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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:43:23 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote:

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.

It does not affect the amount of splatter a single signal has on it.

You really should stick to what it is you're actually good at
(Chumming perhaps?) and leave the discussion of RF theory to those of
us who DO know what we're talking about.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

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.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*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?
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*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. I was trying to point
out to Shark that skip will progate the original signal and the
splatter equally.


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.

If the splatter components are at a 10% level compared to the level of
his signal, then with skip they will still be at that level.

Touche...

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"

NCVJ wrote:
Yes, you are correct, the DX enables distant

splatter boxes to be heard in you local area

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.