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 [[1]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.

References

   1. mailto:declan@well.com