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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sabrejet who wrote (8152)	11/24/2000 10:20:11 AM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

<ot>Hi Sabre! - thx for the clarification. Obviously, we are simply engaging in an academic and friendly discussion, but it occurs to me you have shifted your position, when 1st you said, The Texas law in place could quite ironically be declared invalid if ever* challenged* but now you said that statute will get tested [italic and boldface are the editor's] I am sure there will be challenge, regardless of the strength of the stature. So, we are in agreement. However, the force of certainty of the 1st statement doesn't seem to be a necessary outcome of getting tested. While the dimple and pregnant chads are indeed problematic, I do not think they have the necessary strength to overturn the manual count provision in TX, FL or IL stature [I don't know the CA stature.] In other words, my point is that you were in effect saying the house was condemned b/c one of the rooms had lousy wallpaper and I was trying to figure why the house was condemned <G>! best, Bosco

To: Sabrejet who wrote (8152)	11/24/2000 3:17:29 PM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30051

OT: The more we see of this, the more it screams for a digital voting system. It is unconscionable that so much can be so dependent on an outdated technology that can be interpreted in so many ways by so many people. How can there be any objectivity or uniform standards here? There has to be a true acid test of the "Voter Intent" that can only yield YES or NO, not the maybe YES (hanging/swinging door chads etc), maybe NO (dimpled not pregant) chad, maybe maybe yes or no (pregnant chad) maybe maybe don't know (two dimples, one lighter) and the whole sliding scale of analog values in between. I can remember doing SAT and GRE type tests a long time ago where the rules were explicit: failure to completely black out a choice will cause an answer to be rejected and marked wrong. Two ovals being marked will cause an answer to be marked wrong, etc. The examiner mentioned this, and the test booklet started with a warning in huge letters and instructions are always there on how to make correct markings. Sometimes I wonder if I erased a wrong answer properly or if I left enough marks in there to give me a couple of wrong answers. I wonder if the new SAT and GRE have moved beyond this? ---- Anyway, I'm tired of following this comedy. Anyone care to present alternatives for the future? There should be a good cost-effective computerized way to do all this. SbH