🚀 go-pugleaf

"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:100ou3fq6jrms8e@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.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. 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," 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

> > "So Al Gore was the choice of Florida's voters -- whether one counts
> hanging
> > chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news
> > organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By
any
> > chad measure, Gore won."
> >
> > First off, I said that the NORC study did not prove that Gore won. I did
> > NOT say that the report proved that Gore lost.
>
> Then you don't have much of an argument.

I have great argument going on, I have shown where the NORC said that they
could not prove Gore to be the winner.

> Such a LARGE amount of smoke for
> so little fire.  Do you always generate so much smoke over trivialities?

I believe it is you who is blowing smoke my friend.

> Regardless of how you attempt to spin and obfusticate, your source looked
at
> all your "evidence" and said: "By any chad measure, Gore won."

Where is the proof?

> >Second, the NORC and one of it's
> > members both admit that they did not check every disputed ballot.
>
> And that means exactly what?

That means that you have no proof from the NORC that Gore won.

> However you slice and dice it, Bush & Co stole
> the election. The recent Cheney/Scalia hunting trip and Scalia's role in
> the 2000 election serve to add proof to that charge.

Too bad for you that the facts prove otherwise. 30 days after the election,
Gore was in the court saying that all ballots need not to be recounted. It
was Bush who was telling the court that a recount had to include all
ballots.

Why didn't Gore want all the ballots to count?