Anonymous wrote:

No User wrote:

...

A history professor from Uppsala Universitet in Sweden, called to tell me about this article she had read

Uppsala Universitet has no female history professors. Sorry.

And what's more some of these non-existent female professors even have web pages. Sorry. If you've got to debunk a story, at least do the research. http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/HS.html#HS (Economic History) http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/deps/HH8.html (History) I can find at least 2 (& possibly 4, I'm not sure which names are women) women with the title "Prof.". Anyway, in the US "professor" means just about any University teacher or researcher. Here in the UK (& I think also in Sweden) it is either an honorary title given to a small number of very senior people, or else the head of a department (the word is used differently in different institutions), or sometimes the holder of one of a small number of prominent non-teaching posts. Uppsala has large numbers of female "Doktorand", who I presume are what here in England we'd call "lecturer." For most of the readers of this list, they would be "professor". Ken (who can overhear some female history professors talking as he types)

Anonymous wrote:

Ken Brown wrote:

...

And what's more some of these non-existent female professors even have web pages. Sorry.

Care to name one?

...

prominent non-teaching posts. Uppsala has large numbers of female "Doktorand", who I presume are what here in England we'd call "lecturer." For most of the readers of this list, they would be "professor".

Doctoral student.

On the web pages I quoted in the posting you are replying to: http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/HS.html#HS (Economic History) http://www.uu.se/Adresser/Directory/deps/HH8.html (History) we have references to Prof Ragnhild Lundstrvm, who I assume from the name is a woman. But, as I said, their are dozens of references to other female academics there who, to the Americans on the list) would count as "professors". Heck, in France, schoolteachers can be called Prof. Not that it matters because I doubt if anyone seriously thinks that that spoof has been anywhere near either Uppsala or Zimbabwe. It is still funny though. Ken

At 11:45 AM 11/28/00 +0000, Ken Brown wrote: ....

Which is exactly what the current US situation looks like to most people outside the US. It presumably seems different to the Americans themselves (or at least the Republican voters amongst them), but to the rest of us the whole thing cuts heavily at Bush's credibility

Oh, my - you're saying that Bush has *credibility* in the rest of the world? :-) This reminds me more of the tail-wagging-the-dog situations that parliamentary systems get into when some minor religious party or right-wing-wackos or the Monster Raving Loonie party gets to tell the bigger party what to do because they need three more seats for their coalition. Too bad Florida has a winner-takes-all system - under proportional representation they'd have been done weeks ago, with one electoral vote for Nader, 12 for Gore, and 12 for Bush, and that would fairly accurately reflect the opinions of Florida's voters, unlike the current situation where the margin of error in the counts is much wider than the difference between the totals. And it's not even available as a compromise, because Gore's in the lead without the Florida votes, so that would give him the election. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Harmon Seaver wrote:

And of course if algore wins thru his court challenges, most people would see that as a rigged election as well. Which it is -- either way. Just two criminal gangs fighting over turf.

So we've got a problem. The voting methods we have aren't adequate. It's obvious that something needs to be done to fix this for the future... but what would you have happen now? Without a full recount, Bush's victory will always be questioned. With more legal battles from Gore, he loses credibility as the US citizens lose faith in the electorial process. How do you propose this be handled? I've not seen any good suggestions yet that address all concerns. Alex

On 11/28/00 at 2:16 PM, frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell) wrote:

At 09:31 PM 11/27/00 -0600, No User wrote:

...

1. Imagine that we read of an election occurring anywhere in the third world in which the self declared winner was

George was not "self-declared". He holds certifications of victory from the elections officials of 29 states totalling 271 electoral votes.

States don't certify presidential victories. The courts haven't completely weighed in. And the electors haven't cast their votes yet. So anyone claiming victory already is clearly a "self-declared" winner.