Another Nail in the Woo Coffin

[corplinx]

Get around to reading that link I keep posting some day.

I've read that link. I just don't see your point. Look, I find it hilarious that you wallow in the woo that is Bev Harris and then try to tell me what a skeptic is and isn't. Perhaps a Ken Hovind fan will try to pull that "no true scotsman" fallacy on me too.

Perhaps you should try reading it without blinders on once or twice and see it for what it is. These people are creating a tapestry pure and simple. This is what kooks do. Innuendo, inference, etc. No proof.

And the sad part is that you seem to have marked it out for it instantly.

Did you notice most of the problems with the Diebold system mentioned on that page are because of incompetence in their administration by the counties themselves?

Did you know that punched chads were found all over the counting rooms in Florida?

I have it on good faith those punchcards were "designed for fraud" because the company made it so easy to pop out. Its obvious to anyone with a brain and no true skeptic would question that something sinister is going on.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I've read that link. I just don't see your point. Look, I find it hilarious that you wallow in the woo that is Bev Harris and then try to tell me what a skeptic is and isn't. Perhaps a Ken Hovind fan will try to pull that "no true scotsman" fallacy on me too.

Perhaps you should try reading it without blinders on once or twice and see it for what it is. These people are creating a tapestry pure and simple. This is what kooks do. Innuendo, inference, etc. No proof.

May I ask what constitutes proof of a computer system's vulnerability in corplinx-world, if repeated and public demonstrations to not qualify? If that's just a tapestry of innuendo and inference, what could possibly qualify as proof that a system is dangerously designed?

And the sad part is that you seem to have marked it out for it instantly.

Did you notice most of the problems with the Diebold system mentioned on that page are because of incompetence in their administration by the counties themselves?

Other nations seem to have managed to get around the problem of county officials who are not computer security professionals by making the voting machines secure in the first place.

That's a red herring, though. The point is not really that the machines suck and clueless people can make a mess. The point is that a genuinely malicious and clueful person is going to have no technical difficulty getting into a Diebold box and doing whatever they want with the election results.

Did you know that punched chads were found all over the counting rooms in Florida?

I have it on good faith those punchcards were "designed for fraud" because the company made it so easy to pop out. Its obvious to anyone with a brain and no true skeptic would question that something sinister is going on.

This is an apples and oranges comparison. It is necessary for a punchcard to have removable chads. It is not necessary for a voting computer to have a hidden second set of books, or to keep its data in an easily accessible MS Access database.

It's also a tu quoque argument. Just because punchcards suck does not mean that it's okay for voting machines to suck.

Considering the seriousness of the topic, is there any chance you could start taking this seriously? If there is ever a time to behave like an adult, this is probably it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now Badnarik and Cobb are saying they'll pay for a recount in Ohio.

http://www.sierratimes.com/04/11/11/Presidential_Candidates_To_Demand_Ohio_Recount.htm

That'll be another US$100K down the gutter if it turns out there's nothing to find. I'm glad they're doing it though.

Hand recounts in Ohio and New Hampshire should settle this business one way or the other.

It's interesting that it's the minor parties in this election who are the ones stumping up the cash to audit the system. Nader, Badnarik and Cobb aren't winning anything no matter how these recounts turn out but they're still going the extra mile (and the extra dollar) to make sure things are above board. That gets my respect.

 

[corplinx]

May I ask what constitutes proof of a computer system's vulnerability in corplinx-world, if repeated and public demonstrations to not qualify? If that's just a tapestry of innuendo and inference, what could possibly qualify as proof that a system is dangerously designed?

Are we moving the goal posts now? Instead of widespread fraud, now we are just concerned about security vulnerabilities in the equipment?

Considering the seriousness of the topic, is there any chance you could start taking this seriously? If there is ever a time to behave like an adult, this is probably it. Fraud is a serious accusation.

 

[Ion]

Are we moving the goal posts now? Instead of widespread fraud, now we are just concerned about security vulnerabilities in the equipment?
...

No.

The goalposts stay right there, on fraud:

that's how fraud takes place, with security vulnerability in the equipment, with lack of receipts.

And with lots of 'moral values', Republican style.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Are we moving the goal posts now? Instead of widespread fraud, now we are just concerned about security vulnerabilities in the equipment?

Scroll back up a bit and check. You actually moved the goalposts yourself. This is how this subthread of the discussion has gone:

Kevin: If you're not concerned about the fact that massive fraud is possible and in fact easy, you're uninformed or not a skeptic.

corplinx: No true Scotsman!

Kevin: Read the link. The available evidence clearly shows that massive fraud is possible and in fact easy.

corplinx: Bev Harris is a kook! You're a woo!

Kevin: What kind of evidence would satisfy you that massive fraud is possible and in fact easy?

corplinx: You moved the goalposts!

As I said, scroll up and read what has been written if you don't believe me. It's all there in black, white, and kind of really pale blue.

Can we clear this up? Do you hold that massive fraud in this election was not possible and easy? Do you hold that this is true but not a cause for concern? Or are you just emphasising the point that this alone is not proof fraud actually took place?

[Edited for embarassing their/there mistake].

 

[Dorian Gray]

It is simple: why wouldn't everyone want a system that minimizes or eliminates as much fraud as possible? Whatever means used to cast a vote needs a system of checks and balances, just like everything else. To believe otherwise simply on the basis that your guy won is WOO.

We should talk about this, and Congress should address this, NOW, right now, while there is no election and nothing is at stake. Instead of the usual 'wait until a presidential election and hire assloads of lawyers'.

 

[corplinx]

Scroll back up a bit and check. You actually moved the goalposts yourself. This is how this subthread of the discussion has gone:

Kevin: If you're not concerned about the fact that massive fraud is possible and in fact easy, you're uninformed or not a skeptic.

corplinx: No true Scotsman!

Kevin: Read the link. The available evidence clearly shows that massive fraud is possible and in fact easy.

corplinx: Bev Harris is a kook! You're a woo!

Kevin: What kind of evidence would satisfy you that massive fraud is possible and in fact easy?

corplinx: You moved the goalposts!

As I said, scroll up and read what has been written if you don't believe me. It's all there in black, white, and kind of really pale blue.

Can we clear this up? Do you hold that massive fraud in this election was not possible and easy? Do you hold that this is true but not a cause for concern? Or are you just emphasising the point that this alone is not proof fraud actually took place?

[Edited for embarassing their/there mistake].

I asked for evidence that widespread fraud was plausible and easy. I even tried to help you with the scenario.

You still have not presented it.

What you have presented are ways to exploit a particular voting machine system. You haven't presented a way for the them to exploited en masse.

Yes, you did pull a no true scotsman.
Yes, you have used Bev Harris as a source.
Yes, you have moved the goalposts.

Perhaps you have forgotten some of your claims. Here is one:
Diebold designed their machines to facilitate fraud.

You still haven't provided evidence even after being called on that claim.

 

[Ion]

...
Perhaps you have forgotten some of your claims. Here is one:
Diebold designed their machines to facilitate fraud.

You still haven't provided evidence even after being called on that claim.

Sure there is:

Diebold designed their machines without paper trail.

Paper trail is as easy to do as bank receipts are, but Diebold didn't do it because it has fraud in mind.