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 : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zakrosian who wrote (190)	11/27/2000 5:11:43 PM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 644

Hi Zak - thx for the article. Now I am more confused. The FLSC ruling has nothing to do with "dimple." Rather, while the Gore team has asked about a clarification of an acceptable ballot [my wordings from memory,] the court has not made any specific guideline but left the authority of such interpretation to the local canvassing boards, as it should be by law. That is why [to support my interpretation] PB and Broward counties have two different sets of guidelines. So, I don't know if this is statement Election lawyers in Illinois say that the Gore team and the Florida Supreme Court were mistaken this week in citing an Illinois Supreme Court decision in 1990 as a precedent for ruling dimpled ballots are acceptable is correct at all. Rather, IMHO, the previously quoted excerpt, while one can liberally interpreted as chad reading :), it simply supports manual recount. Whether the FLSC can set deadline, that is for the USSC to decide. But I would be surprised any lawyer would confuse the actual ruling with the dimple reading. Did I miss something somewhere? best, Bosco