TruthIsAll, where art thou? I need your help with this.

[texpatriot2004]

Supposedly, there's a guy in this article who has "debunked" the Berkely study. His analysis is in a pdf in the link. What's up with this? Is it old news? Are you already familiar with this? What can you tell me? Us? Thanks TIA I trust your analysis. You rock.

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65896,00.htm

[texpatriot2004]

1. Hello, Truth is All, are you here tonight?

[texpatriot2004]

2. kicking it to TIA

[shraby]

3. Kick

[TruthIsAll]

4. I can't comment on the Berkeley analysis other than to say that

IT HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED. IN FACT, IT IS STILL BEING REFERENCED AS A SOLID WORK, WHILE THE ORIGINAL CALTECH-MIT STUDY WHICH FAULTED THE FREEMAN STUDY HAS BEEN DEBUNKED - BY CALTECH.

I MUST ADMIT THAT I HAVE NOT READ THE BERKELEY STUDY, THEREFORE I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE AN ANALYTICAL OPINION, OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT IT SOUNDS REASONABLE BASED ON:

1) HEAVY DEMOCRATIC REGISTRATION ADVANTAGE THROUGHOUT FLORIDA
2) THE WIDE USE OF OPTISCANS AND TOUCHSCREENS
3) BUSH "WON" FL 52-47. I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE. IT'S A 3% RED SHIFT FROM THE EXIT POLLS, WHICH EQUATES TO ABOUT 250,000 VOTES.

THE PROBABILITY IS INFINITESMAL, IF WE ASSUME AN EXIT POLL MOE OF UNDER 2% (VERY CONSERVATIVE SINCE ALMOST 3000 WERE POLLED.)

[texpatriot2004]

5. Thanks, another question. I read the Berkeley Study...

and I am glad to hear that it has not been debunked. Actually, I didn't think that this article had debunked the Berkeley study. I was just wondering what your take on it was. If you cannot comment, that is cool. Thanks TIA.