handle on the case. I use it only for poetry, which is to say, not that often (3-5 times a year). We have a much lighter Brother typewriter from the late 1960s that is a lot more practical for travel, and a tad easier on the wrists.

Re: not that bad

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

The image of a "portable" Underwood boggles my mind.

Still, given its longitevity, a portable Underwood seems more useful than an Osbourne "portable" computer with its 4-inch screen and 5.25-in. dual floppy...