Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:43:33 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a legitimate case for contesting the election. This is all you have to write. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud then there should be changes made ana new election conducted, with stricter oversight to prevent the same thing from happening again. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud (and at this point that appears to be the case) then there -should- be changes made. But as far as a new election, why bother when Rossi doesn't even want the job? Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession' speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get another chance at a job he doesn't even want. Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand recount she stated publically that she would accept the result regardless of the victor. OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now and for the very same reason. So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just being a crybaby a-la Gore. It sounds like you are letting your personal feeling WRT Rossi cloud your objective conclusion that the vote was tainted. It is irrelevant how any one candidate behaved. What is relevant is that there is a good chance that the person who "won" the election, may not have been the people's true choice. We won't know that unless those discrepancies are resolved. If that's the case then Gore should be in office, not Bush. And while I may not like Bush, I -really- don't like the idea of Gore taking the helm after watching his tantrums during the 2000 election. Same deal with Rossi. And yes, that's just my opinion. |
#202
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:06:43 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:43:33 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a legitimate case for contesting the election. This is all you have to write. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud then there should be changes made ana new election conducted, with stricter oversight to prevent the same thing from happening again. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud (and at this point that appears to be the case) then there -should- be changes made. But as far as a new election, why bother when Rossi doesn't even want the job? Are you sure his statement that "he doesn't want the job" was not simply an effort (albeit a feeble one) to project the air that he was not as interested as he truly was/is? Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession' speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get another chance at a job he doesn't even want. Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand recount she stated publically that she would accept the result regardless of the victor. OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now and for the very same reason. So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just being a crybaby a-la Gore. It sounds like you are letting your personal feeling WRT Rossi cloud your objective conclusion that the vote was tainted. It is irrelevant how any one candidate behaved. What is relevant is that there is a good chance that the person who "won" the election, may not have been the people's true choice. We won't know that unless those discrepancies are resolved. If that's the case then Gore should be in office, not Bush. How do you figure? Bush won all the recounts, both official and unofficial. And while I may not like Bush, I -really- don't like the idea of Gore taking the helm after watching his tantrums during the 2000 election. Same deal with Rossi. And yes, that's just my opinion. I can respect that. But if you are truly interested in reducing or eliminating fraud, you should be demanding further investigation and a new election, on principle alone. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#203
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 07:09:16 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:06:43 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:43:33 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:52:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip BTW, there are apparently 1800 overvotes in King County, which makes a legitimate case for contesting the election. This is all you have to write. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud then there should be changes made ana new election conducted, with stricter oversight to prevent the same thing from happening again. If there is sufficient evidence of fraud (and at this point that appears to be the case) then there -should- be changes made. But as far as a new election, why bother when Rossi doesn't even want the job? Are you sure his statement that "he doesn't want the job" was not simply an effort (albeit a feeble one) to project the air that he was not as interested as he truly was/is? Even worse -- if he -does- want the job then he was lying to the public when he said he didn't. Now I could support his case except if that was the only issue. But it's not. One problem I have is when Rossi made his 'non-concession' speech he claimed that he didn't want or need the job. So I don't see the point for the state to spend millions of dollars so Rossi can get another chance at a job he doesn't even want. Also, Gregoire has conducted herself professionally; during the hand recount she stated publically that she would accept the result regardless of the victor. OTOH, after the hand recount Rossi has been making an ass of himself just like Gore did in 2000. Even worse -- when he was in the lead by a mere 42 votes he held a victory party, took a Carribean cruise, then came back and announced his transistion team -- without a single complaint about the legitimacy of the results. Now that he's losing by a slightly larger margin, legitimacy is his primary reason for demanding a second election. And when Gregoire went to court to get legitimate votes counted, Rossi whined that the election should not be decided by the courts, yet that's exactly what he's trying to do now and for the very same reason. So circumstances are a little different here than in Ohio. I'll fully support voting reform in this state, but I won't support a hypocrite governor. Hell, even Kerry had the decency to stand down in order to preserve the integrity of the office and his party -- Rossi is just being a crybaby a-la Gore. It sounds like you are letting your personal feeling WRT Rossi cloud your objective conclusion that the vote was tainted. It is irrelevant how any one candidate behaved. What is relevant is that there is a good chance that the person who "won" the election, may not have been the people's true choice. We won't know that unless those discrepancies are resolved. If that's the case then Gore should be in office, not Bush. How do you figure? Bush won all the recounts, both official and unofficial. I don't think so, Dave. You'll have to hit Twisty up for the facts about that considering it was his state, not mine. And while I may not like Bush, I -really- don't like the idea of Gore taking the helm after watching his tantrums during the 2000 election. Same deal with Rossi. And yes, that's just my opinion. I can respect that. But if you are truly interested in reducing or eliminating fraud, you should be demanding further investigation and a new election, on principle alone. In Gregoire's speech yesterday (swearing-in ceremony), the first topic she raised was the election. She has already set up an independent panel to investigate the election process and it's faults, and their report is to be used as the foundation for statewide election reform. By the time she finished her speech she had broken the ranks of the Republicans (who began the ceremony holding a childish demonstration of passive-agression) and many were applauding her plans. If she succeeds in the next few years I wouldn't be suprised to see her make a run for the White House -- and win. |
#204
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N#CVJ wrote:
Uh... Nooooo. Splatter is the result of a dirty transmitter, Bleed,,splatter,,,,you're wrong, ya' know..a dirty transmitter is but ONE example.............once again you incorrectly claimed that skip does not affect splatter, when it most certainly does. |
#205
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lancer wrote:
OK, but I agreed with that. I said that DX helps the splatter by this: If he's in Florida talking on a bone stock radio, I won't hear him in Los Angeles. Now, if he decides to fire up an amp, I still won't hear him in LA. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Now skip rolls in, I can here him without an amp and with an amp, but on the adjacent channel, where the noise was zero, I now have a ton of signals, so the skip didn't help those signals "bounce into" LA? of course it did. Now the adjacent channel has more "splatter" than before, skip didn't help enhance the noise level on my end? =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0La ndshark Ok, skip increased his signal that you hear. Exactly,,it "affected it", which is exactly what I and Shark maintained, to which some took issue with. and skip also increased his splatter that you hear. Again,,,another example of skip affecting the splatter, Touche. But The relation between his signal and his splatter doesn't change. Skip affects splatter. |
#206
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#207
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#208
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:39:07 GMT, Lancer wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:03:43 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: Lancer wrote: OK, but I agreed with that. I said that DX helps the splatter by this: If he's in Florida talking on a bone stock radio, I won't hear him in Los Angeles. Now, if he decides to fire up an amp, I still won't hear him in LA. ********Now skip rolls in, I can here him without an amp and with an amp, but on the adjacent channel, where the noise was zero, I now have a ton of signals, so the skip didn't help those signals "bounce into" LA? of course it did. Now the adjacent channel has more "splatter" than before, skip didn't help enhance the noise level on my end? ****************Landshark Ok, skip increased his signal that you hear. Exactly,,it "affected it", which is exactly what I and Shark maintained, to which some took issue with. and skip also increased his splatter that you hear. Again,,,another example of skip affecting the splatter, Touche. Quit clipping my posts apart to fit your needs. That's exactly what he does. He destroys the original context to make it look like you said something that you didn't. He's either a clever troll or a someone who is totally devoid of comprehension abilities. I was trying to point out to Shark that skip will progate the original signal and the splatter equally. Anyone with average intelligence understands this. But I guess some seem to need the exact literal finite details colored in or they grasp the wrong meaning. But The relation between his signal and his splatter doesn't change. Skip affects splatter. No more than the original part of his signal... Do you think that skip effects the splatter component of his signal more that the desirable part of his signal? and it does not effect the realtionship between the two. Right! The relationship between the fundamental signal and the splatter components present will not change with the variation of the DX conditions. They move together harmoniously. Dave "Sandbagger" |
#209
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
NCVJ wrote:
Yes, you are correct, the DX enables distant splatter boxes to be heard in you local area |
#210
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N3CVJ wrote:
Yes, you are correct, the DX enables distant splatter boxes to be heard in you local area No one was talking about extra power or illegal power,,try and remain focused, Davie. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Digital | |||
Improve handheld audio? | Homebrew | |||
How to improve reception | Equipment |