🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100qloooloj7c90@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:ON0Pb.26484$dw6.16986@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > news:100ou3fq6jrms8e@corp.supernews.com...
> > > --
> > >
> > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:19XOb.10271$dB1.9902@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:100o1abni1u79a1@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mark Cook" <mcook@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9MLOb.58323$035.5552@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:100mctrn8sje42c@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your source impeaches itself by bringing up the issue but not
> > > > reporting
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > resolution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still, how do you account for the fact that your source also
> said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You quoted an article that used the NORC, now the NORC is
> > > unreliable????
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems to me you can't have it both ways - YOU are quoting NORC,
yet
> > they
> > > > say
> > > > > Gore won while you claim Gore lost.  Looks to me like you're
> > > > cherry-picking.
> > > >
> > > > You are wrong on two fronts.
> > > >
> > > > Your quote:
> > >
> > > That's from NORC - directly from the same source you've been quoting.
> >
> > And you have been, as you say, "cherry picking" there results. The NORC
> said
> > that they could NOT identify a winner, yet you claim just the opposite.
>
> So when NORC said: "By any chad measure, Gore won", they were actually
> saying 'we cannot identify a winner'?

"But it can't identify a victor in the November election, he said. "In my
opinion, it's too close to call," he said, "and in my opinion, one could
never know in this study alone, who won the election."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/neverknow.html

It is a pretty easy concept to grasp. When the NORC says it could NOT
identify a winner, it means that they COULD NOT IDENTIFY a winner. Are you
really telling me that you do not understand those words?????

> And black is white and up is down.

It is all written in black and white, all you have to do is have an open
mind and read exactly what they said.

> > The
> > NORC was honest about their findings, I think I will take their word for
> it,
> > i.e. they could not prove that Gore won.
> >
> > "It may be we'll never know the exact vote totals,"
>
> And that has nothing to do with whether or not they can determine a
winner.

According to the NORC, it does.

"It may be we'll never know the exact vote totals," said University of
Chicago statistics professor Kirk Wolter, who was the director of the
recount project. "If you're finding the candidates are a few hundred votes
apart or less, then I think the lack of control of the ballots in Florida
raises the probability that error in the study exceeds the true, but
unknown, vote totals."

AND

"The study, Wolter said, will be a database for examining the flaws and
complexities of the Florida election and the obstacles in conducting such an
extensive review of the results."

But it can't identify a victor in the November election, he said. "In my
opinion, it's too close to call," he said, "and in my opinion, one could
never know in this study alone, who won the election."

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/neverknow.html