> Reading speed only improved marginally, the paper found, > and only for the 21 "two-spacers," > who naturally typed with two spaces between sentences. Th

> Reading speed only improved marginally, the paper found, > and only for the 21 "two-spacers," > who naturally typed with two spaces between sentences. That, my friend, is the clencher. Fourteen paragraphs of introduction were bad enough. Then as you pointed out, the writer forgot the intro: that most people who argue for single-spacing do so only for variable-width typefaces. What a failure of writing and thinking! It hurts more because it's in a big newspaper.