CDR: RE: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!

[Ernest Hua]

Well, Tim, maybe I'm just part of a huge conspiracy to piss you
off.

Or maybe you utter lots of theoretical purity of process without
being the least bit accomodating to the fact that often times, in
a large distributed process, things don't go as smoothly and as
perfectly as you would prefer.  You really should try managing a
large organization or process and try to be able to claim that
you can make it perfect.

And, of course, to get to YOUR point ...

What is different this time?  Will their evil twins to be doing
the voting?  What?  What is the problem?

It's the same damn vote.  One for one.  If someone does not feel
like "fixing" his/her vote, he shouldn't have to.  If the second
pass is a clean slate, then he/she can vote the same damn way
again.

I really don't get it.  Do they get TWO votes this time?  Are
they now FORCED to vote even if they did not the first time?

Let's face it, if there are "forces", then they'll be there this
time around as well.  These people weren't objective one day,
and the next day, they were suddenly sheeples toppled over by
political ads.  So what's the difference?

Just spit it out, Tim.  You just aren't talking substance, but
you love insulting me ...

What a way to communicate ... but maybe that's not your goal.

Ern 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim May [mailto:tcmay at got.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:28 PM
To: cypherpunks at cyberpass.net
Subject: RE: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!



At 8:57 PM -0800 11/8/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
>  > There cannot be a re-vote of the County, or even of the entire State,
>>  as this would distort the forces acting on the electorate in a way
>>  never seen before. The Palm County voters would know _they_ would be
>>  electing the next president. Billions of dollars would be spent
>>  trying to buy each and every voter.
>
>"distort the forces ..."   Lord!  No!  Don't let them do that!
>
>Geez, Tim.  What happened to personal responsibility?  Who gives two
>bits what "forces" will be upon them.  They will ultimately still
>have to cast a vote which they were casting just days earlier.  Who
>cares if idiots spend billions to sway a few thousand votes.  That's
>THEIR problem.  It's free speech, as you have claimed in the past.

You're a complete idiot if you don't understand this point.

I made my points, briefly, above. This would not be a matter of the 
same voters simply recasting their same ballots. Think about it.

(I'm not convinced you can, Ernest. In reading hundreds of your posts 
I have concluded that you're just part of Vinge's "Slow Zone.")


--Tim May
-- 
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5115 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20001108/252407f8/attachment.txt>