|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Al Gore, the Internet, and the Gullibility of the Populace | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Incorrect. You obviously didn't read the NORC report. It says that by every single standard that could be used to recount the entire vote, Gore won. 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 Link I assume you don’t believe CNN to be a right wing neo con organization do you? The CNN article further states:
quote: 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: NORC’s stated goal was to assess the reliability of the ballot systems, not declare a winner. Get it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I assume you don’t believe CNN to be a right wing neo con organization do you? Why wouldn't we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
We? who are you speaking for and what is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Monk responds to me:
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. 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:
Use of Palm Beach County standard Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore. Inclusion of overvotes In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. 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: 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: 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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Rrhain writes: 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. The only contradiction is in your head.
quote: quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We? who are you speaking for Well, me, and the few of us here whose political views have been expounded enough for me to be familiar with them.
and what is your point? That CNN is, in fact, a right-leaning propaganda outfit. I mean, why would we consider it otherwise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Monk responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: Use of Palm Beach County standard Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore. Inclusion of overvotes In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes: That CNN is, in fact, a right-leaning propaganda outfit. I mean, why would we consider it otherwise? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trae Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 442 From: Fremont, CA, USA Joined: |
Yet, we're talking about the media. So if I follow you, the media is sees democrats as the opposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Watch closely and I'll say it again: it was totally trivial.
quote: 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: Many protocols, only one INTERNET.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Duh, I didn't suggest they said that at all. Please read more closely.
quote: 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: 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 what does it do, and why would a packet switching network care? I can find:
quote: 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: Al Gore claimed responsibility for creation of the Internet-Truth! - Truth or Fiction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: 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.html He quite clearly claims creation - and mainfestly doesn;t understand what he is talking about:
quote: -- 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5835 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 121 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024