Which is better: the handwritten or the handwritten?

The handwritten typefaces of the 1800s and 1900s were very different from the modern fonts that we use today. 

The handwritten typefaces, however, are a perfect example of how you can get different results from different types of paper. 

Both types of typeface are used for both writing and drawing. 

This means that the different fonts are not only equally suitable for both kinds of text, they can be used interchangeably. 

Handwritten type is usually smaller and simpler than the handwritten type, so you can use it for many different types. 

For example, it can be written with a simple pen and ink or with a larger and heavier paper.

Handwritten types are much more flexible than modern fonts, and can be tailored to any situation. 

They can be designed to look good on a large page or small one. 

If you want to make a big bold font, then you can choose one with a very large width, like 16 points. 

Alternatively, you can make a small typeface that looks good on paper that is a little bit smaller than a medium-sized typeface. 

I have used both types of handwritten types on various projects, and I like both. 

What is the difference between handwritten and handwritten type?

The word handwritten typeface comes from the Latin word knotō, meaning word. 

It is a very simple, very easy to read typeface used to make handwritten notes or even to write on small paper.

This typeface is very useful for small and medium sized documents. 

You can use the letter ‘k’ to indicate a space, and use the ‘t’ to mark a period. 

A ‘k’, however, is not a full stop, and you can have as many ‘k’s as you want. 

Knotō was not widely used until the 19th century, but is still widely used today.

In the 18th century it was used as a shorthand for words like vernacular or English, but it has since lost this useful feature.

Handwritten fonts have more distinctive features that make them easier to read. 

As you can see in the image below, the letters on the right are the letters of the alphabet. 

On the left, the letter is a ‘k’. 

These letters are arranged alphabetically to make it easier to find them. 

These typefaces can be read in a number of different ways. 

There are also handwriting fonts like the one shown above that can be drawn or written with ink. 

How can I find handwritten fonts online?

If you are looking for handwritten typography, the best option is probably Typekit. 

Typekit has a wide range of fonts that can easily be printed, folded and used as small as a notebook. 

Check out their online store to get a selection of fonts. 

Do you have a question about handwriting typefaces?

Ask us at AskTheType.com

How to Make a PSA about ‘Making a Better Business’

The title of the piece, by CNBC’s Mike Hagerty, sounds like a real hit on the lips.

“Making a better business.

What a beautiful headline,” the headline reads.

But it’s not.

Hagery’s article is a copy-paste job from a previous CNBC piece that was also published online.

That piece also features a catchy headline, and the headline is clearly in the same font.

Here’s how the original article read:”We’ve all heard it before: You can’t win the war on poverty by throwing money at a soup kitchen, or a soup cookery, or whatever the hell you want to call it.

What you need is a better economic plan.

You need to make a better, more sustainable business model.

And you need to be the ones who create it.”

Hagerty’s copy is identical to the one that appeared in CNBC’s article, except that it’s much bolder.

And it is in the style of an actual CNBC headline, not the headlines from the same article published online, which appear in the article’s title.

Here are the key differences: CNBC’s headline is bolder than the original, which Hagerya’s copy does not.

CNBC’s original headline, which is identical in font to Hagerity’s, has a headline in the middle of the text that reads, “Poverty, poverty, poverty.

We’ve all seen it before.

But we can’t stop it.”

In contrast, Hagerry’s headline reads, and is in this font: “Making the Business Model.”

Haggenberg said that CNBC’s piece is an “obvious and egregious example” of how the media uses headlines to “push the envelope,” and it’s also “a reflection of how far we have to go to achieve change.”

“There’s no question that CNBC and others have tried to make this headline headline into something different and more persuasive, but it is an obvious and egregious instance of how we have reached this point,” Haggenberg added.

“To make it so obvious and persuasive that it makes people believe that it means something, it’s really important to try to change it.”

The CNBC piece is a good example of how some headlines are misleading and other headlines are accurate.

But Hager, a former CNBC reporter, also said that “we have to be clear with ourselves about how we write headlines, and what we’re trying to say.”

Here are some other common headlines that you might not realize are misleading:”Poverty is bad”Hagrenberg told CNBC’s Sarah Kendzior that the headline in that CNBC piece should have read, “More Poverty is Good.”

“If we’re talking about poverty, then poverty is bad.

It’s not something that we can just go around.

It needs to be addressed and changed,” Hagrenberg said.

Haggrenberg said CNBC’s title was “a little more bold than usual.”

But CNBC’s copy on the original CNBC piece still uses the bold headline, saying “More poverty is good.”

Here’s the same headline, with the bolder headline: “More PSA.”HAGGENBERG: We’ve talked to a lot of people, and they all think the headline for that piece is misleading.

They think it’s saying that more poverty is better than less.

It is not.

The headline is not misleading.

It was an editorial decision, not a headline choice.

The CNBC headline is the same as the headline used in the original piece.

The headline for the CNBC piece was also in bold, so you can see it below.

The article also included the same paragraph about poverty as in the CNBC article, but in bold.HAGGERTY: You should be the one to make the economic plan, not someone else, not your mom, not anybody.

It makes sense, but we need to have a conversation about that.

Hagery, who has written several op-eds for CNBC, said that he was “shocked” by CNBC not using his original headline for its CNBC piece, which he believes “has been misrepresented by a lot people.”

“I just feel like they took this piece and just edited it to be a little bit more dramatic and a little more headline-y,” Hagerie said.

He said that the CNBC headline for his article is actually “the headline of the entire article.”

He said CNBC should have changed the headline of its CNBC article to be more like the headline from the CNBC story.

“It’s not about poverty.

It just so happens that we have the same headlines, but that headline is so different than the one in the piece,” Hagersaid.”

That headline is very, very misleading.

We need to change the headline.”

Hagers was referring to the CNBC version of the article that appears to have been removed from the website, although it is still accessible via the