Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kech who wrote (87139)	11/12/2000 8:06:29 PM
From: jmac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

If your authority is Baker, you have a problem. I would say that to someone who claimed the authority came from Daley too. Come on. Both sides are playing PR. If you believe either side too much, well, nuf said.

To: kech who wrote (87139)	11/12/2000 8:28:49 PM
From: dwight martin	Respond to of 152472

Baker says there is "no standard". The change within the first day at Palm Beach from the "light test" to the "partial chad distinctions" clearly indicates that the standard is not very precise if there is one. Tom, this takes us to the latest wrinkle in LJB's mendacious campaign. True, they began with the light test (which, BTW, seems a reasonable standard, and that is all that is required). True, they changed in midstream, but they shifted to the partially detached chad test only when the found a 1990 document setting forth that test as the one to be used, and they will redo the batch of ballots that went through under the light test. Thus, there is no inconsistency within Palm Beach County, and the change actualy lessened the chance that the standard of ballot review would be prejudicial to the Republicans, because it reverted to one adopted long before the present contoversy. Facts like that are just annoyances to LJB, though. And, as I have argued, "inconsistency" across counties is a bogus issue.