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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (62481)	12/6/2000 11:51:00 AM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

OTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOT Pomp, Al can't have his cake and eat it too. Is it the "stated will of the voter" or isn't it? No fraud, no duress here. Al has a loser here. Sounds like that's true. The news report I think I heard a week or so ago didn't indicate that it had to be outright fraud, nor that the will of the voter was involved. This must be why his legal team is staying out of these lawsuits. Dave

To: pompsander who wrote (62481)	12/6/2000 5:20:45 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Pomp, but what happens if the Fl-SC decides that the "will of the voter" does not override the law of the state (various dates, the secretary's discretion etc.), then the same principle (the law, namely not committing felonies in matters relating to ballots and their applications) should apply. I think that the Fl-SC court (which will eventually hear the Seminole case as well as the Sauls case) should take them together and come up on either the "will of the voter" dominates, or "the law, prior to the election" dominates. I doubt they will do it, but if by miracle they did, then Gore wins whichever the decision is. Zeev