"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogbdb$44t$29@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vqm2cs5v8alnf1@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
> >> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas?
Florida?"
> >> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> >results
> >> >of
> >> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
> >> >
> >> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes
were
> >> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
> >counted,
> >> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the
final
> >> >official count had given him.
> >>
> >> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> >> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win
some.
> >
> >Read what I wrote LP, they counted EVERY vote, not just the proper ones,
> >EVERY vote, and Bush won by a larger margin than the official vote gave
him.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>

Remember what you always say about CNN whenever someone uses it against you
Lloyd? :p


> >You are wrong once again, which is at least normal for you.
> >And I saw the ballots in question, they were very simple to use, I've
voted
> >with them myself before, and Chicago used the same ballot in the same
> >election without a problem.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> news:bob0k1$s2a$1@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> >> > In article <bo8tgh012ij@enews1.newsguy.com>,
> >> >> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> > And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas?
Florida?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogbf1$44t$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
> >>
> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
> >like
> >> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the
same
> >> thing
> >> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> >> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
> >> >
> >> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
> >> calling.
> >> >
> >> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >or self-agrandizement being
> >> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> >> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
> >> >
> >> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
> >expertise.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
> >> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science"
is
> >at
> >> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
> >just
> >> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't
make
> >me
> >> an expert in physics.
> >>
> >> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
> >answers,
> >> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no
"established
> >> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
> >> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
> >the
> >> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
> >>
> >> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
> >> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
> >Phd's
> >> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow,
focused
> >> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
> >> check on an account with insufficient funds.
> >
> >
> >You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not
make
> >him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
>
> Like atmospheric chemistry?
>
>
> >Someday I
> >really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let
them
> >in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
> >
> >
> Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.

Hell Lloyd, all he has to do is show them this thread, you've damned
yourself here a hundred times over with your ignorant rantings.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogbf1$44t$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
> >>
> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
> >like
> >> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the
same
> >> thing
> >> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> >> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
> >> >
> >> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
> >> calling.
> >> >
> >> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >or self-agrandizement being
> >> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> >> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
> >> >
> >> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
> >expertise.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
> >> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science"
is
> >at
> >> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
> >just
> >> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't
make
> >me
> >> an expert in physics.
> >>
> >> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
> >answers,
> >> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no
"established
> >> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
> >> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
> >the
> >> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
> >>
> >> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
> >> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
> >Phd's
> >> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow,
focused
> >> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
> >> check on an account with insufficient funds.
> >
> >
> >You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not
make
> >him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
>
> Like atmospheric chemistry?
>
>
> >Someday I
> >really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let
them
> >in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
> >
> >
> Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.

Hell Lloyd, all he has to do is show them this thread, you've damned
yourself here a hundred times over with your ignorant rantings.

 

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogbf1$44t$30@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <vqm35kmsssh84a@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >"David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:lKBqb.108210$ZH4.85369@twister.socal.rr.com. ..
> >>
> >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:boe681$i0q$20@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> > In article <66mqb.54771$Ub4.47968@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> >> > "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > >Thanks! Of course these are old arguments. Lloyd's arguments look
> >like
> >> > >cut/paste jobs from previous posts he's made. He always says the
same
> >> thing
> >> > >over and over. And he always degenerates to name calling....
> >> > >"right-winger", "fascist", "hate-monger", etc.
> >> >
> >> > Only when your side starts with the "socialist" or "communist" name
> >> calling.
> >> >
> >> Ok. I'll hold you to that.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >or self-agrandizement being
> >> > >that he's such an intelligent guy....Phd and all.... "What are YOUR
> >> > >credentials?" or "Take a science class!".
> >> >
> >> > If you're going to challenge established science, you need some
> >expertise.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Face it Lloyd. There is no expertise that comes from taking a "science
> >> course", whatever that is. The only course I've seen called "science"
is
> >at
> >> my daughters middle school. Heck, I took 5 quarters of physics... not
> >just
> >> physics, but Berkely Physics... in college and that certainly didn't
make
> >me
> >> an expert in physics.
> >>
> >> In many areas, there is no level of expertise that gets to the real
> >answers,
> >> i.e, there's more we don't know that we do know; there's no
"established
> >> science" yet; or it's wrong. Just because one can wave a degree in
> >> "science" around doesn't give you a level of expertise required to know
> >the
> >> answers to questions like global warming or economics or whatever.
> >>
> >> For you to generalize your expertise because you have a phd is like
> >> presuming there's money in your account because you have checks. The
> >Phd's
> >> I've worked with are usually people who have expertise in narrow,
focused
> >> areas. For them to claim expertise in any other area is like writing a
> >> check on an account with insufficient funds.
> >
> >
> >You've described LP to a T. He knows a little Chemistry, that does not
make
> >him an expert on any of the subjects he claims to know all about.
>
> Like atmospheric chemistry?
>
>
> >Someday I
> >really must write Emory a letter concerning our good Doctor Lloyd, let
them
> >in on how much he has damaged their reputation with his -------- posting.
> >
> >
> Yeah, tell them about your scientific qualifications to judge me too.

Hell Lloyd, all he has to do is show them this thread, you've damned
yourself here a hundred times over with your ignorant rantings.

 

I never did understand how the demo-crazies thought Jeb could do ----...

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqjt02h7g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
> all academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots.
> (Not that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and
> only had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out
ahead.
> This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> "stole" the election!>
>
> Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than
Democrat
> fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those
awful
> Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
> allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and
that
> AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law
the
> way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
> Presidency....
>
>

 

I never did understand how the demo-crazies thought Jeb could do ----...

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqjt02h7g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
> all academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots.
> (Not that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and
> only had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out
ahead.
> This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> "stole" the election!>
>
> Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than
Democrat
> fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those
awful
> Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
> allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and
that
> AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law
the
> way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
> Presidency....
>
>

 

I never did understand how the demo-crazies thought Jeb could do ----...

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorgenospam@frontier.net> wrote in message
news:boeqjt02h7g@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
> all academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots.
> (Not that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount and
> only had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out
ahead.
> This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> "stole" the election!>
>
> Now, David, there you go again, trying to bring reality rather than
Democrat
> fable into this entire matter. Now, Everyone knows Gore won, but those
awful
> Bush brothers and the Republicans conspired to steal the election by not
> allowing the Democrats to only count the votes they wanted counted, and
that
> AWFUL, Kathryn Harris had the audacity to interpret Florida election law
the
> way it was written. Maybe Howard Dean can fix all this after he wins the
> Presidency....
>
>

 

Um, no. There was a recount that wasn't finished in the LEGAL amount of
time... All recounts done after the elections was closed came out with bush
winning.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogao3$44t$24@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <KcBqb.107831$ZH4.34372@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
> >> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas?
Florida?"
> >> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> >results
> >> >of
> >> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
> >> >
> >> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes
were
> >> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
> >counted,
> >> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the
final
> >> >official count had given him.
> >>
> >> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> >> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win
some.
> >>
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >

 

Um, no. There was a recount that wasn't finished in the LEGAL amount of
time... All recounts done after the elections was closed came out with bush
winning.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogao3$44t$24@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <KcBqb.107831$ZH4.34372@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
> >> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas?
Florida?"
> >> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> >results
> >> >of
> >> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
> >> >
> >> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes
were
> >> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
> >counted,
> >> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the
final
> >> >official count had given him.
> >>
> >> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> >> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win
some.
> >>
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >

 

Um, no. There was a recount that wasn't finished in the LEGAL amount of
time... All recounts done after the elections was closed came out with bush
winning.

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:bogao3$44t$24@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> In article <KcBqb.107831$ZH4.34372@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> >news:boe616$i0q$17@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> >> In article <vqjdrv6m9dlk0a@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Joe" <jo_ratner@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:vCiqb.11714$9M3.10456@newsread2.news.atl.ear thlink.net...
> >> >> "And there're no corrupt Republican machines? Hello, Texas?
Florida?"
> >> >> Wasn't it the corrupt democrats that tried to illegally alter the
> >results
> >> >of
> >> >> Florida? The final results were accurate and valid.
> >> >
> >> >And what the Dems never acknowledge is the fact that Floridas votes
were
> >> >recounted again after Bush was declared the winner, every vote was
> >counted,
> >> >no matter how poorly marked, and it gave Bush more votes than the
final
> >> >official count had given him.
> >>
> >> Wrong. As the media reported, depending on how the votes were counted
> >> (strictly, loosely), Bush would win some recounts and Gore would win
some.
> >>
> >> >
> >No, there was ONE way of counting where Gore came out ahead. But it is
all
> >academic because it wasn't how the state law says to count ballots. (Not
> >that THAT would have stopped the Dems). Gore lost every recount
>
> No, the recount was halted.
>
>
> >and only
> >had the HOPE of finding a way to recount where he would come out ahead.
> >This is what the USSC stopped. It's amazing to hear you say that's how
Bush
> >"stole" the election!
> >
> >