posted on Jun, 5 2004 @ 04:58 PM
Note the mention of "a more generous hypothetical revisited recount..."
My reliability in question? You should know that we are not supposed to "quote excessively from links" which is why I did not..... I thought you
were a writer and scholar in ATS...
Now, if you want to read the first part of the paragraph we can see what they meant....
"In their reports, the newspapers assumed counts already completed when the court-ordered recount was stopped would have been included in any
official count. Thus, they allowed numbers from seven counties -- Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward, Hamilton, Manatee, Escambia and Madison -- to stand,
but applied the most inclusive standards to votes in the rest of the state. If those numbers did not stand, the Herald reported, a more generous
hypothetical revisited recount would have scored the White House for Gore -- but with only a 393-vote margin. "
And keep reading
Under most other scenarios, the papers reported, Bush would have retained his lead.
Excerpted from same link in previous post.
Humm, what could they have meant by "a more generous hypothetical revisited recount" to make Gore win....
Once more, your petty attempt at ridicule and slander is pathetic.
[Edited on 5-6-2004 by Muaddib]