[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
You're a Nazi (was that the correct closure syntax?)
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:00:39 -0500, Bornholtz, Tim <Tim.Bornholtz@ed.gov> wrote:
> Oh please!!!
>
> Will someone just call someone else a Nazi so we can invoke Goodwin's law and call this thread dead?!?!?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. David Peterson [mailto:m.david.x2x2x@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 12:56 PM
> To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> Cc: Bill Kearney; xml-dev@lists. xml. org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Rigged Aggregators?
>
> >> If anything is needed here (and
> >> it's not clear that there is anything needed) it is for the people
> >> with the knowledge of the cited technologies and companies to stand up
> >> and say "this is nonsense". Nothing more;
>
> Amen!
>
> With one or two trusted resources sounding off in an email they can
> qualify or debunk all of this right away. But until they do consider
> that there are so many little things in this piece that are completely
> chopped and left fuzzy. Fuzziness generally suggests something to be
> unclear. If something is unclear then all pieces following it are
> based on assumption rather than fact. While the piece was quite clear
> in the beginning the fuzz began to creep in right at the point where
> states and documented problems with the elections were linked to for
> qualification but then followed with fuzzy areas that seems to allow
> the assumption to be the fact because of the verifiable link that
> followed before or after it. Anything that claims fuzziness of a
> system with fuzziness of its own must be seen as completely bogus
> until such time as the fuzziness can be cleared up. Why be fuzzy when
> your absolutely confident the evidence exists? There's no need to.
>
> An example of some fuzz >> Washington state was named as a problem
> state but Washington gave its electoral votes to Kerry. While the
> entire piece was focused on the Federal elections suddenly
> Washington's race for Governor became the topic of focus, not the
> Federal election. Why? Is Nick Chalko also determined to select
> Washington States Governor? If so then it seems he should have thrown
> another hack or two in to help clear the way for his candidate of
> choice as never has there been such a mess of a Governors race in any
> state for as long as this lasted. Are Nicks hacks faulty then? Does
> this then suggest that the entire system he built was faulty and as
> such completely uncontrollable in any general direction. but why
> again is the focus suddenly on the race for Governor when the piece is
> focused on the Federal elections?
>
> North and South Carolina were not even considered showdown states
> (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/) so why hack the results of a state
> you are already near guaranteed to win? Using N/S Carolina as examples
> is then completely useless.
>
> It seems to me if you focus away from the "technical hack" side of
> this piece and more along the areas such as the above examples this
> piece is so full of holes it would probably take an admission of guilt
> from the Republican party to bring back ANY sort of credibility. Is
> it possible to cripple a system with bad XML? Yes! But hat doesnt
> mean it did!
>
> Bogus until someone in whom we can all accept as a pure authority
> steps in and says otherwise...
>
> Anybody with those credentials care to jump in and sound off?
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:57:58 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
> - Show quoted text -
> > Hmmm... I have to disagree with you, Bill. I think we
> > will see more blogs like that, and just as 'intelligent
> > design' is making its way into school science classes,
> > more superstition will be presented as credible theories
> > because those capable of refuting them refuse to take
> > the time.
> >
> > It's a short walk back to the trees and caves. No
> > pushing or shoving required.
> >
> > len
> >
> > From: Bill Kearney [mailto:wkearney@syndic8.com]
> >
> > > That won't be good enough. Not nearly. The American
> > > electorate is evenly split. The world electorate is
> > > expressing a displeasure.
> >
> > Oh please, get a grip. That and spare us from yanking this whole stupid
> > thread off into another entirely unrelated realm. And using $5 words
> > doesn't make it seems any less stupid a thread.
> >
> > > Because it was and from someone who blogs prominently, I thought
> > > it a good idea to get experts to look it over. As in open source,
> > > the more smart eyes, the better.
> >
> > Err no, more like yet another example of blog narcissism, masquerading
> > itself as visibility. Please, it's an entirely bogus set of arguments with
> > seemingly little purpose other than to gain visibility for a crackpot.
> > Shame on you for falling prey to the ploy, you should know better.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> >
> >
>
> --
> <M:D/>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:57:58 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm... I have to disagree with you, Bill. I think we
> > will see more blogs like that, and just as 'intelligent
> > design' is making its way into school science classes,
> > more superstition will be presented as credible theories
> > because those capable of refuting them refuse to take
> > the time.
> >
> > It's a short walk back to the trees and caves. No
> > pushing or shoving required.
> >
> > len
> >
> > From: Bill Kearney [mailto:wkearney@syndic8.com]
> >
> > > That won't be good enough. Not nearly. The American
> > > electorate is evenly split. The world electorate is
> > > expressing a displeasure.
> >
> > Oh please, get a grip. That and spare us from yanking this whole stupid
> > thread off into another entirely unrelated realm. And using $5 words
> > doesn't make it seems any less stupid a thread.
> >
> > > Because it was and from someone who blogs prominently, I thought
> > > it a good idea to get experts to look it over. As in open source,
> > > the more smart eyes, the better.
> >
> > Err no, more like yet another example of blog narcissism, masquerading
> > itself as visibility. Please, it's an entirely bogus set of arguments with
> > seemingly little purpose other than to gain visibility for a crackpot.
> > Shame on you for falling prey to the ploy, you should know better.
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> >
> >
>
> --
> <M:D/>
>
> :: M. David Peterson ::
> XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
--
<M:D/>
:: M. David Peterson ::
XML & XML Transformations, C#, .NET, and Functional Languages Specialist
|
