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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ellen who wrote (2950)	11/29/2000 12:43:07 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Ellen: Please chill a bit. Your blood is beginning to boil on my screen. Yes I got what I asked for, and I did thank you, but I did question why you had to make things so difficult. I said dimpled ballots had been used. No, that's not what you said. You stated: ". . . . To except a dimpled chad as evidence of voter intent is utterly ridiculous . . .gnores the fact that it is not ridiculous and is done quite often throughout the country." [Emphasis added.] See Message 14879961 in response to my original comment: "To except a dimpled chad as evidence of voter intent is utterly ridiculous without any sort of standard to apply to determination of whether such dimpled chad should be counted or not." See Message 14878434 First, notice how YOU first take my assertion out of context by omitting language "without any sort of standard." Second, notice how you now assert merely that dimpled ballot had been "used" and omit your initial claim that their counting is "done often throughout the country." I guess you can pride yourself on practicing typical Democratic tactics of attempting to distort facts, which is the record here of what has been said. That's why I love these boards. You can't retract what has already been stated. Its akin to a court proceeding; its part of the record. Gee, if someone had you on the witness stand they'd just tear you to shreds. Case closed. You have no credibility; you misrepresent not only the truth of the matter, but also attempt to misrepresent what I have said here, along with your very own words.