Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal neocon's Journal: Two Threads 20

Journal by neocon

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Two Threads More

Two Threads

Comments Filter:
  • I had given up on you no less than a week ago, labeled you as one of /. most effective trolls ever, I apologize and welcome your help in getting a conservative message across here on /.
  • 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.

    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

    • 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.'' ;-)

      • And you still can't back up your claim in the other thread. Your laughable attempts at "proofs" of your completely biased, unfounded position do nothing to cover up the fact that you still haven't provided any source, other than your word (which I guess everyone is supposed to assume is golden?) that Miss Harris' source recanted. It's the claim you made, it's your argumentative grave that you're digging, and I'm sure that anyone who is looking at the thread will be able to see through your straw men argumen

        • 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

          • So inasmuch as Behler and Harris have been completely discredited as sources in the course of the thread, and inasmuch as you have provided not a single other source (credible or otherwise), I'd say that my assertion that there are no credible sources asserting fraud at Diebold has been demonstrated quite handily (and not in small part by your posts).

            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

            • 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

              • 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.

                Here are some quotes from the article [wired.com] in question:

                Now a former worker in Diebold's Georgia warehouse says the company

                installed patches on its machines before the state's 2002 gubernatorial election that were never certified by independent testing authorities or cleared with Georgia election offici

                • 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:

                  Behler said Diebold provided warehouse workers with at least three patches to apply to the systems before state officials began logic and accuracy testing on them. Behler said one patch was applied to machines when he came to the warehouse in June, a second patch was applied in July and a third

                  in August after he

                  • He cannot possibly assert with any certainty that the equipment was not validated after the patches

                    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

                    • 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:

                      He cannot possibly assert with any certainty that the equipment was not validated after the patches

                      And, as a matter of fact, he does not assert that. He asserts that the patches were not certified.

                      And yet he also clearly admits that he left Diebold four months before th

                    • You say:

                      So here, you are trying to bend the statement that the election center tests and verifies the software which has been installed on all systems, and also runs specially designed software on the server into a claim that only the server is tested. Luckily, Bobby Kahn, the manager of the losing gubernatorial campaign (who has more incentive than anyone to claim that fraud occurred, after all), goes into

                      more detail [electionlawblog.org] on this testing:

                      Once certified, the vendor is then allowed to install the system in loc

                    • 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:

                      Security is an on-going process, and is constantly updated. Most recently, KSU developed a state-of-the-art "hashing" program used to examine the servers in all 159 counties. This program is designed to assure that software operating on the county servers matches precisely the software that was tested and certified at the national and state le

                    • Arguing with you is like a war of attrition. Everytime I try to bring the discussion back to it's origins, you find another way to rabbit trail, and bring up a whole different host of issues. You never addressed your first claim, and though I repeatedly brought it up, you continue to ignore it.

                      Anyhow, I've ceased to get any intellectual interest out of this thread, so I'm done with it.
  • I've decided to go back to the RC thread, and list the false claims you made in your last post about what I said. I doubt you have any straight answers to the real issues, but I can always hope.

Slashdot Top Deals

According to all the latest reports, there was no truth in any of the earlier reports.

Close