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: lawdog who wrote (107835)	12/9/2000 1:52:00 PM
From: BishopsChild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I bought an Accountant to do all that for me......... HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaa

To: lawdog who wrote (107835)	12/9/2000 2:02:58 PM
From: MasonS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

So you're assuming that there is never "human" error. Your argument is flawed in this case...because there was NO machine error. I still remember Theresa Lapore in voting for a manual recount...she kept stressing over and over that she would vote yes...but she wanted it in the record that it was not due to machine error. I could point out that we also use machines to correct human error...would you use a calculator to add up thousands of columns of figures...or would you trust a bank employee to do it for you if it was your money at stake? If you get money handed to you by a bank cashier...do you count it...or do you trust that they are accurate? You are giving me examples where you already know what the outcome should be...when you ask an atm for $100...you can count it and validate that the amount you received was $100. What you're telling me is that machines are never the last word...but humans who are biased, tired, unsure of what they are looking at or for are. I don't spout lies and spin...I use logic.