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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (128685)	11/17/2000 8:32:27 AM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 1570331

John Re..My reason for opposing the hand recounts is that, if they were done twice by two different sets of people operating under the same "rules", the vote count would vary MORE after hand counting twice than it would vary after machine counting twice. Therefore the hand count is less accurate.<< You may be absolutely right, but the reality is you won't convince the hundreds of lawyers and thousands of Gore supporters of that. The only alternative is to play the same game they are. Recount your districts under the same rules for the pregnant chads etc. and let the chips fall where they may. They will have their biases and we will have ours. Its not clear to me whether the recounts are checking every ballot or just the ones which have been classified as null votes by the machines. Do you know the answer to that? No, but find out and count ours the same way. I think Bush will escape the second "no-mandate" outcome, since I expect that the remaining absentees plus the 300 existing margin will be more than the number of vote changes in Broward and Palm Beach. Why count on that. Recount our counties and pick up the ones we also have lost and neutralize their recount. If GW loses at the end of the day, there should be no excusses. Concede, get on with your life and start planning for 2004. Don't ruin the party's chances in the future, by being a sore loser now. If Gw wins, he will have a better mandate to rule, and will have a better chances of re-election in 2004.

To: Petz who wrote (128685)	11/17/2000 9:44:13 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570331

Petz, I think Bush will escape the second "no-mandate" outcome, since I expect that the remaining absentees plus the 300 existing margin will be more than the number of vote changes in Broward and Palm Beach. The number of vote changes in Broward and Palm Beach is not a fixed number. It depends on how many votes they need to make up to overcome the margin. Joe

To: Petz who wrote (128685)	11/17/2000 1:00:32 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1570331

Petz, Edelstone's comments affirm what you and Goutama have been saying re Intel and its investment portfolio. I don't know if you saw it but here it is. ____________________________________________________________ Intel's Not-Quite Negative Growth I caught up the other day with Mark Edelstone, the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter analyst who forecasts Intel (INTC:Nasdaq - news - boards) will earn less next year than in 2000, on a per-share basis. (The rest of the Street still shows a 3% increase in 2001 earnings per share.) Edelstone points out that the situation isn't quite as dire as it appears because an extraordinary gain on the sale of shares of Micron (MU:NYSE - news - boards) in 2000 will make 2001 a "tough compare." The fact remains, says Edelstone, that Intel faces the risk of eroding gross margins during the year because of competition and a product transition. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In keeping with TSC's editorial policy, Adam Lashinsky doesn't own or short individual stocks, although he owns stock in TheStreet.com.