Ok. Again, I apologize for any misquoting. I paraphrased which is
probably bad policy when talking to you.
You said something to the effect of computer errors are never
isolated, implying that they would be wide spread. My point is, if
the machines are of several different types, they won't all have the
same problems and the errors may be localized. I hope that's more
acceptable phrasing to you.
--- In DMCForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Marc Levy <malevy_nj@xxxx> wrote:
> When did I try to convince anyone of that? I am
> thinking your method of debate is to discredit your
> opponent by attributing statements to them that they
> never made!
In my post I said "IF" as in IF you are trying to convince me. And
why not? Why else would you start this thread? Even if I'm wrong, I
did include the qualifier "if".
> I sent the link, I did not need to quote the whole
> article.
True, and I credited you for it. Even so, I apologize. Again.
> And... can you please QUOTE for me the part of the
> article where it says anything like "other machines
> were evaluated and that no irregularities were found?"
>
> Using Find, the words "Evaluated" and "Irregularities"
> are not even in the article.
>
> The closest thing I can find is "...and there were no
> signs of other errors in Ohio's electronic
> machines...", which is a huge leap to what you say
> above.
Again, I am paraphrasing here. I was in a hurry and didn't have the
luxury of cut and paste time. You are correct to post the exact
words, but I still feel that it's not a "huge leap" between the two.
You can bet I won't paraphrase with you anymore.
> They are reporting, not investigating. Good bet that
> the republican machine is able to put a quick end to
> any investigation in to the matter.
Why are you so quick to assume that the Republican "machine" is so
omnipotent and that the Democratic party is so feeble and helpless?
You make them sound so downtrodden. They are as wealthy and as
powerful as the Republicans which is why it's damn near impossible
for an independent to run these days. Man, what I wouldn't give for
a VIABLE 3rd choice....
> UH, when have I not included links to my sources and
> references?
Again, for the Nth time, I apologize. You usually do. I can admit
when I'm wrong.
You know Marc, more than anything I fear that our divisions will
turn us into Iraq or Sudan where subtle shades of religious
differences or even non-religious opinion result in street level
violence and destroy our sense of national unity and eventually, our
nation. This can happen no matter who's elected. John Kerry would
not have united this nation any better than Bush. Do you really
think he could miraculously change 50 million people's beliefs? We
are responsible for ourselves, and I won't blame my behavior on
anyone else. This isn't the 1800's where only 50% of the nation was
literate. The citizenry overall, is far smarter and savvy than it
used to be. The average enlisted man in the military has a degree
now (which means they all could be officers if they chose) when 50
years ago, they were called "grunts" for a reason. (I'm not saying
you are) but don't write off middle-america like that news paper
article. They aren't dumb, they are just strong in their convictions
the same as you.
First and foremost we should remember that we are Americans and have
faith (not necessarily religious faith) that this is the best
(albeit far from perfect) nation on Earth. If we stand apart, we'll
surely fall together.
Rich
______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN