SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: G_Barr who wrote (285235)8/9/2002 11:52:49 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
Boy using your selective interpretation of what others say, I conclude you are saying a properly marked ballot cast by a registered voter at his polling place is not a legal vote.

I stated that the machines properly counted the legal properly marked ballots and PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH was the winner. That is true. That is 100% true. Also all later recounts conducted by technology retards in search of whatever also demonstrated that the machines were correct.

So you spin in circles posting nothing substantive to respond to. you motor mouth about side issues that miss the
common sense justification of the Supreme Court Ruling.

And as I originally stated #reply-17854140. The main basis of the Supreme Court Decision is .....IF one dictates that a recount to the accuracy of some fraction of a percent beyond the current well defined counting method. One must clearly define the metrics of the counting process before one attempts to recount.

I would suggest you read the decision, but technology and process retards just don't get it. It's all about defining the how to do it before it's done.

Also technology and process retards have no clue as to how to put in place such a system. A proper manual recount is a complex systems and socio engineering problem. A recount on the scale the state of Florida that could pass a legally defined forensic definition of marks that do convey the intent of a voter would take months.

The process dictated by the techno retards of the Florida Supreme court failed to define what improperly marked ballots still legally conveyed the intent of a voter.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News