Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Governor Wants Paper Ballots
supabeast! writes, "Fed up with all the problems in the state's electronic voting system, Maryland Governor Robert Erlich wants the state to scrap the entire system and return to paper ballots. He's threatened to call a special session of the legislature to change the law to allow paper ballots. What makes this particularly interesting is that Erlich is a Republican — the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems — and his attempts to clean up Maryland's voting problems are being opposed by Democrats, the party that is usually complaining about electronic voting!"
Sounds like he's just covering his ass. It makes sense for a politician from either side to call in question the legitimacy of the ballots when you know you're going to lose in the end.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
give BSD credit shitHheads. *BSD mod points and
I believe that the submitter was framing the discussion as a Democrat vs Republican issue when that is really irrelevant to the discussion.
The core of the matter is tha a Governor is switching from Electronic voting back to paper voting. Throwing in the remark about Democrats vs Republicans just seems trollish to me
Pudge never makes sense. Here's how the rest of this thread is going to go:
Pudge will continue to argue that he's right. You will continue to argue that you're right. Pudge will continue to gradually shift the discussion until, eventually, you're no longer talking about what you were originally talking about, at which point Pudge will acuse you of going offtopic. At this point you will likely become annoyed and become slightly more confrontational, at which point he will acuse you of being irrational and insulting and hold that up as "proof" that "liberals" are angry hatemongering idiots.
What's fascinating is that this usually takes place in his journals. He uses the tactic to banish people who consistently show his irrational word munging for what it is: nonsense (which means basically anyone with a brain is banished from his journals - in fact quite literally some of the most consistently intelligent people on this site are or were at one time banished from his journals for disproving his silliness)). It's sort of bizarre that he's on the front page now exposing himself to a massive backlash over his gibberish that he can't stop by changing his foes list.
I'm waiting for a video to surface on YouTube of a fistfight between pudge and kdawson in the Slashdot offices. That would be pretty cool.
Good lord, either I haven't had enough coffee, or you're not making any sense. Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse.
Actually, no, it doesn't. There's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign." Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary.
I'm not saying the GOP is exploiting anything. I'm just wondering why you would make a statement like you did.
Because it is just as true as what was said in the article.
Just answer my first question before you pose one to me.
Why? The article made its statement before I made mine.
Actually, yes, it does.
... without necessarily lying," and then adds other words to use if you wish to suggest falsehoods, such as calumniate.
No, it doesn't.
[malign] necessarily implies false.
No, it doesn't.
That's from dictionary.com, which is based on the Random House dictionary.
That is one (incorrect) definition.
Merriam Webster says this: "MALIGN suggests specific and often subtle misrepresentation but may not always imply deliberate lying."
Also incorrect. I can suggest, but does not necessarily do so.
Cambridge says "to say false and unpleasant things about someone or to unfairly criticize them"
Also incorrect.
Not sure where you got the idea that it doesn't imply false
Well, I am not sure why you are cherry-picking definitions. For example, the second definition on the page you link to is from the American Heritage Dictionary, which says, "To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of," which categorically denies the case you are trying to make, as saying it "often" implies untrue statements clearly does not mean it is "necessarily implied." WordNet (which I do not trust, but since it is on the same page) does not mention truthfulness at all, and neither does the New Oxford American Dictionary, which does not mention anything about truthfulness in its definition, then specifically adds "you can malign someone
Oh, and in case you weren't sure, the NOAD comes from the same publisher as the OED, which is widely recognized as the authoritative dictionary of the English language. Unfortunately, I do not have an OED handy to see what they have to say, but the NOAD is the next best thing to it. So unless the OED -- incredibly -- contradicts the NOAD, I win. Sorry.
but in any case, you need to take a refresher course in vocabulary
You first.
Just to make it clear... the democrats aren't the only ones accused of stuff like this... Republicans do stuff too.
Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...
54
You lose, sorry.
Incorrect.
Let me refresh
No need.
your obviously deficient memory.
Incorrect.
This is what you stated: 'There's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign." Not sure where you get that from, but it wasn't a dictionary.'
Correct. And I now retract part of that: I should have said, it wasn't from a good dictionary.
You managed to find a dictionary that got you out of "necessarily."
Um, actually, no, YOU supplied that definition. And I tend to think that, probably, you read the definition (since you looked up several, chances are you looked at all the definitions on the URL you provided) and simply didn't mention it because it directly contradicted your claim.
Also, it was not merely "a" dictionary I found it in: it was two, and one of them is the second-most-authoritative dictionary of the English language, second only to the OED itself.
When most of the dictionaries referenced by me or you include falsehood as part of the definition, it's a safe bet that that is the accepted useage. (sic) Are you at least capable of conceding you were wrong on that point?
No, because I know it's false. Dictionaries are often wrong, and are not to be trusted implicitly. And even if we do take the dictionaries as a whole, the best argument you could make is that you think that the likely intent was to implicate falsehood, which contradicts your earlier claim (that it was necessary), and supports mine (that it is not necessary).