No, you are wrong and you stubbornly refuse to let this go. As I said previously, the NORC report assembled the data and various new organizations interpreted that data. NORC did not. Troy posted a CNN link with the following headline.

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Here is the full story, again LinkI assume you don’t believe CNN to be a right wing neo con organization do you?The CNN article further states:

quote:

---

In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.

---

The NORC report was instructive but not definitive, hence irrelevant in determining a winner. This is one story by CNN who used the NORC data. You can find accounts by other news organizations that declare Gore the winner, it all depends on how the results are interpreted. And that includes your own subjective interpretation for the Rrhain Report.If you visit the NORC website you will find the following stated goal under General Project Info

quote:

---

The goal of the project is not to declare a winner, but rather to carefully examine the ballots to assess the relative reliability of the three major types of ballot systems used in Florida. Link

---

NORC’s stated goal was to assess the reliability of the ballot systems, not declare a winner. Get it?

Why wouldn't we?

We? who are you speaking for and what is your point?

Monk responds to me:

quote:

---

Florida recount study: Bush still wins

---

Did you read the link? It doesn't say what you think it said. Yes, the headline ran that. The story inside contradicts that headline.If we only used the Gore standard, then Bush won, yes. And if the SCOTUS hadn't intervened, then Bush would have won, yes.But if a full recount had been done of every single ballot, which was not done, then Gore won every single time. So since Gore wins every time all the votes are considered, how does that square with a claim that "Bush still wins"? That isn't what the story said. In fact, it said the opposite: Didn't you read the link? It repeats exactly what I said: If a full recount was done, using every standard proferred, Gore won.

quote:

---

I assume you don’t believe CNN to be a right wing neo con organization do you?

---

Acutally, they are fairly conservative. Most of their talking heads are. Bob Novak, at one point, had four shows on CNN.And it wouldn't be the first time that a news organization runs a headline that is directly contradicted by the story inside. Why are you so quick to believe the headline when the story says the exact opposite? Shouldn't the part that has more contextual information be more reliable?

quote:

---

The NORC report was instructive but not definitive, hence irrelevant in determining a winner.

---

Obviously the NORC is not legally binding. That doesn't make it irrelevant.Don't you find it interesting that every single method of counting all votes resulted in a win for Gore?Even Bush's method?

quote:

---

NORC’s stated goal was to assess the reliability of the ballot systems, not declare a winner. Get it?

---

Of course. They weren't a legal team. Their findings had no power to change anything.What does that have to do with whether or not they actually determined the winner? What is the point of counting the votes in an election if not to determine the winner? Isn't the winner of the election supposed to be determined by whoever go the most votes? Isn't the only criterion used for determining the winner of an election that of who got the most votes?So if a group makes a study of all votes and finds that one person got the most votes no matter what standard is used and that that person is not the one who was actually declared, doesn't that mean that the declared winner and the actual winner are not the same person?It's nice that NORC wanted to stay out of the political ramifications of their study. That doesn't mean there aren't any.Gore won Florida.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Here are a few quotes from the story. The only contradiction is in your head.

quote:

---

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

---

quote:

---

In releasing the report, the consortium said it is in no way trying to rewrite history or challenge the official result — that Bush won Florida by 537 votes.

---

quote:

---

If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

---

quote:

---

The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

---

Well, me, and the few of us here whose political views have been expounded enough for me to be familiar with them. That CNN is, in fact, a right-leaning propaganda outfit. I mean, why would we consider it otherwise?

Monk responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Did you read the link? It doesn't say what you think it said. Yes, the headline ran that. The story inside contradicts that headline

---

​

Here are a few quotes from the story.

---

Why did you stop there? And how do they contradict what I originally said? The quotes you pulled and hacked to shreds, I might add, only reinforce what I said:Using a partial recount, Bush wins.A full recount, however, gives the win to Gore.Tell me: Does your first quote refer to undervotes, overvotes, both, or neither? Think carefully, now. The rest of the story tells you, but one wonders why you didn't include that information.Your second quote is merely an indication of the final results as declared by the Florida election commission. How is that an indication of what the vote tally actually was? Nobody disputes that that is what they said. The question is, is what they said what actually happened?Apparently not. When counting every single vote, no matter what standard is used, Gore wins.Does your third quote refer to undervotes, overvotes, both, or neither? Think carefully, now. The rest of the story tells you, but one wonders why you didn't include that information.Your fourth quote, how does that contradict my original claim that the only standard by which Gore would have lost the election is if they had only recounted the four counties Gore originally wished to have recounted? However, if every single vote was re-examined, then Gore wins by every standard used.

quote:

---

The only contradiction is in your head.

---

Tell me how "Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes" is in accordance with "Bush still wins." I can't seem to figure out how a Gore win results in Bush's win.Tell me how "a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore" is in accordance with "Bush still wins." I can't seem to figure out how a Gore win results in Bush's win.The only way Bush wins is if we don't count all the votes.If we count them all, then Gore wins.By every standard.Now, do you think that not counting all votes is really an effective way of determining what the actual vote count was?We're back to the question I've asked you twice: In your referenced quotes, are they talking about counting undervotes, overvotes, both, or neither?Why did you leave that part out?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Ok, that's your opinion. I would say CNN is more middle of the road.This message has been edited by Monk, Sun, 04-10-2005 07:57 AM

Yet, we're talking about the media. So if I follow you, the media is sees democrats as the opposition.

quote:

---

(*blink!*)

​

You did not just say that, did you?

---

Watch closely and I'll say it again: it was totally trivial.

quote:

---

Do you think anything happens without money? Considering that they were using a military network system, do you think it could have been done without Congressional approval and spending?

---

None of which Al Gore had anything to do with, as far as I am aware. Are you swityching from saying that Gore recognised the civil, to recognising the military, virtues of the net?

quote:

---

There was more than one networking protocol at the time. Ever heard of BITNET? If you didn't use VAXen, you might not have. It had the big relay chat thing long before the Internet was ever heard of.

---

Many protocols, only one INTERNET.

quote:

---

".com"? What is this ".com" you speak of? There was no such thing as ".com" in 1983. The first name server didn't come online until 1984 and .com, .net., and .org domains didn't appear until 1985

---

They had allocated IP ranges from the earliest days, becuase the system was connected to university campuses and defence contravtors. The upper level domain system, and the DNS name lookup system, were introduced later as cosmetic improvements - but that does not change the underlying technology.

quote:

---

"HTTP"? What is this "HTTP" you speak of? The advent of the browser wouldn't appear until the 90s. The Internet as we know it is from 1983. Do not confuse the fact that you are seeing a pretty picture rather than plain text with some sort of new "version" of the Internet.

---

I've been on the net since it was all FTP and Telnet, thanks. I'm well aware of what hypertext is. But I generously assumed that hypertext might be what you were referring to, becuase otherwise pretty much everything was done when packet switching was developed. 99% of what people EXPERIENCE is http.

quote:

---

And how is that not developing the networking protocol used by the Internet? What do you think the "I" in "IP" stands for?

---

In the same way that designing the Ford Mondeo os not "inventing the car", it is designing A car. TCP/IP (Transport Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) is not the only packet-switching protocol, merely the best/maximally efficient.

quote:

---

But they didn't! Where in their letter did they even hint that Gore had anything to do with programming the thing?

---

Duh, I didn't suggest they said that at all. Please read more closely.

quote:

---

ow does one possibly interpret this statement to mean that he "invented" the internet? Wolf Blitzer certainly didn't think it was weird when Gore said it straight to his face and nobody in the media thought to say anything about it for two days after.

---

And why on earth would you expect the media to know what they were looking at? They merely record and regurgitate; in fact getting a response in two days is pretty quick, seeing as that arose from the public. He was a laughing stock before the media reflected that response.

quote:

---

He didn't say what you think he said, contracycle. You bought the lie.

---

Did I, or did you?
GORE: "Well, I will -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins, and it'll be comprehensive and sweeping, and I hope that it'll be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. "The U. S. Government

quote:

---

And that's exactly what he did. He created what was necessary to make the Internet what we have today. The bill that does so bears his name. It's called the "Gore Act."

---

And what does it do, and why would a packet switching network care?I can find:

quote:

---

"This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science."

---

What does that mean exactly? And how does this initiative in 1991 have anything to do with a technology, packet switching, which essentially IS the internet and was operational from the mid 60's?It remains nonsense I'm afraid:

quote:

---

Summary of eRumor:
Al Gore has made statements that he is the creator of the Internet.
bullet The Truth:
This comes from a television interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that was aired on March 9,1999. TruthOrFiction.com has a transcript of the entire broadcast. Vice President Gore was not yet a formal candidate for the presidency, but was clearly setting the stage for it, and Blitzer's questions focused on his potential campaign. At one point, Blitzer asked Gore why the Democrats should support him over rival Bill Bradley. Gore answered, "Well, I will -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins, and it'll be comprehensive and sweeping, and I hope that it'll be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

​

Some of the emails criticizing Gore for this statement point out that Gore has often shown ignorance about computers, so how could he have created the Internet? He did not claim, however, to be a computer geek who toiled in his basement and came up with the idea. He did claim that somehow as a member of congress he not only played in role in creating the Internet, but "took the initiative" to do it.

​

To his credit, Al Gore has participated in advancing information technology. When he was a senator, he supported funding for NSFNet through the High Performance Computing Act that became law in 1991. He wrote guest columns for Byte magazine that reflected an appreciation of technology. But even his supporters have to say that any notion of having created the Internet is tough to stomach.

​

According to the encyclopedia Britannica, the Internet dates back to at least 1973 and in an article that broke the Gore story, Declan McCullagh of Wired News says the Net goes back as far as 1967 when Al gore was 19 years old. The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency started experimenting with ways to allow networked computers to link and communicate. It was called The Internetting project and the ultimate system became known as The Internet. In a related article on March 11, 1999 in Wired News, McCullagh says Gore has introduced bills about software for teachers and a "federal research center for educational computing to support an "information systems highway."

​

We've never found any explanation by Gore as to why he made the claim, but he did have a sense of humor about it. At a meeting of Democratic leaders, he said, " I was pretty tired when I made that comment because I had been up very late the night before inventing the camcorder."

---

Al Gore claimed responsibility for creation of the Internet-Truth! - Truth or Fiction?

quote:

---

Huh? The people whose work he's supposedly taking credit for don't think he tried to take credit for their work.

---

Yes, they do. Admittedly they might be more exercised about it if the cvlaim were less ludicrous, but it would be safe to say that Gores stock fell dramatically in the industry as a result of this claim.

quote:

---

Gore did not take credit for inventing the internet. He took credit for getting the government to make it what it is today.

---

And what exactly did the government do? Build routers? Lay cable? As far as I am aware that was done under the auspices of DARPA, long before Gore was involved, and subsequent developement by private business.

quote:

---

Isn't it scary that a public figure's words can be so utterly misrepresented, and his credibility severely damaged, EVEN WHEN HIS ORIGINAL WORDS ARE ON PUBLIC RECORD?

---

The question is, who is manipulating the public record?"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."http://www.cnn.com/...sident.2000/transcript.gore/index.htmlHe quite clearly claims creation - and mainfestly doesn;t understand what he is talking about:

quote:

---

Larry Roberts, now CEO of Packetcom, noted that in 1969 the cost of computing dropped below that of communication, so packet switching became inevitable. Would advances in optical communication, now outpacing Moore's Law, soon make packet switching obsolete? Roberts doesn't think so.

---

--So yes, is it not scary that a public figure who has committed such an egregious and bombastic error in public can, purely through the respect accorded their "position", have partisans out and about offering their apologia?

As a sort of addition to what Contra is saying:Politicians are, and always have been (IMO) in the business of projecting a public image to the world, and they should be aware that what they say can and will be used against them in the media. If Gore didn't want what he said to be taken so strongly, he should have phrased the claim differently. It was pounced apon (and has stuck in the memory) because it was entirely in fitting with the preppy image he was unable to shift.The "Something of the night about him" quote, apart from being one of the few things we can thank Anne Widdecombe for, would not be grabbed by the public (and cartoonists) if we were talking about "cuddly little Michael Howard", would it?As a cheeky little Off-topic note: As the General Election is creeping up on us here in the UK - and as there were a few threads up and running during the US presedential elections - would anybody be interested if I proposed a topic on it? If not I won't bother.

quote:

---

I would say CNN is more middle of the road.

---

CNN used to be pretty middle of the road-leaning, but they have seen the success of Fox News in creating "brand loyalty" and have been moving rightward, along with MSNBC, and the rest of the mainstream news networks for a while now. This link is to the non-partisan media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's page on CNN/Time Warner.In particular, check out this article from 2001 entitled New CNN Chief Trying to Please GOP Elite.In particular

As you may have guessed, I am not really familiar with this subject, and just have what people have said on the board to go on. Maybe I am finding what Rrhain is saying persuasive because I like a good conspiracy story (very true).. but the sheer weirdness of having claimed to have created the internet - in the sense you seem to be suggesting - would make Gore to be a very deluded man, wouldn't it? A claim like that is only ever going to invite ridicule, so why make it unless you are a bit dim, or a compulsive liar, or something? (Thats not to deny that he might be one of those things).What intrigues me is that you are really certain that he didn't mean it the "sane" way. Is that because you believe him to be barking from his other actions, or is it purely because you believe the evidence to be so clear cut in this case that he could have meant nothing other than to be the designer and maker/programmer/whatever of the internet?What is your view about the open letter that those two nice fellows did saying that Gore was instrumental in promoting the internet as we know it today? Do you view that as a whopper that they cooked up after the event because they were politically or personally sympathetic to him?Just curious really. You seem really sure that he meant it the way that you think, and Rrhain has a totally different interpretation. Looks a bit like an impasse to me.