You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #51: How Have I Exaggerated? How Have I Misinterpreted? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-03-03 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. How Have I Exaggerated? How Have I Misinterpreted?
You misquoted and exaggerated, and then put in your own interpretation.

We'll have to disagree, then. I saw your thread about how you were going to check in once-a-day because you were concerned about being killed. I saw your thread about the Pentagon Papers.

Feel free to quote the original material, if you are so inclined. I'd be very interested to see how I'm supposedly exaggerating or misinterpreting your positions.

I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe this is deliberate malice by Diebold. I'd also be interested in knowing, for the record, whether you believe there is a conspiracy to rig votes.

I would be amazed and impressed if you gave me a straight answer on this.

Back to the ISSUE: Diebold rebuttals -- why do you keep hijacking this thread, which is about the Diebold rebuttals, trying to talk about other things?

Because last I checked, talking about matters related to a thread topic was still allowed here. (Last I checked, even talking about matters UNrelated to a thread topic was still allowed here, too.)

Start your own thread about your issues with "Bev Harris" if you want. This thread is about the Diebold issues.

You appear to be quite fond of doing this, but please don't tell me what to do. I'm not really interested in starting a thread on this. I'm happy to continue the various discussions in this thread, however.

What I do see here, when you are on topic, is this:
You agree that Diebold has acted negligently.
You agree that Diebold's answers aren't adequate.
You agree that making a statement that they used Windows exactly as is, off the shelf, when actually they made significant modifications, is "suspicious."
We're getting there.


Again, I would note that few if any people on the "skeptic" side that I am aware of would dispute any of the above. The controversy arises more from the bolder claims that some have made, and also from the arguably overhyped nature of this issue.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC