1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Would you consider this competent?

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 11 09:38:33 2023
    Their analysis identified changes in the ballot length, in combination with the paper weight, as straining some of the older printers' abilities.

    Between the August primaries and the November general contest, the county expanded the length of the ballots from 19 inches to 20 inches in order to include all of the required information. The increased ballot size in combination with the use of 100-
    pound ballot paper, the report concludes, was too great a strain on the printers.

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this report, we concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound ballot paper and a 20- inch ballot during the 2022 general election was to require that the Oki B432 printers perform at the
    extreme edge of their capability, a level that could not be reliably sustained by a substantial number of printers," the report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out? GMAFB....

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Tue Apr 11 13:05:37 2023
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Their analysis identified changes in the ballot length, in
    combination with the paper weight, as straining some of the older
    printers' abilities.

    Between the August primaries and the November general contest, the
    county expanded the length of the ballots from 19 inches to 20 inches
    in order to include all of the required information. The increased
    ballot size in combination with the use of 100-pound ballot paper,
    the report concludes, was too great a strain on the printers.

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this report, we concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound ballot paper
    and a 20- inch ballot during the 2022 general election was to require
    that the Oki B432 printers perform at the extreme edge of their
    capability, a level that could not be reliably sustained by a
    substantial number of printers," the report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out? GMAFB....

    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    Perhaps the tests didn't show the problem because of smaller print runs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 11 15:16:39 2023
    On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Their analysis identified changes in the ballot length, in
    combination with the paper weight, as straining some of the older printers' abilities.

    Between the August primaries and the November general contest, the
    county expanded the length of the ballots from 19 inches to 20 inches
    in order to include all of the required information. The increased
    ballot size in combination with the use of 100-pound ballot paper,
    the report concludes, was too great a strain on the printers.

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this report, we concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound ballot paper
    and a 20- inch ballot during the 2022 general election was to require
    that the Oki B432 printers perform at the extreme edge of their capability, a level that could not be reliably sustained by a
    substantial number of printers," the report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out? GMAFB....
    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    WTf are you talking about now? They come out with their report and
    we can't comment on it?
    KMA you delusional whacko.


    Perhaps the tests didn't show the problem because of smaller print runs.

    Except the problems at the polling locations were happening early morning so they failed very quickly. And the f'in manual for the printer itself says only up to 80lb paper
    can be used for two sided printing as well.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Wed Apr 12 09:34:50 2023
    On 4/11/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Their analysis identified changes in the ballot length, in
    combination with the paper weight, as straining some of the
    older printers' abilities.

    Between the August primaries and the November general contest,
    the county expanded the length of the ballots from 19 inches to
    20 inches in order to include all of the required information.
    The increased ballot size in combination with the use of
    100-pound ballot paper, the report concludes, was too great a
    strain on the printers.

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this
    report, we concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound
    ballot paper and a 20- inch ballot during the 2022 general
    election was to require that the Oki B432 printers perform at the
    extreme edge of their capability, a level that could not be
    reliably sustained by a substantial number of printers," the
    report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out? GMAFB....
    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    WTf are you talking about now? They come out with their report and
    we can't comment on it? KMA you delusional whacko.

    You complained they didn't know the cause of the problem but now that
    they do you complain it's identified too late for you. And they didn't
    "wait to find out," they found out when it happened.

    Perhaps the tests didn't show the problem because of smaller print
    runs.

    Except the problems at the polling locations were happening early
    morning so they failed very quickly. And the f'in manual for the
    printer itself says only up to 80lb paper can be used for two sided
    printing as well.

    Makes the proposed cause of the problem even more plausible. And it
    happened "very quickly" when under the stress of high use.

    Fortunately, the original source is available so I don't have to guess
    what you know after it's been distorted by you reading breitbart.

    https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/82599/Maricopa-Election-Report-and-Attachments?

    August (100 pound paper, 19" ballot): The Department selected a sample
    of Oki B432 and Lexmark C4150 BOD printers and ran more than three
    hundred test prints...

    November (100 pound paper, 20" ballot): In the first test, one hundred double-sided ballots were run through each test machine without the
    envelope or receipt. In the second test, the same number of ballots were
    run...

    On Site: t- techs run test prints on site following the set-up of a
    vote center... The test prints at a minimum contain two envelopes, one
    “test successful” ballot, one Provisional Paper, and one ICX Paper (Accessible Voting Device)...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 12 15:45:51 2023
    On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:34:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:
    Their analysis identified changes in the ballot length, in
    combination with the paper weight, as straining some of the
    older printers' abilities.

    Between the August primaries and the November general contest,
    the county expanded the length of the ballots from 19 inches to
    20 inches in order to include all of the required information.
    The increased ballot size in combination with the use of
    100-pound ballot paper, the report concludes, was too great a
    strain on the printers.

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this
    report, we concluded that the combined effect of using 100-pound
    ballot paper and a 20- inch ballot during the 2022 general
    election was to require that the Oki B432 printers perform at the
    extreme edge of their capability, a level that could not be
    reliably sustained by a substantial number of printers," the
    report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out? GMAFB....
    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    WTf are you talking about now? They come out with their report and
    we can't comment on it? KMA you delusional whacko.
    You complained they didn't know the cause of the problem

    and they didn't.

    but now that
    they do you complain it's identified too late for you.

    No shit, they already f'd up an election.

    And they didn't
    "wait to find out," they found out when it happened.

    On election day. You can't claim a failure of testing and then
    point to the rigor of testing as absolving.
    It's f'in moronic.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Thu Apr 13 09:22:09 2023
    On 4/12/23 5:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:34:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this
    report, we concluded that the combined effect of using
    100-pound ballot paper and a 20- inch ballot during the 2022
    general election was to require that the Oki B432 printers
    perform at the extreme edge of their capability, a level
    that could not be reliably sustained by a substantial number
    of printers," the report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out? GMAFB....
    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    WTf are you talking about now? They come out with their report
    and we can't comment on it? KMA you delusional whacko.
    You complained they didn't know the cause of the problem

    and they didn't.

    So they did an investigation. Your assumption they "waited until
    election day" doesn't fit the facts. There was no reason to investigate
    before the failure.

    but now that they do you complain it's identified too late for
    you.

    No shit, they already f'd up an election.

    It had no effect on the election.

    And they didn't "wait to find out," they found out when it
    happened.

    On election day.

    When else would they find out? They thought the testing they did was enough.

    You can't claim a failure of testing and then point to the rigor of
    testing as absolving. It's f'in moronic.

    A better example of "moronic" is thinking I pointed to a "failure of
    testing" as "absolving." The investigation was factual with a
    conclusion, not a judgment.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 13 15:57:13 2023
    On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:22:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/12/23 5:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:34:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in this
    report, we concluded that the combined effect of using
    100-pound ballot paper and a 20- inch ballot during the 2022
    general election was to require that the Oki B432 printers
    perform at the extreme edge of their capability, a level
    that could not be reliably sustained by a substantial number
    of printers," the report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out? GMAFB....
    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    WTf are you talking about now? They come out with their report
    and we can't comment on it? KMA you delusional whacko.
    You complained they didn't know the cause of the problem

    and they didn't.
    So they did an investigation. Your assumption they "waited until
    election day" doesn't fit the facts.

    Hell it doesn't. They waited until election day to discover they
    had a problem.

    There was no reason to investigate
    before the failure.

    There would have been if they had only read the printer manuals.


    but now that they do you complain it's identified too late for
    you.

    No shit, they already f'd up an election.
    It had no effect on the election.

    BS.

    And they didn't "wait to find out," they found out when it
    happened.

    On election day.
    When else would they find out?

    During testing or actually during specifying printer requirements.
    Like being able to double side print on 100 lb paper 20" ballots.
    But the A-holes runnning this show were changing things
    and ended up in a scenario where they didn't comply with printer specs
    and no amount of testing should have allowed that.

    They thought the testing they did was enough.

    And they were wrong. How does a problem of this magnitude escape detection from rigorous testing? Hint....it doesn't.

    You can't claim a failure of testing and then point to the rigor of testing as absolving. It's f'in moronic.
    A better example of "moronic" is thinking I pointed to a "failure of testing" as "absolving."

    Yeah....you point to thinking as absolving. Even more moronic.

    The investigation was factual with a
    conclusion, not a judgment.

    BS....It lists all their testing as if that's excusable.

    Go back to bludgeoning yourself with your dangerous weapon piano bench.
    You do that much better.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Fri Apr 14 09:13:56 2023
    On 4/13/23 5:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:22:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/12/23 5:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:34:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in
    this report, we concluded that the combined effect of
    using 100-pound ballot paper and a 20- inch ballot during
    the 2022 general election was to require that the Oki
    B432 printers perform at the extreme edge of their
    capability, a level that could not be reliably sustained
    by a substantial number of printers," the report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out?
    GMAFB....
    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    WTf are you talking about now? They come out with their
    report and we can't comment on it? KMA you delusional
    whacko.
    You complained they didn't know the cause of the problem

    and they didn't.
    So they did an investigation. Your assumption they "waited until
    election day" doesn't fit the facts.

    Hell it doesn't. They waited until election day to discover they had
    a problem.

    The printers passed the tests performed but failed on election day.
    That's all there is to it.

    There was no reason to investigate before the failure.

    There would have been if they had only read the printer manuals.

    They tested the heavier, longer ballots. Turns out the test was
    inadequate. And from the report:

    "Despite the assurances of the manufacturer, many of the Oki B432
    printers were not capable of reliably printing 20-inch ballots on
    100-pound paper under election-day conditions."

    but now that they do you complain it's identified too late for
    you.

    No shit, they already f'd up an election.
    It had no effect on the election.

    BS.

    Proven by statistics. Start with the margin of victory and work it out
    for yourself.

    And they didn't "wait to find out," they found out when it
    happened.

    On election day.
    When else would they find out?

    During testing or actually during specifying printer requirements.
    Like being able to double side print on 100 lb paper 20" ballots. But
    the A-holes runnning this show were changing things and ended up in a scenario where they didn't comply with printer specs and no amount of
    testing should have allowed that.

    No amount? The primary was fine with heavier paper.

    https://www.azmirror.com/2022/07/11/what-has-and-hasnt-changed-about-voting-in-arizona-ahead-of-the-primary/

    They asked the manufacturer, did some tests, and carried on.

    Why the heavier paper? UPI:

    "The officials... opted to use 100-pound paper for the general election
    after sharpie pens used to mark ballots printed on 80-pound paper in
    2020 bled through to the other side of the page, sparking concern from
    the public."

    Here's where my caution that questioning voting would cause problems is
    shown valid. Officials didn't want people to have the excuse to complain
    about pen bleed-through so used heavier paper leading to printer failure.

    They thought the testing they did was enough.

    And they were wrong. How does a problem of this magnitude escape
    detection from rigorous testing? Hint....it doesn't.

    Only in a circular argument depending on the word "rigorous."

    You can't claim a failure of testing and then point to the rigor
    of testing as absolving. It's f'in moronic.
    A better example of "moronic" is thinking I pointed to a "failure
    of testing" as "absolving."

    Yeah....you point to thinking as absolving. Even more moronic.

    Now you're incoherent.

    The investigation was factual with a conclusion, not a judgment.

    BS....It lists all their testing as if that's excusable.

    Those are the facts. "Excusable" is a judgment you're making.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 14 17:39:33 2023
    On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/13/23 5:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:22:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/12/23 5:45 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 7:34:56 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/11/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:05:39 AM UTC-7, mINE109
    wrote:
    On 4/11/23 11:38 AM, ScottW wrote:

    "Based on our tests, and for the reasons described in
    this report, we concluded that the combined effect of
    using 100-pound ballot paper and a 20- inch ballot during
    the 2022 general election was to require that the Oki
    B432 printers perform at the extreme edge of their
    capability, a level that could not be reliably sustained
    by a substantial number of printers," the report states.

    and they waited until election day to find out?
    GMAFB....
    Move! Move! Move those goalposts!

    WTf are you talking about now? They come out with their
    report and we can't comment on it? KMA you delusional
    whacko.
    You complained they didn't know the cause of the problem

    and they didn't.
    So they did an investigation. Your assumption they "waited until
    election day" doesn't fit the facts.

    Hell it doesn't. They waited until election day to discover they had
    a problem.
    The printers passed the tests performed but failed on election day.
    That's all there is to it.

    Yet you still argue the testing was adequate.

    There was no reason to investigate before the failure.

    There would have been if they had only read the printer manuals.
    They tested the heavier, longer ballots. Turns out the test was
    inadequate.

    OMG....the heaven's have opened and a glimmer of culpability has leaked through.

    Stephen admits the testing was inadequate. It's a miracle.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Apr 15 09:19:04 2023
    On 4/14/23 7:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/13/23 5:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:22:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    Your assumption they "waited until election day" doesn't fit the facts. >>>
    Hell it doesn't. They waited until election day to discover they had
    a problem.
    The printers passed the tests performed but failed on election day.
    That's all there is to it.

    Yet you still argue the testing was adequate.

    When did I do that?: "Turns out the test was inadequate." Note the
    prefix 'in-' which shows I argue the opposite.

    There was no reason to investigate before the failure.

    There would have been if they had only read the printer manuals.
    They tested the heavier, longer ballots. Turns out the test was
    inadequate.

    OMG....the heaven's have opened and a glimmer of culpability has leaked through.

    The one where you notice what you just wrote was wrong? And scroll up to correct or delete it?

    Stephen admits the testing was inadequate. It's a miracle.

    Facts are facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 15 09:49:40 2023
    On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/14/23 7:39 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 7:13:59 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 4/13/23 5:57 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:22:11 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:

    Your assumption they "waited until election day" doesn't fit the facts. >>>
    Hell it doesn't. They waited until election day to discover they had
    a problem.
    The printers passed the tests performed but failed on election day.
    That's all there is to it.

    Yet you still argue the testing was adequate.
    When did I do that?: "Turns out the test was inadequate." Note the
    prefix 'in-' which shows I argue the opposite.
    There was no reason to investigate before the failure.

    There would have been if they had only read the printer manuals.
    They tested the heavier, longer ballots. Turns out the test was
    inadequate.

    OMG....the heaven's have opened and a glimmer of culpability has leaked through.
    The one where you notice what you just wrote was wrong? And scroll up to correct or delete it?
    Stephen admits the testing was inadequate. It's a miracle.
    Facts are facts.

    Takes forever to get just a glimmer of truth pounded into you.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)