The message below is at:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=701156345&fmt=text
Legal sophistry is truly amazing, especially the use of the phrase
"reasonable probability." This case has absolutely nothing to do with
statistics or with probability. It is a simple case of arithmetic--look
at the undervote ballots. If this is not done by Florida officials, it
will be done by the media under the FOI law. Unless these ballots are
destroyed, we will know the true results. It's only a matter of time.
Domenico Rosa
--------------------------------------------
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)>
wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Judge Sauls' Decision
<snip>
> In this case, there is no credible statistical evidence
> and no other competent substantial evidence to establish
> by a preponderance a reasonable probability that the
> results of the statewide election in the state of Florida
> would be different from the result which has been
> certified by the state elections canvassing commission.
So a recount of thousands of machine-rejected ballots in a predominantly
Democrat county wouldn't give a reasonable probability of overturning
the Bush lead of a few hundred votes? What ****** rubbish!
Richard J.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
