|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 11/04/2006 : 16:47:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
For starters this thread here is about the supposed failings of electronic voting, so your points about voter suppression, purging of registered voters and suspiciously finding Bush votes at the end of vote tallys are all off-topic. They are, in fact, various ways to cheat in a paper-ballot election.
Maybe I've misunderstood something...
I remember reading reports that said that it was in some of the electronic voting districts there were uncharacteristically big differences between exit-polls and the election result. And in those instances always in Bush's favour. Had the deviations been split 50-50 in favour of each, then I wouldn't have paid that much attention to it. Something is definitely fishy.
Certainly, I look forward to seeing what you find on the topic.
In the meantime, I trust that you agree that voter suppression, purging of registered voters and suspiciously finding Bush votes at the end of vote tallys are all off-topic in this thread about electronic voting? |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 19:37:24 [Permalink]
|
The irregularities were documented Mycroft. And your own points are blurred in several of these threads so to discard the additional voter fraud evidence because it isn't directly related to electronic vote fraud is disingenuous to say the least.
Of the "lot" you have read, Mycroft, I see nothing you have cited here that supports your dismissal of everything I have posted. Your claims to the effect of, "that isn't enough" or, "that isn't reliable" are not followed by any reasoned rebuttal of these claims by you or by anyone else. If all these things are mere fantasies then where are the intellectuals weighing in on your side claiming the claims are far-fetched?
Since the evidence is pretty strong for voter fraud including manipulating electronic voting machines, where is your evidence supporting it didn't happen? Where's the evidence exit polls are always unreliable? Where's the evidence machine tampering was unlikely given the ease it apparently is to do it and given human nature?
Voter fraud might indeed be rather common. But when a Presidential election is so close the fraud takes on new meaning. Blackwell has been convicted in civil court of harming voters' rights yet the vote count remains unchanged. We should all be outraged. Just because the drumbeat is still subdued is no reason to ignore the facts and just accept it as business as usual.
Whatever it is you are reading a lot of, it doesn't seem to be broadening your knowledge base of current events.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/04/2006 20:12:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 20:41:11 [Permalink]
|
What he's saying is that this thread was started to discuss cheating via electronic voting machines and that other stuff (like ohio fraud/suppression) is off topic.
Kinda like a thread hijack.
But back on topic...
As has been stated, there are so many ways to mess with e-voting that it is a wonder why anyone would want to use it in its current form. Old style paper ballots, as with any voting system, can indeed be cheated, but not nearly as easily as e-voting.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2006 : 20:53:11 [Permalink]
|
As far as voting in general, by any means, all I can do is repeat the following:
All I hear is Bush cheated, the Republicans cheated, etc.... etc.... etc...... When I read this, the only gripe I see is "Your side cheated better then mine." which is laughable. As long as the "Your side cheated better then mine" mentality continues, then the cheating will just get worse on both sides.
Besides, if the vote is based on who cheats best, I hope the better cheaters win. Shows more initiative, organization, and thought........
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2006 : 19:59:10 [Permalink]
|
So you got a war we didn't need and all the rest of the incompetent crap to go with it, OI. Looks like your premise that better cheaters make better leaders is a false one.
I understand the thread hijack issue, Dude. But when you post that the electronic voting machines are easily hacked and the reply is, that isn't evidence hacking occurred, then evidence of intent becomes relevant. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 00:56:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
The irregularities were documented Mycroft. And your own points are blurred in several of these threads so to discard the additional voter fraud evidence because it isn't directly related to electronic vote fraud is disingenuous to say the least.
It's about basic logic and what sets a political activist apart from a woo-woo conspiracy theorist. For the CTer, saying something could happen is proof enough that it did happen. Fortunately, most people know better.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Of the "lot" you have read, Mycroft, I see nothing you have cited here that supports your dismissal of everything I have posted.
Again, basic logic. Some things need evidence, some don't.
If you want to claim that voting machines have been hacked in order to fix elections, then you need evidence. That's an extraordinary claim, and it would take strong evidence.
If I want to point out your evidence is weak, that doesn't require any citation. I don't need to prove that saying something can be done is not evidence that it has been done. It's self-evident.
Can you imagine calling the police and telling them you know someone has been murdered. You didn't see it, nobody confessed to you, and you don't have any evidence, but you know it must have happened because you can think of at least three different ways of doing it!
They would laugh at you, wouldn't they? And rightly so.
It's self-evident that thinking of a way something could have been done is not at all the same as having evidence that it was done.
Conspiracy theorists do it all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Your claims to the effect of, "that isn't enough" or, "that isn't reliable" are not followed by any reasoned rebuttal of these claims by you or by anyone else. If all these things are mere fantasies then where are the intellectuals weighing in on your side claiming the claims are far-fetched?
My “reasoned rebuttal” is pointing out the obvious: that theorizing how something could have been done is not evidence that it was done.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Since the evidence is pretty strong for voter fraud including manipulating electronic voting machines, where is your evidence supporting it didn't happen? Where's the evidence exit polls are always unreliable? Where's the evidence machine tampering was unlikely given the ease it apparently is to do it and given human nature?
Whoah!
Where is your evidence that electronic voting machines were manipulated? All I saw were a few articles that showed how some grad students given the opportunity to open machines up and replace hardwar could do it. I've seen no evidence that it was done.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Voter fraud might indeed be rather common. But when a Presidential election is so close the fraud takes on new meaning. Blackwell h |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 01:04:08 [Permalink]
|
Did you even look at the Congressional report on voter fraud in Ohio, mycroft?
Did you look at the exit poll analyses?
Did you look at the exit poll analysis that showed discrepancies where there was no paper trail but not so where there was one?
It appears as if you've only looked at a fraction of what's been posted. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 02:17:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Did you even look at the Congressional report on voter fraud in Ohio, mycroft?
Did you look at the exit poll analyses?
Did you look at the exit poll analysis that showed discrepancies where there was no paper trail but not so where there was one?
It appears as if you've only looked at a fraction of what's been posted.
My impression is that Mycroft has come up with a simple general formula for "debating" in these fora: First, ignore every post except those which contain one or more political statements with which he disagrees. In other words, he first identifies and targets a liberal or a progressive. Then it's the person he goes after, not really their ideas. Next, he demands proof of every statement made by the poster he's targeted, even those statements he doesn't disagree with or doesn't even care about.
As I see it, Mycroft mostly doesn't provide evidence or proof himself -- he's a consumer, not a producer. His niche is on the "demand side" of evidence, not on the "supply side."
These demands are quick and simple to type, but they can keep his opponents busy as Hell researching the answers. It's making people work, not getting their answers, which is his actual goal. I suspect he gets his jollies from seeing others running around in circles, gathering information at his command, information he then happily ignores when it is presented.
It's apparent to me that Mycroft is a trained "debater," in the sense of someone who is a "mercenary of words," trained in being given a random position to expound, then running with it. Like a lawyer learns to do. Like Liberty University's championship debate team. Not in the fashion of a scientist, or a scholar who ideally wants to arrive at the truth, might try to do through dialogue.
I think Mycroft simply doesn't like liberals. He doesn't give a damn what they think, and isn't in the least interested in whatever information they might have to share. He instead prefers to see them squirm for him.
This is just my opinion, and of course I may be wrong. But a couple of days ago, I decided that my responses to Mycroft should be tailored differently than those I'd give to another poster, to avoid what I saw as his cheap "debating" style tricks.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/06/2006 02:31:35 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 07:58:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So you got a war we didn't need and all the rest of the incompetent crap to go with it, OI. Looks like your premise that better cheaters make better leaders is a false one.
Unfortunately, your premise that my premise is wrong can't be proven..... We always have a war we don't need, don't have a war we do need. So, the only thing that you added, that I have to agree with, is all the incompetence in it.........
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 10:48:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Did you even look at the Congressional report on voter fraud in Ohio, mycroft?
Did you look at the exit poll analyses?
Did you look at the exit poll analysis that showed discrepancies where there was no paper trail but not so where there was one?
Yes, I have looked at it all. Both now (in review) and years ago when these issues were first brought to light. The truth is there is disagreement on the significance of the exit polls, varied explanations on the cause.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
It appears as if you've only looked at a fraction of what's been posted.
If there is something specific you believe makes your case, please feel free to bring it forth. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 11:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
My impression is that Mycroft has come up with a simple general formula for "debating" in these fora: First, ignore every post except those which contain one or more political statements with which he disagrees…
Well, yes. I am certainly more drawn to respond where I see faulty logic than not.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
…In other words, he first identifies and targets a liberal or a progressive. Then it's the person he goes after, not really their ideas...
You contradict yourself here. First you say I target the idea, ”those which contain one or more political statements with which he disagrees…” then you say I target the person.
It is, of course, a distinction with little difference. If I disagree with an idea, I will disagree with the person advancing that idea. If one of us later changes our mind, the disagreement with both the idea and the person will go away.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Next, he demands proof of every statement made by the poster he's targeted, even those statements he doesn't disagree with or doesn't even care about.
Certainly not every statement or I wouldn't have time for my career, family or even personal needs. I limit myself to such statements that seem to be ill-founded or that lead to conclusions I believe are illogical.
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
As I see it, Mycroft mostly doesn't provide evidence or proof himself -- he's a consumer, not a producer. His niche is on the "demand side" of evidence, not on the "supply side."
I can see how you would come to that idea, but it depends on what I'm arguing. Playing “Devil's Advocate” in general takes less work than does advancing an idea you want to convince others.
You cannot prove a negative, all you can do is point out the evidence is insufficient. If you assert that there are pink unicorns frolicking in the rings of Saturn, I will be unable to find evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't prove your assertion to be correct. However if I want to prove there are pink unicorns frolicking in the rings of Saturn, I will need lots of strong evidence.
Do you see the difference?
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
These demands are quick and simple to type, but they can keep his opponents busy as Hell researching the answers. It's making people work, not getting their answers, which is his actual goal. I suspect he gets his jollies from seeing others running around in circles, gathering information at his command, information he then happily ignores when it is presented.
I would counter that when Beskeptigal (or anyone else) produces sixteen or more links in the same post, many of them redundant, many of them only tangentially related to the topic, and without ever isolating the specific part of the link she thinks supports her point of view, she is doing what you accuse me of: creating make-work.
That's why I've spoken earlier of quality over |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 12:00:35 [Permalink]
|
Interesting to see how much of what I'd written you essentially did not dispute, Mycroft. But it wasn't my point to either engage you in debate about your debating style, nor to defame you for it. Instead, it was merely to pass on my observations, which I am now even more convinced were sound.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/06/2006 12:01:33 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 06:36:15 [Permalink]
|
You know, I forgot one of the biggest problems with these stupid machines...... Sometimes they just don't functon. Sorry.... 2 hour wait...... Machine not working......
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2006 : 18:52:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
You know, I forgot one of the biggest problems with these stupid machines...... Sometimes they just don't functon. Sorry.... 2 hour wait...... Machine not working......
Peace
Joe
No kidding, OI! Isn't there an old saying that goes something like, "To really screw things up requires the use of a computer"?
I read about how both Hillary Clinton and a couple of GOP politicians had trouble with voting on machines. Without any need to prove fraud or even a potential for fraud, isn't it obvious that paper ballots just make the most sense?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2006 : 00:53:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
So you got a war we didn't need and all the rest of the incompetent crap to go with it, OI. Looks like your premise that better cheaters make better leaders is a false one.
Unfortunately, your premise that my premise is wrong can't be proven..... We always have a war we don't need, don't have a war we do need. So, the only thing that you added, that I have to agree with, is all the incompetence in it.........
Peace
Joe
????????? Getting hard to follow here.
Your premise was cheating in the election just showed the cheaters were smarter than the non-cheaters therefore better leaders.
It's a no brainer we have a crappy Pres right now. Surely you are not saying we have no way to know that? I merely used the Iraq war as an example of the result of having a crappy Pres. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/09/2006 00:53:43 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
