Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:41:14 -0600, Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...> 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@c...
|
