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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106644)	12/8/2000 9:08:01 PM
From: TheGodfather (Hijacked)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"They have been frantically bad-mouthing manual recounts, suing, stalling and delaying since November 8th. They have used every conceivable argument that has occured to them, all to the same end, to stop any recount. " You too would be arguing against any recounts when NEW criteria to evaluate voter intent is introduced after the count has started. Keep in mind that Theresa LePore had sent a letter to all precincts telling officials that ONLY CORRECTLY PUNCHED ballots would be counted. In her letter she specifically states that dimples, bulging chads, pregnant chads and hanging chads were NOT to be considered as votes. How could anyone trust the fairness of the counts when the are changed to favor one candidate?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106644)	12/8/2000 10:58:11 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Nadine, I'm sorry, but your words were clear. What am I supposed to do? Re: "The Republicans have not been arguing against selective recounts; they have been arguing against any recounts, under any circumstances." You can say they are arguing against any re-counts all you want, but when you say the bolded above, plainly as you have...it is in utter contradiction to the rest of your very sentence. May I suggest the proper form would have been to put the first half in the positive as I believe you intended it, as follows: "The Republicans have indeed been arguing against selective recounts; they have also been also arguing against any recounts, under any circumstances." I think that would have clearly expressed your meaning as you intended it. So if you don't mind, I take exception to the admonishment you offered me, and say to you that YOU should apply your wisdom to your own writing. Dan B