Re: "Luddite" hand counting

[Lou Puls <lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Paul Tiger" <paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Lou (et al),
> I've cleared off all of the other remarks, which also have the taste 
of a flame war, and left just this business about who poll workers are.
> ...snip...
>paul

Paul, you've given a more balanced, "constructive" view of poll workers 
(rather than an unfounded generalization), even if still inaccurate in 
my view. 

But how is citing accurate history, versus parroting inaccurate Luddite 
nonsense, material for a flame war? 

And how is citing documented, admitted and interminably unpatched 
defects in the software on which the next election is largely going to 
be dependent also material for a flame war?  This "has the taste" of the 
same kind of media self-censorship that has given this country untold 
grief for many years, and is evidently continuing to keep most voters 
ignorant of important issues. 

Let's discuss the merits of such issues and not fritter away energy on 
minor detail.  How about some balanced, constructive views on why this 
highly vulnerable, defective (MS-Windows) software should be acceptable 
for such an important civic function?  With the digital talent 
represented in this group, credible legal action could still be mounted 
to stop it down and allow recountable paper ballots of record - but only 
if this group takes a firm stand on the obvious. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Puls [mailto:lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 12:14 PM
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: "Luddite" hand counting