Journal neocon's Journal: Two Threads 20
Kind of a fun thread developing in this JE of GMontag's. Another sign of how desperate many on the left are to grasp at any wild claim -- no matter how long since discredited -- to back their wild conspiracy theories.
Now, does this mean that Diebold's election systems are well implemented? I'm not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole. But it certainly does the argument against Diebold no credit if it rests so much of its case on sources no more reliable than a discredited party hack like Bev Harris.
Also, for those of you who had already checked my last JE before I updated it, this thread is a good demonstration of how sloppy bad ideas (in this case anti-Catholic bigotry) get when they go unchallenged in the public square for so long.
Welcome back, (Score:2)
Re:Welcome back, (Score:2)
Apology accepted. :-)
It's good to be back, and thanks for the kind words. :-)
Still twisting facts, I see (Score:1)
I didn't defend any conspiracy theories. I just asked you to back up your claim that Harris' source recanted. You spend the rest of the thread avoiding that very issue, and jumping to random conclusions. Sorry to poke holes in your view that I'm a rabid supporter of leftist conspiracies, I'm just interested in seeing if you are ever capable of log
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:2)
Oh, poor, poor Mr. `lif'.
Luckily, this is the web, where everyone reading this JE can go read the two threads in question and decide for themselves. :-)
You might say ``we report, you decide.'' ;-)
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:1)
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:2)
Poor, poor, Mr.`lif', you do go farther and farther out on a limb here.
Are you really denying that when actually questioned by Wired, Mr. Behler admitted that he, in actual fact, left Diebold three months before he alleges fraud occurred there?
Think before you answer, because you'll look pretty silly if you are denying this, inasmuch as the passage in which he admits this is one which you yourself quoted in the thread [slashdot.org]! :-)
So inasmuch as Behler and Harris have been completely discredited as sources
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:1)
As is plainly shown in your first post [slashdot.org], your claim was not that "there was no credible source", your claim was "Miss Harris' own source later admitted that
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:2)
On the contrary, Mr. `lif', by the end of the article which you repeatedly quoted during the thread, Mr. Behler has admitted that he left Diebold three months before the machines were installed and validated.
If that's not an admission that he does not, in fact, have any evidence of fraud, nothing is.
And while we're on the subject, your attempts to bring logic into the thread are, perhaps, admirable, but are you really claiming that it is an `ad hominem' attack to point out that someone who claimed to
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:1)
Here are some quotes from the article [wired.com] in question:
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:2)
Presumably others reading this thread are as amused as I am that in pasting the bulk of the article, you mysteriously chose to cut out one of the paragraphs you did include last time.
To quote:
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:1)
And, as a matter of fact, he does not assert that. He asserts that the patches were not certified.
Even if he does, in fact, still claim that he (somehow) `knows' that verification did not occur in the three months after
"Verification" does not equal certification of patches. You link to Kennesaw's site where it says The Center tests the election equipment that is used in Georgia. This is done through tes
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:2)
As in the other thread you keep posting to, it's somewhat amusing to see your claims contract, as you reinvent your position and then claim that you ``never'' said anything else.
Let's look at what you're saying here, for example:
And yet he also clearly admits that he left Diebold four months before th
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:1)
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:2)
At this point, you're going in circles, Mr. `lif', making two claims which have already been shot down multiple times in this thread.
First, you repeat this quote:
Re:Still twisting facts, I see (Score:1)
Anyhow, I've ceased to get any intellectual interest out of this thread, so I'm done with it.
Just for interest's sake (Score:1)
Re:Just for interest's sake (Score:2)
Heh, well we can see how well that [slashdot.org] went, now can't we. :-)
Re:Just for interest's sake (Score:1)
Re:Just for interest's sake (Score:2)
Hehehe, poor Mr. `lif'.
I'd say that the readers of the thread are entirely capable of making their own decisions as to the quality of your answers.
Or, in other words, as they say on the television, ``We report, you decide.'' :-)
Re:Just for interest's sake (Score:1)
Though you seem interested in constantly commenting on what you are sure the reader of the thread will think.
Interesting. You are so sure of your "rightness" you assume that everyone will agree with you. Living in a fantasy world, are you?