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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Gore who wrote (105152)	12/8/2000 1:53:08 AM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Respond to of 769667

Let's say the Yankees are batting with two men out, the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth inning and they are down by three runs. Derek Jeter comes to the plate and hits a grand slam. Unfortunately, the home field PA announcer mistakenly introduced the batter as being Paul O'Neil. Should the homer be taken away from Jeter, thereby costing the Yankees the game simply because the announcer made a mistake by calling the wrong name as batter-up?

To: Dave Gore who wrote (105152)	12/8/2000 1:55:16 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

But it is a stretch. It is not a question of technical infraction, but material infraction, i.e., the failure to vote the ballot in a clear, countable manner, when there is ample help available for instruction, replacement of spoiled ballot, and the like. In the case of the disputed absentees, the infraction was, at worst, technical, and it was a no- brainer to allow party workers to correct the printer's error, after allowing the ID numbers to be pre- printed in the first place. Furthermore, the proposed remedy would needlessly disenfranchise those not affected by the allegations, and therefore is too severe. Therefore, even if the judgment were against Ms. Goard and the party workers, the penalty should be narrowly directed at them.....