Can someone answer this for me please?

"You took Hursti's quote out of context. He actually said:

"While I have never tested the end-to-end cycle of the memory card, I find it most likely, that the preset counters will not survive the whole cycle- and therefore proving these two Diebold claims accurate."

So he doesn't know either. But let's stop quibbling, and get to the meat of the matter. "

Wait a minute. Now he DOESN"T KNOW either? so when he seems to be on your side, he's an irrefutable expert, but when he goes back and says that diebolds claims are accurate, he doesn't know?

Come on. That is called double speak.

"So now they've been forced to admit that their tabulators cannot detect hacked memory cards. This is the whole point. They lied when they said a memory card could not be hacked. They now admit that their system has a serious weak point and claim that voting accuracy is out of their control. This goes completely against their entire rationale for using their machines in the first place. They claimed that counties should use their systems because they are more secure than paper ballots. Another lie by Diebold.

A properly designed system would have in place a method of preventing tampering of the memory cards (which are really ballot boxes), or eliminate the memory cards altogether (preferred). I mean, C'mon! A tabulator that reads negative votes as valid??? "

Alright...... Listen, every system - read that again - EVERY SYSTEM - has weaknesses that can be exploited.
Period.
Nothing is 100% secure.
Nothing.

"Go ahead, deny that Diebold was continually caught lying. The vast majority of people who saw this documentary understand otherwise. "

I saw one camera angle asking a question of a diebold marketing and PR guy, then another edited shot with him making a statement, followed by edited footage that 'appears' to implicate there is a lie.

But I guess the difference between you and I is that I choose to make up my own mind, and am unwilling to accept a documentaries word for it.

"Nice try with your little straw man argumant. Of course he has the right to defend himself! Duh! But what's his credibility when he denies he's done it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? "

Again, not a straw man (clearly you don't get that concept - you might consider refraining from using it to get credibility).
You said that diebold was like a rapist caught in the act. The truth is, diebold is more like an accused rapist. There is evidence of guilt, but nothing was 'caught', just suspected.
Credibility is not won or lost because of the amount of evidence, but rather the merit which I am calling into question until I can figure out for myself whether it is valid.