🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3A184ECF.9C681FF5@earthlink.com>,
Frank  <fmartino3@earthlink.com> wrote:
>...
>Needless to say, the electors who are legally handling the ballots are
>mostly, if not all, Democrats...

Each ballot is counted by both a Republican and a Democrat.
Accuracy of hand counting seems to be an issue of Republican
spin and not fact.

Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
> In article <3A184ECF.9C681FF5@earthlink.com>,
> Frank  <fmartino3@earthlink.com> wrote:
> >...
> >Needless to say, the electors who are legally handling the ballots are
> >mostly, if not all, Democrats...
> 
> Each ballot is counted by both a Republican and a Democrat.
> Accuracy of hand counting seems to be an issue of Republican
> spin and not fact.

How so?

They're Democratic precincts. 

Who handles the ballot first?

Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
> In article <3A19B208.99682F39@sea.shore>, chris  <yourself> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Daniel Packman wrote:
> >>
> >> Each ballot is counted by both a Republican and a Democrat.
> >> Accuracy of hand counting seems to be an issue of Republican
> >> spin and not fact.
> >
> >How so?
> >
> >They're Democratic precincts.
> 
> I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that
> the precints are 100% democrat and don't have any
> republican workers helping to count ballots?

No, I'm saying they're predominantly democratic though.

> 
> >Who handles the ballot first?
> 
> Again, I don't understand the point. The republican and
> democratic workers need to agree on the vote on each ballot.
> It doesn't matter who handles each first and presumambly
> they would alternate.

OK, that's possible, but who handles it first determines perhaps whether
the chad detaches. Since they're both working at the same time (?) there
would be little ability to watch the other guy and still get the job
done. Hence the first nail over the card could be the decisive vote.

Make sense?

In article <3A1B05C2.FC41D5BF@sea.shore>, chris  <yourself> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter who handles each first and presumambly
>> they would alternate.
>
>OK, that's possible, but who handles it first determines perhaps whether
>the chad detaches. Since they're both working at the same time (?) there
>would be little ability to watch the other guy and still get the job
>done. Hence the first nail over the card could be the decisive vote.
>
>Make sense?

You need to put more trust in the people.
If you are cynical, this means more trust in
the opposition to keep things accurate. If you
are idealistic, trust both to want an accurate
vote because it matters to be accurate. While
many people I know would fall into the latter
category, all fall into either one or the other.

An after all, hand counts are reliable and fast.
Just the other day I did a hand count and repeatedly
and reliably came up with two. Every time. :-)

Daniel Packman wrote:
> 
> In article <3A1B05C2.FC41D5BF@sea.shore>, chris  <yourself> wrote:
> >
> >> It doesn't matter who handles each first and presumambly
> >> they would alternate.
> >
> >OK, that's possible, but who handles it first determines perhaps whether
> >the chad detaches. Since they're both working at the same time (?) there
> >would be little ability to watch the other guy and still get the job
> >done. Hence the first nail over the card could be the decisive vote.
> >
> >Make sense?
> 
> You need to put more trust in the people.
> If you are cynical, this means more trust in
> the opposition to keep things accurate. If you
> are idealistic, trust both to want an accurate
> vote because it matters to be accurate. While
> many people I know would fall into the latter
> category, all fall into either one or the other.

Why should I put much trust in the opposition when one of their
officials was found with a Votomatic in the trunk of his car?

> 
> An after all, hand counts are reliable and fast.
> Just the other day I did a hand count and repeatedly
> and reliably came up with two. Every time. :-)

Lol!

Rabbit wrote:
> 
> On 21 Nov 2000 23:53:58 GMT, pack@eos.acd.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman)
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <3A1B05C2.FC41D5BF@sea.shore>, chris  <yourself> wrote:
> >>
> >>> It doesn't matter who handles each first and presumambly
> >>> they would alternate.
> >>
> >>OK, that's possible, but who handles it first determines perhaps whether
> >>the chad detaches. Since they're both working at the same time (?) there
> >>would be little ability to watch the other guy and still get the job
> >>done. Hence the first nail over the card could be the decisive vote.
> >>
> >>Make sense?
> >
> >You need to put more trust in the people.
> >If you are cynical, this means more trust in
> >the opposition to keep things accurate. If you
> >are idealistic, trust both to want an accurate
> >vote because it matters to be accurate. While
> >many people I know would fall into the latter
> >category, all fall into either one or the other.
> 
> I'm reposting this as you don't seen to have seen it from the first
> time.
> 
> Here is the fact:
> 
>         Each ballot is looked at by a repub and a demo.
>         If they agree the ballot is put into whichever pile they BOTH think
> it should go into.
>         But here is the kicker all you "All we want is a fair count" demos
> don't seem to understand: If the demo and repub counting team DON'T
> agree (the demo says "it's a new-found vote for Gore" but the repub
> says "bullshit, that's not a preg chad it's mustard spot.") the ballot
> goes into the "disputed" pile. The disputes are resolved by the demo
> dominated canvassing committee!
> 
>         Get it?  The demos do all the real "deciding."

THANK YOU!

> NEW!!! Photography for Writers; a tutorial: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6172
> Yes, I have stuff @ Themestream http://www.themestream.com/authors/71001.html
> Jayne Hitchcock H.E.L.P. Fund: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
> NOTE!  *** I DO NOT ACCEPT EMAIL VIA bcc ***

"Irreverend G.L. Sole" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:15:50 GMT, Rabbit <gm.pinkston@verizon.net>
> scrawled on the wall of the Keating Kabin:
> 
> --cut--
> 
> >Here is the fact:
> >
> >       Each ballot is looked at by a repub and a demo.
> >       If they agree the ballot is put into whichever pile they BOTH think
> >it should go into.
> >       But here is the kicker all you "All we want is a fair count" demos
> >don't seem to understand: If the demo and repub counting team DON'T
> >agree (the demo says "it's a new-found vote for Gore" but the repub
> >says "bullshit, that's not a preg chad it's mustard spot.") the ballot
> >goes into the "disputed" pile. The disputes are resolved by the demo
> >dominated canvassing committee!
> >
> >       Get it?  The demos do all the real "deciding."
> 
>   Which naturally explains the unbelivable gains for Gore we are
> seeing...
> 
> KRC

Oh...is the recount completed?

In article <3A19B208.99682F39@sea.shore>, chris  <yourself> wrote:
>
>
>Daniel Packman wrote:
>> 
>> Each ballot is counted by both a Republican and a Democrat.
>> Accuracy of hand counting seems to be an issue of Republican
>> spin and not fact.
>
>How so?
>
>They're Democratic precincts. 

I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that
the precints are 100% democrat and don't have any
republican workers helping to count ballots?

>Who handles the ballot first?

Again, I don't understand the point. The republican and
democratic workers need to agree on the vote on each ballot.
It doesn't matter who handles each first and presumambly
they would alternate.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:15:50 GMT, Rabbit <gm.pinkston@verizon.net>
scrawled on the wall of the Keating Kabin:

--cut--

>Here is the fact:
>
>	Each ballot is looked at by a repub and a demo.
>	If they agree the ballot is put into whichever pile they BOTH think
>it should go into.
>	But here is the kicker all you "All we want is a fair count" demos
>don't seem to understand: If the demo and repub counting team DON'T
>agree (the demo says "it's a new-found vote for Gore" but the repub
>says "bullshit, that's not a preg chad it's mustard spot.") the ballot
>goes into the "disputed" pile. The disputes are resolved by the demo
>dominated canvassing committee!
>
>	Get it?  The demos do all the real "deciding."

  Which naturally explains the unbelivable gains for Gore we are
seeing...

KRC

"Daniel Packman" <pack@eos.acd.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:8vf1um$83f$1@ncar.ucar.edu...

> You need to put more trust in the people.
> If you are cynical, this means more trust in
> the opposition to keep things accurate. If you
> are idealistic, trust both to want an accurate
> vote because it matters to be accurate. While
> many people I know would fall into the latter
> category, all fall into either one or the other.

Some of us don't trust politicians.  They won't let their left hand know
what their right hand is doing.

Steve Henderson wrote:

> Some of us don't trust politicians.  They won't let their left hand know
> what their right hand is doing.

	It's been *my* experience that most of the time the left hand doesn't
even know there *IS* a right hand.

	Wiz

"The Wizard of Oz" <never_was@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3A1B5E39.1C4BCA22@aol.com...

> > Some of us don't trust politicians.  They won't let their left hand know
> > what their right hand is doing.
>
> It's been *my* experience that most of the time the left hand doesn't
> even know there *IS* a right hand.

Even more appropriate.  I sit corrected.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:06:28 GMT, Rabbit <gm.pinkston@verizon.net>
scrawled on the wall of the Keating Kabin:

--cut--

>	"We" are NOT seeing the big gains because we are only seeing the
>results of the ballots on which the one dem/one repub counting teams
>agree. The disputed ballots that will eventually be decided on by the
>canvassing committees themselves (and which will ultimately decide
>this election) are being set aside and we as yet have no idea how many
>of these there are.

Reynolds Wrap, aisle five.

  I could point out the pro-Bush Secretary of State down there that
tried to decide the election all by herself, but we all know that only
one party is lily white, and one is knee-deep in the hog waller...

KRC

"Amaethon the Bunny(tm) Sez Yer No Rabbit" wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:06:28 GMT, Rabbit <gm.pinkston@verizon.net>
> scrawled on the wall of the Keating Kabin:
> 
> --cut--
> 
> >       "We" are NOT seeing the big gains because we are only seeing the
> >results of the ballots on which the one dem/one repub counting teams
> >agree. The disputed ballots that will eventually be decided on by the
> >canvassing committees themselves (and which will ultimately decide
> >this election) are being set aside and we as yet have no idea how many
> >of these there are.
> 
> Reynolds Wrap, aisle five.
> 
>   I could point out the pro-Bush Secretary of State down there that
> tried to decide the election all by herself, but we all know that only
> one party is lily white, and one is knee-deep in the hog waller...
> 
> KRC

Yeah, plenty of pigs in Tennessee...

"Amaethon the Bunny(tm) Sez Yer No Rabbit" wrote:

>   I could point out the pro-Bush Secretary of State down there that
> tried to decide the election all by herself, but we all know that only
> one party is lily white, and one is knee-deep in the hog waller...
> 

	Yep, you could point that out, but you'd be wrong. If you pointed that
out, I'd have to refer you to Flori-DUH state law that regulates
elections procedures, and she was simply following that law. I'd also
have to point out to you that during the swearing in of newly elected
State Senators in the Flori-DUH state legislature, she had a part in the
process, and received a standing ovation from BOTH sides of the aisle.
That tells me that both parties approve of how she's doing her job down
there, the national party position and maneuvering not withstanding.
	BTW, don't forget the pro-Gore Attorney General who tried to block
military absentee votes from being counted because they would favor
Bush, even after admitting that he had no jurisdiction in ANY legal
matter having to do with an election.

	Pot, kettle, black!
	Wiz

chris wrote:

> Yeah, plenty of pigs in Tennessee...

	True, but Gore ain't one of them. We rejected him rather pointedly by
going for Bush in this election.

	Oink!
	Wiz

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:58:13 -0500, The Wizard of Oz
<never_was@aol.com> scrawled on the wall of the Keating Kabin:

--cut--

>	Yep, you could point that out, but you'd be wrong. If you pointed that
>out, I'd have to refer you to Flori-DUH state law that regulates
>elections procedures, and she was simply following that law. I'd also
>have to point out to you that during the swearing in of newly elected
>State Senators in the Flori-DUH state legislature, she had a part in the
>process, and received a standing ovation from BOTH sides of the aisle.
>That tells me that both parties approve of how she's doing her job down
>there, the national party position and maneuvering not withstanding.
>	BTW, don't forget the pro-Gore Attorney General who tried to block
>military absentee votes from being counted because they would favor
>Bush, even after admitting that he had no jurisdiction in ANY legal
>matter having to do with an election.
>
>	Pot, kettle, black!

  The first mistake you have made, Dorothy, is assuming that I am a
Gore supporter.  But, that's to be expected with the "If you ain't
with us, you're against us" mentality of the right.  Both sides are
shite, both sides are corrupt, and both sides are willing to win at
all costs.  There are no winners in this "election", just one big
loser - the American people.

KRC

The Wizard of Oz wrote:
> 
> chris wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, plenty of pigs in Tennessee...
> 
>         True, but Gore ain't one of them.

Right...that'd make him a ham...

 We rejected him rather pointedly by
> going for Bush in this election.
> 
>         Oink!
>         Wiz

Kewl.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------93F1D12A6AB2448E19D67473
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



The Wizard of Oz wrote:

> "Amaethon the Bunny(tm) Sez Yer No Rabbit" wrote:
>
> >   I could point out the pro-Bush Secretary of State down there that
> > tried to decide the election all by herself, but we all know that only
> > one party is lily white, and one is knee-deep in the hog waller...
> >
>
>         Yep, you could point that out, but you'd be wrong. If you pointed that
> out, I'd have to refer you to Flori-DUH state law that regulates
> elections procedures, and she was simply following that law. I'd also
> have to point out to you that during the swearing in of newly elected
> State Senators in the Flori-DUH state legislature, she had a part in the
> process, and received a standing ovation from BOTH sides of the aisle.
> That tells me that both parties approve of how she's doing her job down
> there, the national party position and maneuvering not withstanding.
>         BTW, don't forget the pro-Gore Attorney General who tried to block
> military absentee votes from being counted because they would favor
> Bush, even after admitting that he had no jurisdiction in ANY legal
> matter having to do with an election.
>
>         Pot, kettle, black!
>         Wiz

*****************************************************
You should learn to read in your pig waller.
It turns out that the ballots protected were marked by the GOP in volition of the
LAW. It was the GOp trying to rig an election that almost lost the veterans their
vote. But, it is nothing to the fact that the Shrubbiest are trying to keep the
Votes of 1,000 of Veterans and disabled vertrans from having their vote counted.


--
                       \\\\\\||///
                      \\         //
                     ( @  @  )
     ---0ooo-----(_)------ooo0
            John Edward Robinson
                  a/ka/ "robbie"


--------------93F1D12A6AB2448E19D67473
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="jrobin33.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for John Edward Robinson a/k/a "robbie"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="jrobin33.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Robinson;John Edward
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Consultant
version:2.1
email;internet:jrobin33@pop3.concentric.net
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:John Edward Robinson
end:vcard

--------------93F1D12A6AB2448E19D67473--