Ok ... so we are now splitting hairs on language.  Fine.  Have
it your way.

My statement that every voter actually knew was improper.

However, you are just going off on a tangent ...

I am sure that months or years after JFK was assasinated, you
can find someone who didn't even know he was in office.  There
is just no way to deal with this level of cluelessness.

In these days of mass media, Internet, etc ...  If you didn't
know the guy was dead, and his wife was to take his place, you
aren't trying.  I don't care.  It's not my state.  I still had
no choice but to be bombarded with that news.

Sorry.  My point still stands.

Ern

-----Original Message-----
From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan@well.com]
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 10:01 AM
To: Ernest Hua; Ernest Hua
Cc: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: A very brief politcal rant

As a working journalist writing about politics, I get lots of feedback from
voters. Many are, sadly, clueless.

But it is a stretch to assert, as you blithely do, that every voter knew
that the guy was dead. My own experience shows otherwise.

-Declan

At 09:55 11/10/2000 -0800, Ernest Hua wrote:
>To believe your assertions, you would have to assume that the
>voter walked into the booth never picking up on any news and
>never spoke to anyone, and just had no clue who he/she was
>voting for.  This behavior is clearly legal.  But just as Tim
>cannot be concerned about inner city welfare mothers ("maggots"?
>what word did he use?), I simply cannot be concerned about this
>uninformed segment of the electorate.