('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:48:00 -0500
>From: Michael Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Misrepresentation of previous messages
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> I said:
>> >And I was not the one who brought up the subject of duelling either, I
>> >was responding to an earlier poster on that, so once again, not only is
>> >Joe Wrong, but so is Harvey.
>> And whose post might THAT one be, ayy, Mikey? One of your droogies?
>So not only are you a liar, but you are computer illiterate? I bring to
>your attention the following message (apologies in advance to Gene for
>ratting on him):
>Received:from tick.javien.com ([188.8.131.52]) by host1.datamann.com
>(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22126 for <email@example.com>; Thu, 22
>Feb 2001 19:06:50 -0500
>Received:(from majordom@localhost) by tick.javien.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id
>QAA18819 for extropians-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:05:30 -0700
>X-Authentication-Warning: tick.javien.com: majordom set sender to
>firstname.lastname@example.org using -f
> Message-ID: <3A959E3B.47EB0231@datamann.com>
> Date:Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:18:19 -0500
> From: Michael Lorrey <email@example.com>
> Organization:Datamann, Inc.
> X-Mailer:Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD (WinNT; I)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Subject:Re: The recent election (was Re: Heston's
> Content-Type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: email@example.com
> X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
> X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
> X-UIDL: 38b5931500003bdd
>> Brian D Williams wrote:
>> > I'm curious as to what you saw that was unfair about the election.
>> An admission that a measurement has an error, and the realization that
>> a measurement without an error bar wouldn't survive even a trace of
>> peer scrutiny. That apart from the obvious cases of "candidate A won"
>> or "candidate B won" or "candidate C won" there's also "within the
>> error margins, we can't tell, so it's a tie", and a procedere for
>> resolving such. As flipping an unbiased coin, or a public duel,
>> or whatever.
><<AND HERE IS THE CRITICAL TEXT^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Apologies accepted in advance, except for from Joe.>>
>> Apart from that, anything with a "democracy" somewhere in it is supposed
>> to represent the meaning of majority of voters. Not representatives of
>> such, or some d'Hondtian games with numbers. Not to open the can of
>> worms of basis democracy vs. elitism...
>a) we're not a democracy, we are a republic
>b) we are not a democracy, we are a republic
>c) we are not a democracy, we are a republic
>Now, what did I miss?
>Oh, yeah, simple majorities here can't:
>change the constitution
>override a veto
>comdemn a man to death
>declare martial law
>change the law after the fact
>and, elect a president and vice president
>The Supreme Court satisfied the 'flipping the coin' part, by deciding
>that Gore cheated by trying to change the coin to a two headed one in
>mid-toss, so Bush won by default.
>Now, I wouldn't have minded much if they had duelled, tho I 'spect that
>Gore woulda demanded three people as seconds, bragged that he invented
>duelling and thus gets to decide the rules AFTER having walked ten
>paces, denied the referee had any controlling and legal authority,
>Tipper would have demanded that videos of the duel carry warning labels,
>Gore would have denied ever having smoked a barrel ('cept maybe once),
>and the press would have declared Gore the winner before a shot was
So, I was right, by your own evidence; your droogie Brian brought up duelling, and eugene and I elaborated upon it, Eugene ribbing Gore and I ribbing Bush, at which time Brian, who brought up duelling in the first place, attempted to blame his own actions on me. Kinda like the black helicopter Freemen types blaming the feds for NcVeigh's demolition of the OK city federal building. The modus is the same; first do something, then blame those you did it to, and accuse THEM of doing what YOU did.
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:47 MDT