Where did he do that? He called him dishonest and a coward and a hysterial partisan and a ton of other things. But I didn’t see where he wrote that Shodan is lying about his opinions.
And on top of that, he has a girl’s name, too.
Dateline: Planet Obvious.
It’s not hard to understand at all. It is just hard to believe.
And so, when you accuse me of partisanship, you are necessarily claiming that you are being non-partisan. It a pot-kettle-partisan thing. So that is where you claimed to be non-partisan, when you accused me of being partisan.
So when you ask if I am in favor of an accurate voting system, and if that is more important to me than that Bush wins, and I answer, “Yes”, you consider that a chickenshit answer? Let’s see if I can put it in terms that will penetrate your cranium. How about, “Yes, you moron”. Better?
I don’t know enough about voting machines to express an opinion on what system would be the best. I want the most accurate system reasonably attainable. If the results of November’s election are accurate and Kerry wins, well and good. If the results are accurate and Bush wins, I intend to post “Neener neener neener” and revel in the sound of exploding heads as the SDMB Lockstep Lemmings of the Left all melt down in unison.
Oh no, you don’t. I’ve already answered your question. Now I get to ask one.
Suppose the election is extremely close. If the losing side protests the result, files lawsuits to get the rules changed, complains that the margin was too narrow to be meaningful, etc., will you [list=a][li]shut the fuck up and not complain about it, or [*]agree that they have every right in the world to do this and their only motive must be to see that the election was fair?[/list]Which is it? [/li]
And if your answer, either implicitly or in actual fact, now or later, is “that depends on who wins”, then you are just exactly what I said you were. Failing that, you could just post a link to a thread where you told the Democrats to stop whining about 2000 and that Bush won fair and square, and I will apologize.
On preview:
Regards,
Shodan
Geez, you really know how to hurt a guy. 
His question that you gave the chickenshit answer to didn’t have fuck-all to do with Bush. Uncram, moron.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Suppose the election is extremely close. If the losing side protests the result, files lawsuits to get the rules changed, complains that the margin was too narrow to be meaningful, etc., will you [list=a][li]shut the fuck up and not complain about it, or agree that they have every right in the world to do this and their only motive must be to see that the election was fair?[/list]Which is it? [/li][/QUOTE]
Way to give no meaningful answer there. Of COURSE the loser will file lawsuits to get the rules changed, will fight in court. Of COURSE they have every right to do so.
And of COURSE their motive isn’t going to be to “see that the election was fair.” What celestial dimension do you live in, in which fairness is the pre-eminent concern of any major party political candidate?
A call for fairness on Diogenes’s part is not an admission of stupidity or abject naivete on his part.
I agree with him here: it’s more important to have a fair election than a wise election, and if Bush wins fair and square, I’ll grit my teeth down to powder and deal with it. But I’ll be just a bit unhappy if he–OR if Kerry–wins by cheating.
There’s a difference, by the way, between being partisan, and being undemocratic. Will I be unhappier if Bush wins unfairly than if Kerry does? I confess I will: I don’t have a great deal of control over my emotions like that. But that doesn’t translate to my supporting cheating on Kerry’s part: I absolutely condemn it, and am appalled at anyone who advocates dirty Kerry tactics.
Daniel
Maybe you’re projecting.
I have said in both threads that I am a partisan. I said it before I called you a partisan.
More chickenshit. My question was asked in the light of knowing the problems with Diebold. I’m asking if you are satisfied with Diebold, even knowing the problems, or if you would like a more reliable system or at least a paper trail.
I’ll put it very simple so you can’t weasel out of it. Do you object to a paper trail for the Diebold machines? Yes or no?
You know that the Diebold machines are NOT accurate. This has been amply demonstrated. Are you satsified with them or would you like to see some safeguards like a paper trail?
Don’t get your hopes up. It is particularly interesting to note that even though John Kerry is leading in Florida at the moment he no longer needs it to win the election. These polls have been incrementally growing in Kerry’s favor for the past several weeks. Kerry is quietly gaining separation in the electoral race. I wouldn’t start drafting the “neener neener” thread just yet.
Oh no you didn’t, you chickenshit Paper trail? Yes or no.
This Pitting shows signs of degenerating into a civil discussion and debate as to the reliability of voting machinery. I won’t have it!
There’s a time and a place to behave in a proper and gentlemanly fashion, sirs, and the Pit is most definitely not the place! If you are determined to drag down this mutual calumny into partisan politesse and mutual respect, you should never have left the wussy-ass GD to begin with!
Kids these days, I swear…
Diogenes 1
Shodan 0
Just dropping by to suggest that it is poor debating style and bad form for Shodan to question a poster’s intentions and sincerity rather than confront the issues raised.
On the other hand, the glow of indignation is diminished somewhat when the poster in question asserts that Florida is “in the bag” for Kerry if only the votes are counted accurately, meaning that he’ll automatically presume cheating if Kerry manages to lose the state. That doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the “partisan but really just concerned with fairness” argument.
I mostly enjoy Shodan’s posts, even when I disagree with him. The claim that he is a “sanctimonious, disingenuous gutless little fuck” doesn’t resonate, though like others I could not swear to his size, stature-wise. If he could refrain from spewing gasoline on the flames of post-2000, pre-2004 left-wing rage in GD, that would be wise.
Have a nice vacation. Stay away from Internet cafes.
The one nonsensical reply to my comment in that thread about the lack of seriousness of both Dems and GOPs on election reform (based on silence about the renewed specter of the Electoral College)* doesn’t surprise me. I still think both sides don’t have the courage or wisdom to deal with that problem, and the game-playing right now has more to do with political posturing than a real wish for reform (I support the paper-trail business too, but not because of a belief that Dems are poor little chickens going to the slaughter at the hands of the rapacious Republicans, with no shenanigans in the other direction).
*No E.C. in 2000, Gore is President.
That’s pretty lame. DtC has never to my knowledge indicated he would want his candidate to win illegitimately. If you can point out a post where he did, you’d have some credibility there.
I didn’t quite mean to imply that I would presume cheating. I’m really more concerned about the bugginess of the machines than genuine attempts at fraud by the Pubs. I was blustering a bit when I said that Florida was like my left nut, but seriously, if a result in a given state is dramatically at odds with polling and expectations (let’s say Kerry won Texas, for instance) it should give one pause, should it not? Especially if unreliable voting machines are used and there is no paper trail.
If Kerry loses Florida and the paper trail supports that result, you will hear no cries of “fraud” on my part, I will just have to sharpen my barbs for another four years of chimp rule.
**Shodan **is one of the most shamelessly dishonest contributors to this board. Thankfully though I live in a nearly Shodan-free world: I only see stuff he posts when somebody quotes him.
Me neither, althought frankly, I’ve always pictured him as a large, strong, more or less strong and silent type in offline life, with martial arts skills and the ability to kick the asses of most people he meets, but who chooses to outsmart them instead.
Funny how perceptions vary, isn’t it?
Yes, it does. And adding “smug” to the list of appropriate adjectives makes it resonate even better.
Or perhaps we are still counting chads.
Would that we could trade the Shodans and Brutuses in for more Sam Stones.