[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:41:14 -0600, Peter Hunsberger
<peter.hunsberger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, that's the reason I've taken the time to respond: the more
> people on this list saying "nonsense" the better. Personally, I don't
> think you can expect anything more.
>
OK I'll toss in a vote for calling this blog post nonsense. And my 2c:
There is an very well developed field that analyzes vote collecting
mechanisms for reliability. Some of the things that we do in the US to
count votes infuriate experts in this field. As far as I know the things
this guy mentions in his blog aren't among those, because they just aren't
done as part of the way votes are counted today.
So this blog entry has chosen a topic, has chosen coverage of the topic
that's entirely outside of a rigorous ongoing conversation, and has
phrased things and included concepts in an incendiary way. When an
article is calculated to evoke an emotional response without including any
assertions that can be either proven or disproven, it starts to near the
blurry line between commentary and propaganda.
---->N
--
.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:._.:||:.
Nathan Young
A: ncy1717
E: natyoung@cisco.com
|
