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: The Philosopher who wrote (3118)	11/30/2000 4:15:35 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3887

I will concede to you on the point. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if everyone conceded when they lose?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3118)	12/1/2000 12:07:17 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 3887

Correct again, counselor.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3118)	12/1/2000 12:48:01 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 3887

Agreed, but one must, however, beardown on the language of subpart "3)" itself: Although, you are correct, when you state, the section itself must be read in the disjuctive (1 or 2 or 3...) It is to be noted that "3)" is internally conjunctive: 3) an indentation on the chad from the stylus or other object is present and* indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote...[emph. add.] Read alone, a mere dimple is NOT enough, but must be also accompanied by a "clearly* ascertainable intent of the voter" Parsing the statute, as it were, one could come to the conclusion that one dimpled chad, standing alone, is NOT sufficient under Texas Law to be counted as a vote. Parsing the statute, thusly, would, of course, mean that Ellen has, infact, preserved her otherwise unblemished record of incorrectness. :)) Wouldn't you agree? :)))