"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:Xns99C6DEBEB98B6riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762/site/14081545

4 hours ago
An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful

Editor's Note:

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web
and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our
CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll
on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys
flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to
hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader
and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more
and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show
of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus
votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the
way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen
him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was
either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support
messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with
traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that
night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are
obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I
can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an
honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the
Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly
doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the
Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll
down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the
results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I
get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

What a douchebag.

I'd love to see those logs and do an analysis. I bet they're full of
***** on the bots .. or they're freaking idiots and didn't set the poll up
right.

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote
in news:Xns99C6DEBEB98B6riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762/site/14081545

4 hours ago
An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful

Editor's Note:

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web
and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our
CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll
on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys
flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to
hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader
and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more
and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show
of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus
votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by
the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't
seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was
either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support
messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with
traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that
night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are
obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I
can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an
honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the
Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly
doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in
the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the
poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw
the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the
many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

What a douchebag.

I'd love to see those logs and do an analysis. I bet they're full of
***** on the bots .. or they're freaking idiots and didn't set the poll
up right.

As I'm not an American, I cant vote in 08, but I like to hear common
sense, and Ron Paul does talk a lot of common sense, for example
"blowback" = common sense, plus he has the experience, although I dont
agree with his stand on abortion, I would vote for him. By the way how
far along do you have to go before some of the no-hopers drop out, do
they just keep going till they run out of money?

http://www.rense.com/general78/vanish.htm

On Oct 11, 8:53 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762/site/14081545

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll
down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results
of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little
worried. I'd take it down again.

Jeez.. when neocon lackeys take it upon themselves to censor a vote by
the public.. 'we is in deeep doo doo, peoples'.

And if Ghouliani would have pulled 75%.. what then?
Would that dude have yanked the poll too?
Highly unlikely...

Shameful crap.

Here (for educational purposes) is a save of that poll - before MSNBC
in their neocon brilliance - yanked it:

http://www.rense.com/general78/vanish.htm

those call in polls and online polls are pointless... Ron Paul
fantatics, which is what they are, come out in full force... but when
the elections start, Paul will not even get 4 percent of the vote...