User:Dominus/PM-draft

Nothing here seems to me to engage anything anyone else has said in a new way. I know that when people disagree with you, it is natural to suppose that they have just misunderstood you. But that is not what happened here. Bill and I understand that you are claiming that the image is of text only, with no content in the image other than raw text. We just disagree with your claim; we believe that there is content in the image beyond the raw text. Simply repeating yourself is not going to persuade anyone.

Since Bill and I have plainly disagreed with your repeated claims that the image is in a "non-distinctive typography", repeating them yet again is not useful. One side is wrong here. Either there is nothing special about the typography, and Bill and I are imagining something that isn't there, or there is something unusual about it that you have not seen.

You said "the font appears to be Times". This is evidence that you are typographically ignorant. Even to my untrained eyes, the the font is plainly not "Times". Fortunately this is not a matter of opinion: Times Roman, which is what I think you think you mean, was invented in 1931; PM was published in 1910, so I am right and you are not. (Sample here) Furthermore the style of the mathematical symbols such as the horseshoes and the bracketing dots is utterly different from Times Roman.