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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4959)	12/6/2000 2:08:45 AM
From: TraderGreg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

<<Especially in light of Judge Sauls utter dismissal of the Ahmann testimony on Saturday. I'll not mince words, Judge Sauls is an educated fool and a liar. He cannot possibly be as stupid about math and statistics as he made himself out to be.>> But Ray, Judge Sauls was merely invoking Clause 168, originally drafted by Joe Bob Yossarian. Remember? I pasted it yesterday: "Regulations specified that a request for recount in a close election was permissable. But to receive that recount requires that the plaintiff ask for a manual recount. But as soon as he asked for a manual recount, he was required to show that said manual recount would produce different results. But in order to show that said manual recount would produce different results he had to perform a manual recount. However, he could not perform that manual recount without getting approval and moreover, he would only be granted that approval if he could show said manual recount would produce different results." TG, moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause 168 of FL election law, whistled: "that's some clause that clause 168