The usual Kevin election post.

[Ion]

There are certainly some worrying things going on with the recount.
...

I read carefully your post many times.

In today's The San Diego Union Tribune reporting on the vote recount in Washington state for governor -that has Democrat Gregoire ahead of Republican Rossi, right now- I read that a Democrat doesn't want to have the fiasco in Ohio happening in Washington and complains that the Ohio Democrats gave up too early.

By Ohio I understand he refers to the Presidential recount in Ohio.

I hope the Democrats and the Greens in Ohio don't give up and stay on top of correcting infractions, like the ones you smell in your post.

In another thread, TillEulenspiegel brings up lots of fuss that the Ohio Democrats are seemingly doing to prevent and reverse infractions in Ohio, according to the radio.

I hope that's true.
For the sake of democracy.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Which brings us back to Triad and what its rep was doing, trying to find out which precincts in Hocking would be recounted by hand, and offering tips to help make sure the recount matched the original vote. “Highly respected company,” Whidden notes. “Triad has a rule against corporate donations to political parties; their employees may, but they don't. Not a Diebold situation. They answer questions openly. They believe in customer service.” The problem arises when the customer service, even innocently, dovetails with the same mechanism that guarantees that the precinct selection isn’t random, and full hand recounts don’t occur.

Of course Kevin "Woo" Lowe claimed earlier in this thread that Triad was a "Republican-linked voting machine company". There was even an affidavit to prove it! I asked for evidence beyond that, and predictably, none was provided. The article above says they weren't. Since that is the only evidence we have to go by, we can assume that Woo-Lo is wrong. Again. Or did he get his evidence from Bev Harris, a certified liar?

If you're gonna try and quote from something I linked please try to get it right...

You are clearly misrepresenting what Kevin said. But I'll stay out of that.

Like Keith Olbermann wrote in the link (already bolded above): "The problem arises when the customer service, even innocently, dovetails with the same mechanism that guarantees that the precinct selection isn’t random, and full hand recounts don’t occur."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

[/i]
You are clearly misrepresenting what Kevin said. But I'll stay out of that.
[/B]

No, I am quoting Kevin exactly. He said Triad is a "Republican-linked voting machine company". I asked for evidence. Of course, none was provided.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No.

I told you already the affidavit was by a Hocking official who said that a Triad employee inquired about which precint was to do the 3% hand recount, manipulated a voting machine without bi partisan observers present, and coached election officials on how to falsify recount data.

All actions against the rules.

Is comprehension always difficult to you?
Because only losers in comprehension like you deserve a loser for President.
Normal people deserve better.

I already told you that Kevin claimed that Triad is a "Republican-linked voting machine company". I asked for evidence. None was provided.

Is comprehension always difficult to [sic] you?
Because only losers in comprehension [sic] like you deserve a loser for President.
Normal people deserve better.

 

[Ion]

I already told you that Kevin claimed that Triad is a "Republican-linked voting machine company". I asked for evidence. None was provided.
...

You wrote "...There was even an affidavit to prove it!..." that Kevin used to prove his claim about the link between Republicans and Triad.

This is false:

Kevin's mentioning of the affidavit is about Triad's breach of rules, it is not about proof of the link.

The link between Republicans and Triad seems to me (seems, it is not proven) to be apparent when the Triad employee coached elections officials on how to falsify the recount data so that the status quo of the voting count in Bush's favor remains.

With such a Triad, one might as well not do the recount in Ohio at all...

-whatever the real winner is there, Kerry or Bush-

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I already told you that Kevin claimed that Triad is a "Republican-linked voting machine company". I asked for evidence. None was provided.

I actually couldn't recall the basis for that remark on my part. A process of googling that look less than a minute later, however:

Triad is owned by a man named Tod Rapp, who has also donated money to both the Republican Party and the election campaign of George W. Bush. Triad manufactures punch-card voting systems, and also wrote the computer program that tallied the punch-card votes cast in 41 Ohio counties last November.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

This illustrates the difference between intelligent debate and talking to Scrut. An intelligent debater checks the facts and then points out weaknesses in other people's positions.

On an unrelated and silly note, election equipment has now become part of the tale in Nigerian scams. I got this email just today.

From: amaduyusuf@zipmail.com.brÂ_
Subject: URGENT BUSINESS RESPONSE
To: amaduyusuf@myway.com

BUSINESS PROPOSAL

SIR,

I GUESS THIS LETTER MAY COME TO YOU AS A SURPRISE SINCE I HAVE NO PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE WITH YOU. I AM THE CHAIRMAN TENDER BOARD OF INDEPENDENT NATIONAL
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC) I GOT YOUR CONTACT IN THE COURSE OF MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE PERSON WITH WHOM TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE TRANSFER OF FUND VALUED TWENTY-TWO MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS ($22M) TO A SAFE FOREIGN ACCOUNT.

NEVERTHELESS, THE ABOVE FUND IN QUESTION IS NOT CONNECTED WITH ARMS OR DRUGS. IT IS THE PRODUCT OF OVER INVOICE ON CONTRACT AWARDED IN 2002 BY INEC,
TO A FOREIGN COMPANY FOR THE SUPPLY OF ELECTORAL MATERIALS THAT WAS USED FOR 2003 ELECTIONS IN NIGERIA. THIS CONTRACT HAS LONG BEEN EXECUTED AND PAYMENT
OF THE ACTUAL CONTRACT AMOUNT MADE TO THE FOREIGN CONTRACTOR LEAVING THE BALANCE OF $22M U.S DOLLARS IN A DORMANT ACCOUNT WHICH MY COLLEAGUES AND I NOW WANT TO TRANSFER OUT OF NIGERIA INTO A RELIABLE FOREIGN ACCOUNT FOR OUR PERSONAL USE.

I snipped the rest because it was just the usual boring Nigerian scam fluff, rather than because I care about the copyright issues involved in reproducing the work of scammers.

Those scam artists keep up with the times.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I actually couldn't recall the basis for that remark on my part. A process of googling that look less than a minute later, however:



http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml

This illustrates the difference between intelligent debate and talking to Scrut. An intelligent debater checks the facts and then points out weaknesses in other people's positions.

On an unrelated and silly note, election equipment has now become part of the tale in Nigerian scams. I got this email just today.



I snipped the rest because it was just the usual boring Nigerian scam fluff, rather than because I care about the copyright issues involved in reproducing the work of scammers.

Those scam artists keep up with the times.

Truthout.org?!?!?!? OMFG!!! This is your source? Oh yeah, they're reeeeeeeeeal credible. You can't post to a woo-woo site to prove a woo-woo conspiracy.

A couple of points:
1) How about a link to the FEC (or equally legitimate site), showing these donations?
2) Assuming Triad made donations to the Republican party, can you show that they did so to the exclusion of donations to any Democratic candidates?
3) If you can show #2, are you saying that anyone who made a donation to the Republican party also contributed to election fraud?

 

[Ion]

...
2) Assuming Triad made donations to the Republican party, can you show that they did so to the exclusion of donations to any Democratic candidates?
3) If you can show #2, are you saying that anyone who made a donation to the Republican party also contributed to election fraud?

2) would show a link between Republicans and Triad.

Regardless of 2) and 3) though, the affidavit shows Triad's effort to falsify recount data, and that is fraud.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Truthout.org?!?!?!? OMFG!!! This is your source? Oh yeah, they're reeeeeeeeeal credible. You can't post to a woo-woo site to prove a woo-woo conspiracy.

If you have evidence that the claim is false you are free to show it to us.

Alternatively you could engage with the substantial points at issue rather than whining on at length (yet again) about a relatively trivial matter.

The technician's conduct was illegal, and for good reason.

 

[Skeptic]

If you have evidence that the claim is false you are free to show it to us.

Kevin, I just set up a web site claiming I am queen of the space unicorns at www.skepticisqueenofthespaceunicorns.com . If you have evidence that this claim is false you are free to show it to us.

Of course, the truth here is simple. Conspiracy theories are common when a group that considers itself immensly superior to others--Arab-Muslims, "progressive" liberals, academics--finds itself poorer or less powerful than the "inferior" group they hate (the "infidels" in Europe and the USA, the "stupid" conservatives or christians, the "greedy" executives and lawyers who make much more money than the professors, etc., etc.)

Since this could not be because the self-superior group is wrong about something, let lone because the "inferior" group had done something right, it all has to be a conspiracy to deny the superior people their rightful place as the victors. "We didn't lose, they cheated" is an immensly comforting thought to those who want to keep the illusion of their superiority in the face of reality.

 

[RandFan]

If you have evidence that the claim is false you are free to show it to us.

Yes, absent evidence to prove the negative the claim must be true.

Nice logic.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you have evidence that the claim is false you are free to show it to us.

You're the one who made the claim, you must provide the evidence. Am I supposed to link to a site that show's he didn't make a donation? LOL!

 

[Ion]

To:

Kevin, I just set up a web site claiming I am queen of the space unicorns at www.skepticisqueenofthespaceunicorns.com .
...

and:

Yes, absent evidence to prove the negative the claim must be true.

Nice logic.

and:

You're the one who made the claim, you must provide the evidence.
...

Kevin did provide a link with the claim of connections between Triad and Republicans.

It is alleged here that the link is of a little known site.

The link however only reports the testimonies of officials Sherole Eaton, David Cobb and John Conyers.

So the focus is on Eaton, Cobb and Conyers.

Not on the little known web site.

But on officials Eaton, Cobb and Conyers.

In that link, Sherole Eaton -election official for the recount in Hocking county- and David Cobb - a candidate for the Green party- speak out of fraudulent behavior by Triad during the recount (when Triad asked the hand recount to be secretely superseded by the voting machine that Triad tried to tamper with secretely).
In that link, John Conyers -from the Democrat party- is concerned about fraud during the recount and emphasizes connections between the owner of Triad -Rapp- and Republicans.

Any problem accepting as true Eaton's affidavit, Cobb's concern about fraud, and Conyers' concern about fraud and emphasis on the Triad connections with Republicans?

If yes, show me data supporting your problem.

If no, then connections between Triad and the Republicans and favoritism by Triad of Republicans are likely based on the truthfulness of Eaton, Cobb and Conyers.

So you cannot disprove connections between Triad and the Republicans and favoritism by Triad of Bush unless you show data countering the exposed fraud, or you have a problem with Eaton's affidavit, Cobb's concern about fraud and Conyers' concerns about fraud and connections between Triad and Republicans.

Go ahead.

 

[RandFan]

If yes, show me data supporting your problem.

Woosh...right over your head.

1. Keving makes a claim.

2. He is asked to support it.

3. He provides a questionable link.

4. Again he is called on it.

5. Kevin asks those who question his claim to prove it wrong.

6. These facts will mean nothing to you.

 

[Ion]

This:

Woosh...right over your head.

1. Keving makes a claim.
...
3. He provides a questionable link.
...

is incorrect.

Kevin didn't provide a questionable link, Kevin provided a link with authentic testimonies by Eaton, Cobb and Conyers.

To dispute the authenticity of the data in the link is to dispute the authenticity of Eaton's, Cobb's and Conyers' testimonies.

Go ahead, I am watching.

 

[RandFan]

Having gone to the site I can say that it reads like any other conspiracy theory site. I don't see any proof of anything. An affidavit is not empirical evidence. Furthermore it doesn't really tell us much. This is very typical of the quality of evidence given by UFO and Big Foot believers. Rather disappointing for a skeptics site.

Oh well, once politics are involved skepticism goes out the window.

For what it is worth there are far better conspiracies and better evidence for those conspiracies on the internet. Google IRS conspiracy or Tri-Lateral commission sometime. This would be a good exercise for those who buy theories to learn critical thinking skills. Unless of course you believe EVERY conspiracy.

Edited to add that it is dispointing that this tripe is posted to randi.org (skeptics site).

 

[RandFan]

This:

is incorrect.

Kevin didn't provide a questionable link, Kevin provided a link with authentic testimonies by Eaton, Cobb and Conyers.

To dispute the authenticity of the data in the link is to dispute the authenticity of Eaton's, Cobb's and Conyers' testimonies.

Go ahead, I am watching.

Woosh...

 

[Ion]

Having gone to the site I can say that it reads like any other conspiracy theory site.
...

It doesn't matter how it reads to you.

Eaton's, Cobb's and Conyers' testimonies are authentic.

So the site is not questionable like you wrote, it has authentic testimonies.

Regarding the value of these testimonies, can you counter them with your data against theirs?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Having gone to the site I can say that it reads like any other conspiracy theory site. I don't see any proof of anything. An affidavit is not empirical evidence. Furthermore it doesn't really tell us much. This is very typical of the quality of evidence given by UFO and Big Foot believers. Rather disappointing for a skeptics site.

Oh well, once politics are involved skepticism goes out the window.

For what it is worth there are far better conspiracies and better evidence for those conspiracies on the internet. Google IRS conspiracy or Tri-Lateral commission sometime. This would be a good exercise for those who buy theories to learn critical thinking skills. Unless of course you believe EVERY conspiracy.

Edited to add that it is dispointing that this tripe is posted to randi.org (skeptics site).

I agree. I think this whole thing is passing Kevin & Ion in both lanes.

 

[Ion]

I agree. I think this whole thing is passing Kevin & Ion in both lanes.

I don't agree:

.) the site has authentic testimonies, so the site is legit;

.) you have no data to counter these testimonies.