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
 
  -Challenge to BBV doubters. Defend the Diebold Admissions DEMActivist  Aug-03-03 01:04 AM   #0 
  - Why am I not surprised?  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:32 AM   #1 
  - Well, DANG!  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 02:22 AM   #2 
  - I'll give it the college try  foo_bar   Aug-03-03 02:51 AM   #3 
  - If you are a doubter, you were supposed to *defend* Diabold  w4rma   Aug-03-03 02:54 AM   #4 
  - Excellent, foo_bar!  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 03:13 AM   #5 
  - Looking for defenders....  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 10:49 AM   #6 
  - FACTS, people, FACTS...  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 11:40 AM   #7 
     - This Is Controversial How, Exactly?  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 11:47 AM   #8 
        - Just can't leave the personal vendetta behind can you?  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 11:48 AM   #9 
        - What Personal Vendetta?  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 11:51 AM   #10 
        - Then DEFEND the Diebold responses....  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 11:53 AM   #12 
           - As I Said  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:04 PM   #22 
              - Did I say "coup"? Did I infer any such thing?  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:16 PM   #26 
                 - You Certainly Inferred It  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:28 PM   #33 
                    - Again, guilty of putting words in others' mouths  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:32 PM   #36 
                       - Boggle. You Don't Call These Comments You Made Dismissive?  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:37 PM   #39 
                          - Dismissive, perhaps....  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:49 PM   #45 
                             - Because There's No Controversy Here  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:51 PM   #46 
                                - Oh, now hold on a minute...  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:55 PM   #49 
        - Personal vendetta ????? Anybody home there ?  birdman   Aug-03-03 01:57 PM   #50 
           - This is really quite simple...  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 02:08 PM   #53 
              - Perhaps It's Because, for Better or Worse  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 02:11 PM   #54 
              - I'm sorry, YOU raised the issue of "personal vendetta"  birdman   Aug-03-03 02:16 PM   #56 
                 - Would you care to address the content of the thread?  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 02:30 PM   #62 
                    - Diebold "admissions" are not relevant  birdman   Aug-03-03 02:37 PM   #63 
                       - Off topic....and unnecessary  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 02:48 PM   #64 
                          - Cut the nonsense. You made a ridiculous statement  birdman   Aug-03-03 02:53 PM   #66 
                             - LOL, still can't discuss the Diebold admission, huh?  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 02:58 PM   #67 
                                - There is no topic  birdman   Aug-03-03 06:45 PM   #69 
        - Name the "broad sweeping claims" -- quote, please  BevHarris   Aug-03-03 11:51 AM   #11 
        - "quit editorializing and quoting what others have written."  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 12:02 PM   #14 
           - Nah, it's all coincidence  Gordon25   Aug-03-03 12:28 PM   #18 
              - It's Impossible to Prove a Negative  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:14 PM   #25 
                 - The FACTS re Polls and Turnout in 2002  Eloriel   Aug-03-03 03:25 PM   #68 
        - We are talking about VOTES to elect the leaders in our country.  Lars39   Aug-03-03 11:54 AM   #13 
        - I'm Sorry, Where Do I Suggest That?  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 12:07 PM   #16 
           - Why are you grilling the people investigating then?  Lars39   Aug-03-03 12:34 PM   #20 
              - Why? Because Last I Checked, This Was a Discussion Board.  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:18 PM   #27 
                 - Asking probing questions..........you have been answered countless times.  Lars39   Aug-03-03 01:24 PM   #30 
                 - I Haven't Asked Too Many Questions, Personally  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:31 PM   #35 
                 - Here's one for you DTH...  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:25 PM   #31 
                    - It Would Depend  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:35 PM   #38 
                       - So, if...  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:46 PM   #43 
                          - I might add, Dr. Doug Jones, who is on the board of examiners  BevHarris   Aug-03-03 01:52 PM   #47 
                          - "This is not the case."  Fredda Weinberg   Aug-03-03 02:14 PM   #55 
                             - Can you explain...  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 02:18 PM   #58 
        - Please explain, then...  Gordon25   Aug-03-03 12:03 PM   #15 
        - I Agree With You  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 12:09 PM   #17 
           - Please try to understand....  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 12:29 PM   #19 
           - Ms. Harris Did Claim  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:39 PM   #40 
              - Quote accurately or not at all.  BevHarris   Aug-03-03 01:49 PM   #44 
                 - How Have I Exaggerated? How Have I Misinterpreted?  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 02:01 PM   #51 
                    - Asked and answered, elsewhere. Now about Diebold:  BevHarris   Aug-03-03 02:22 PM   #59 
                       - THANK YOU  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 02:52 PM   #65 
           - You ignored the crux of my post  Gordon25   Aug-03-03 01:13 PM   #24 
              - Not Ignored, Agreed  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:40 PM   #41 
                 - Time date stamp  Gordon25   Aug-03-03 02:05 PM   #52 
        - Negligence does not equal intent  Generic Other   Aug-03-03 12:50 PM   #21 
           - Actually....  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:09 PM   #23 
           - ALL Software Releases Are Like This  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:22 PM   #29 
              - As a software developer, you need not tell me....  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:28 PM   #32 
                 - Obviously Not Acceptable  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:30 PM   #34 
                 - Ahhhh, progress....  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 01:33 PM   #37 
                    - Certainly Negligence  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:43 PM   #42 
                       - And maybe whether or not Diebold's user manual included  Eloriel   Aug-03-03 02:28 PM   #61 
                 - So, the political party which is losing at a precinct  Pobeka   Aug-03-03 02:17 PM   #57 
                    - Yes...you've got it.  DEMActivist   Aug-03-03 02:26 PM   #60 
           - Of Course  DoveTurnedHawk   Aug-03-03 01:20 PM   #28 
              - Like I said last night  Generic Other   Aug-03-03 01:53 PM   #48 
 

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