The paper is the Everett Herald, the reporter is Jeff Switzer, who wrote the referenced article about me in Tuesday's paper. I linked to a journal entry that linked to it, but if you still need it, it's right here. He showed up at the preordained time of noon mentioned in the article, where I exchanged pleasantries with some of the people in attendance, including elections manager Carolyn Diepenbrock, who had already heard about the problem when I mentioned it, and she and I spoke of it with Mr. Switzer taking notes. I then voted and reported back to both of them that the problem was still happening, and then Ms. Diepenbrock took me over to where the paper ballots were being counted to show me the operation, and Mr. Switzer followed, and asked me some more questions about it.
All of this has been made clear already; you're just being lazy and ignorant (again).
have you ever heard of someone refer to being maligned by the truth ?
Yes. Odd that you've not. A quote from Oxford, which I already referenced (which you should have read if you cared about context): "You can malign someone, which is to say or write something evil without necessarily lying (: she was maligned for her past association with radical causes)."
Eh, but what do those eggheads at Oxford know? I mean, apart from being the foremost authorities on the common usage of the English language?
Obviously "to malign" in common usage, by just about everyone everywhere, means lying about someone.
Obviously, that is a false thing for you to say.
And specifically as used in the summary of the main topic here, when they say that republicans are, "the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems," they don't means that "obviously it's true that republicans exploit flaws in electronic voting systems" - in fact this means that they believe that it's *not* true.
They may have meant that, but there's no way to know for sure from the context, and unless you have such information, you are, in fact, wrong to say that it in fact meant it.
I'll take half the blame, and give the other half to the person who designed QWERTY keyboards.
I wasn't implying fraud
Incorrect.
I was implying that you are the type of person...
Heh. Again, nice hypocrisy about name-calling and attacking.
Also, all of what kind of person you say I am is entirely, 100 percent, false. Once again, you are being incredibly ignorant.
There is simply no such implication in the stories
Incorrect.
That's not a good quality to have if you want to be a journalist or a political figurehead.
I wasn't imagining anything, I was stating clear truth (unlike the absolute falsehoods you invented about me in your personal attacks). That said, I don't want to be a journalist or "political figurehead," whatever you think that is. Overactive imagination, indeed.
If anything, the summary declares that the reps. are "the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems" - which outright states the opposite of what you say is implied. Read It Again. (Although, in all fairness to you, you don't know what the word malign really means, so maybe you misunderstood the statement).
Again, incorrect. But if you actually read the discussion, instead of again speaking from pure ignorance, you would know that.
The way the story is written, they are simply contrasting the fact that it's a republican fighting the electronic ballots, when in the past, the press usually maligns the republicans for exploiting the parties tight connections with the major electronic voting companies. It's a valid contrast.
Well no, it's not, because there is no implication that the malignant statements are false, despite your ignorant claim to the contrary.
or worse, that all you can think about is demands that I respond to the same things in the article that you're making an issue.
Also false. I can think about many other things. The fact remains that unless someone supports the allegation made in the article, I have no obligation or desire to support the one I offered. And I couldn't care less if you don't like that.
Which is blinding you to the fact
Incorrect.
that you made a flat statement
Correct.
won't back it up
Until the statement I was responding to is backed up? Correct.
and can't change the subject with me.
I've not tried. Again, you only prove you are either unreasonable or a troll by claiming that I am changing the subject by replying to a statement made in the article, and then refusing to discuss my reply in a context OTHER than the statement made in the article. That is not changing the subject, that is stubbornly sticking to the subject.
What you don't care about is how obvious are your tricks. They fail.
What you don't realize is that your silly accusations aren't fooling anyone.
That whole article is a web of lies. And I don't say that loosely. It is some of the most blatant lying I've seen in a mainstream "news" article in a long time.
Confronted with your irrationality, you're changing your story.
Incorrect. My story changed not a jot.
You said "front-page news everywhere" and now its only liberal and Dem blogs, and local papers.
Two words for you: hyperbole. For pete's sake, get a grip. Nothing is literally front-page news everywhere, not even the war.
Maybe the reason why it wasn't "front-page news everywhere" or anywhere was because you didn't bother to make a stink about it in the first-place ("I just post about it, but don't make it into a big deal.").
Um, right, that is what I said, that this is part of the reason. Hello?
How do you expect the public or press to find out about it if your publicity is limited to your Slashdot journal?
It's not. The local paper did know about it, and should have published it. The reporter was right next to me when we found out all about it and talked to the elections manager. He interviewed me about it. But I was being reasonable and said I was relieved it didn't affect any contested races, and said it was funny that it happened to me of all people, instead of going off on a tirade like most Democrats would, about how this is a vindictive attempt to attack a critic of the county blah blah blah. So I guess he thought it wasn't worth printing, when I think it clearly is: the public needs to know about all these anomalies, and it's their job to do that.
I said 'Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse.'
And you were obviously wrong about the "false" part.
You said, 'there's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign."'
And I was obviously wrong about where I said it does not say that in a dictionary; I already retracted that, saying it does not say that in a GOOD dictionary.
You were the first to use the word necessarily.
Yes, and? Your first usage implicated you meant it was necessary, and to make sure, I used that word. That you subsequently used it confirmed that indeed, you considered that to be the case. That's how things are done. If at that point you had said "oh, I didn't mean necessarily, just usually," then the discussion would have taken a different turn. But you confirmed you believed, in fact, that it was necessary.
The more telling point is that you said it doesn't usually mean false
Correct.
and I think I have shown that it does usually mean false
Incorrect.
You cleverly used dictionaries that are not available on line, so no one can check the veracity of your claims
Also incorrect. I used three dictionaries. Two of the three were from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED. The other was the dictionary included with Mac OS X, which, while not being online, is easy for many people here to check.
I used only online dictionaries, so my claims are easily verifiable.
Not that it matters, since I didn't dispute any of your claims, but you didn't give URLs, and I assumed they were not online at the time.
Sure, dictionaries may be wrong, but the first three that come up in a google search for online dictionary? That's a big coincidence, if true.
Well, for the umpteenth time, that is not true, since THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED contained one of the definitions you say was not online, even though I have pointed this out already umpteen times. Look at it again. It gives four results. You gave the first one, ignoring the next two. The fourth was medical. Even in THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED, it is 2-to-1 against you.
I will admit that I was wrong about malign necessarily meaning false if you will admit to being wrong about it usually not meaning false.
That's silly. If you are willing to admit you are wrong, it can only be because you a. believe you are wrong, or b. are willing to lie and say you were wrong even though you believe you are right. How does what I say have any bearing on whether you believe you are wrong, or on whether you are willing to say so? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
As to the rest: I cited three examples (two from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED, one from Oxford), and none of them says it usually means false. Since I never believed it usually meant false, and the most authoritative dictionary we have here does not say it usually means false, and two of the three definitions in THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED do not say it usually means false... no, I don't think I am going to admit something that the evidence at hand suggests is untrue.
The best argument that you can make that malign does not usually imply false is that most dictionaries are wrong, and that is a very weak and pompous argument.
No, it's not the argument I made. You said that, but I didn't. I do not believe most dictionaries say it is usually means false. You quoted three, I quoted three (two of them from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED). I said dictionaries are often wrong, not that most are wrong.
Even if I did make that argument, there's nothing pompous about it. Dictionaries are written by people, and I have many times identified where some of those people get things wrong. Hell, you are willing to concede that
I'm sorry.. you think some story about a Precinct officer would be front-page news? You're deluded.
No. I think a story about a Democrat activist who was fighting against a Republican county auditor and whose name was mysteriously left off an electronic voting machine ballot, would be front-page news. And it would be. It would be on every liberal and Democratic web site, it would be on all the local papers here. Absolutely. It would be Yet Another story supporting the false narrative that Republicans are manipulating electronic voting machines.
Uh, yeah, I see why you failed as a real journalist now.
Yet another ad hominem. How does this jive with you trying to claim I am the one making the attacks?
There are no examples listed because I never made any accusations.
That's obviously false. You directly implied the Republicans are guilty of fraud, twice saying "no matter how true the story (of Republican fraud) is."
As for the rest of your latest post, it was unintelligable...
That says a lot more about you than it does about me. *shrug*
you refuse to stay on the topic of Maryland Voting Machines
You obviously do not understand how discussions work. There was a false implication in the story that Republicans manipulate ballots. I responded to that. That is perfectly on-topic.
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).
The fact that I was responding to a statement in the article with a statement that is just as true. What are YOU talking about?
Now you won't back that up
As soon as someone backs up the statement in the article, I will.
You tried to change the subject of the story to "Democrats exploiting paper ballots"
No, I didn't. I was challenging the statement in the article by presenting a similar statement from an opposite viewpoint. This is a common literary device; I am surprised you are unfamiliar with it.
I asked you to back that up
Correct.
and now you're trying to change the subject back to something else.
Incorrect. And frankly, I am not sure how it is possible for anyone to think so. Being the first post, and using similar language, I was obviously directly responding to the article. I don't know how me insisting that I am responding to the article can be reasonably considered changing the subject.
You made an incriminating claim
Right, just as the article did.
Now you're scrambling to spin away from it.
Incorrect.
I hate Republicans like you, who try to exploit any system, whether it's online discussions or ballot systems, to make attacks and escape the consequences.
And where is your criticism of the attack in the article?
Oh, that's right, since it was against Republicans, you don't care. (Who's the one being exposed here... ?)
Shrugging only clarifies that you're not just a liar, but you don't even care that you're exposed as a liar.
Incorrect. It does clarify that I don't care about something, however.
The point is that you obviously can't name any Senators from other states whose elections had voting regularities... why would I even try to? To what end? I never made any claim about that.
You just wanted to say that the media was biased for reporting voting irregularities where Republicans were put into office and not where Democrats were.
Well, no. My focus was not about who won the elections, but about who was being blamed for irregularities, regardless of the election's outcome.
I was pointing out the reality that Presidential elections are more widely covered than Senatorial elections, and not because of "the liberal media".
Actually, no, you were not doing that. Perhaps you meant to, but in fact, you said "federal" and not "presidential." And, in fact, Senate races are "federal."
So I responded to what you wrote, thinking (incorrectly) that you meant what you wrote. Then when I clearly stated that Senate races are included as "federal," instead of saying "oh, I'm sorry, I meant Presidential specifically," you went off on some unrelated tangent about Senate elections.
If you had, in either post, actually used the proper word to describe what you were talking about -- "presidential" -- I would have responded differently. Instead, you blame me for responding to the incorrect words you chose.
If you are in the paper, then you must be a liar, as the paper is where you read about Republican fraud, and those people are liars (not matter how true they story is, because if they don't mention Chicago voter fraud from the 70's, they are biased !!!)
Dude, you are high. I never mentioned Chicago, I never said "the press" are all liars. You are attacking a straw man.
first you'll malign the responders
Actually, no, you (and he, and others) all maligned me. I maligned no one. If you think calling you ignorant is maligning you, then you must be admitting the word does not imply falsehood, since obviously, you are ignorant about your claims that I am not working to solve the problems.
then try to change the subject
I never changed any subject. Try again?
then claim that they are the ones being off-topic
I made no such claim.
then you'll bait me into a your name-calling
Again, you name-called me. I never called you a name. I described you as ignorant, but that is not a name, it's an adjective. You did, however, call me a name.
and claim that I should be ignored because I'm biased
I never said any such thing.
I will, however, reassert the claim that you are ignorant.
About me blaming people, and not working to solve the problems, yes. Very ignorant. Demonstrably so.
(your favorite word used to label folks who don't agree with you)
False. It's my favorite word to describe the statements of people who say things that are obviously false, based on an equally obvious lack of information.
you are one of the only people in the whole country working on solutions
I never stated, nor implied, that. You read incorrectly: the context was "here," as in, "this discussion." And yes, I'd wager I am one of the only people in this discussion working significantly to solve these problems.
you aren't blaming anyone (except for all those links, examples, google suggestions pointing towards Democratic fraud)
False. The links I presented did not blame Democrats for anything. I did give examples, but only as counterexamples to claims of Republican fraud, to show that it goes both ways, and is not all one party or another. I explicitly stated that the problems are *not partisan.* And I never offered any google suggestions.
and you are defending the GOP... from blame it doesn't deserver (no matter how true the story is)
Wow. Just wow. On the one hand, I am wrong to blame the Democrats, but then you go and blame the Republicans. And even though I am not blaming the Democrats -- just pointing out that it is not one party being worse than the other -- I actually provide examples of it, which you say are irrelevant, but your accusations against the GOP are not accompanied by any examples of any kind.
And you call me the troll?
And what have you done that is constructive to solve problems, instead of just playing the blame game, as you explicitly did?
Why should I? I never came up with any Republicans, or said they "exploit flaws in electronic systems".
But I didn't make my statement in response to you, but in response to the poster.
you're just changing the subject by quoting statements I didn't make
No, that is the subject. Whether you made the statement or not is beside the point.
If someone wants to defend the claim that Republicans manipulate electronic voting, I'll defend the claim I made similarly. Until then, there's no need, or obligation, to do so, since the whole point is that the initial claim is bullshit. If you think my claim is bullshit, that's fine, because it was only intended to be a contrast to the initial statement. That you are asking me to defend mine outside of that context shows you either don't get it, or you just hate Republicans, or you just hate me. *shrug*
Your big mistake here is that you seek only to malign... people and confuse any real discussion.
False. And wow, how terribly, stupidly, ignorantly false. I went out of my way to point out how this incident actually didn't show anything bad about anyone, and you say I seek to malign?
Your tendency to cite random incidents, without any real context, appears only to be done in order to try to prove some personal point and had added nothing of value to the discussion.
Then you do not understand the conversation.
The post falsely implicated Republicans of being especially guilty of wrongdoing. I pointed out that there is just as much, if not more, evidence of Democrats engaging in wrongdoing, but it merely goes unreported.
That you think this adds nothing of value tells me that you are biased against Republicans, because it is quite clearly relevant.
Here's the thing, no matter how extremely biased you may be, or how blind you are to reality, and no matter how much you think "the other side" is at fault, what's needed is a solution to the problem.
If you actually read the link I posted, and the links at the journal entry, you would know that I have been actively engaged in working with my state and county government to improve voting and find solutions. I am probably the last person in this discussion to accuse of not trying to find solutions. I am working with the county (appointed by the County Council) to help improve the county charter (a process that happens once every ten years), including its election provisions. I've many times spoken directly with county elected officials about ways to improve voting. I've worked as an elections monitor. I've talked bunches of times to my state legislators and even to my state attorney general. And so on. And almost none of these efforts have had anything to do with "blaming" anyone.
I did not even "blame" anyone here; I merely pointed out the fact that neither side is better than the other. OK, I did blame the press and the Democrats in regards to how much irregularities of Republicans get relatively overblown, but that was only in keeping with my larger point about how this is not about one side over the other.
Please give the Blame Game you are playing a break, it's distracting people from talking about solutions...
You could not be more ignorant about what is really going on here. I am one of the few people actively working on solutions, and I am not blaming anyone for the problems; I am, on the contrary, defending the GOP from blame it doesn't deserve.
Hell, on Tuesday, the county elections manager thanked me for what I wrote about the problems with the elections department, the ones I got in the paper about, because she said it was constructive and even-handed, and didn't seek to blame anyone. Oh, but I guess you know more than she does.
Try reading a bit more next time before you display your ignorance.
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... without necessarily lying," and then adds other words to use if you wish to suggest falsehoods, such as calumniate.
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
May I see your papers comrade? The point is if you don't *want* to have photo ID you don't need too.
That's a separate issue. I was addressing the logistics.
The *vast* majority of people without ID will be of lower economic status, and also much more likely to vote Democratic.
No, you're conflating the two separate issues. Most people, regardless of economic status, will have no problem with getting an ID, if it is free. The people most likely to not want to get an ID are libertarians (who in my experience tend to be more likely to vote Republican, at least in the states I've lived in) and criminals of various shape and size (who may be more likely to vote Democrat, I dunno, but chances are, shouldn't be voting anyway, since they are, well, criminals).
I believe what he's saying is that the GOP needs to restrict as many possible Democratic voters from being able to vote to maintain their current electoral majority.
And that's nonsense, because the GOP has not changed its views on election reform much over the last decade, and they certainly had no need to "restrict" voters 10 years ago.
Of course, the premise is flawed anyway: the GOP is not trying to restrict any voters. They are only trying to make sure that whoever casts a vote, does so legally. What's far more true is that some Democrats are trying to make it easier for people to vote illegally.
No, you hear less about it because they were statewide elections and not a federal one, and didn't have much impact on those of us in other states.
No. Statewide != not-federal. Indeed, one of those two big ones I mentioned in WA was for the U.S. Senate, Cantwell vs. Gorton in 2000.
Also, most of the news stories we hear about are about other similar statewide races.
In fairness, there was a lot of press about our 2004 governor election, but most of that national press ignored the anomalies and focused on the horse race.
I, a Republican, was in the local county paper on Tuesday morning criticizing the County Auditor over all-mail voting. I was also a candidate in the primary, on the ballot (unopposed), that same day. But my name was actually hidden on the electronic voting machine ballot. You could not see my name to vote for me. And my name was the only one this happened to: me, the guy in the paper that day criticizing the Auditor.
If I were a Democrat and he a Republican, chances are, this would be front-page news everywhere. "Republicans manipulate voting machines to keep Democrat off ballot." But since I am a Republican and I realize it was probably merely an unfortunate coincidence, I just post about it, but don't make it into a big deal.
So excuse me for thinking that criticisms pointed at Republicans being the ones who manipulating elections, are a bunch of garbage; I see firsthand -- with all the problems in WA in 2000 and 2004, including the unreported ones -- that it's just not true.
There is simply no truth to the implications that Republicans manipulate elections more than Democrats (and I tend to believe it is the other way around, though since I have always lived in Democrat states -- CA, MA, WA -- that certainly colors my perspective). It's just that for whatever reasons, the stuff about Republicans gets more press, and less benefit-of-the-doubt.
That's also why we don't want to have ID requirements. A great many people don't have state issued id's, since they don't drive.
That is an easily solvable problem: provide free state ID to those without one.
Let's turn this around: Republicans, being a minority, want to see as many restrictions and hoops as possible on voting, because it helps them. That explains their support for measures that are biased against people who vote for Democrats typically.
Um, what country do you live in? In the U.S., the Republicans have been the majority for over a decade, and have favored certain measures you (falsely) state are biased against people who vote for Democrats typically. If this is "explained" by them being a minority, then how do you "explain" their support for those measures while in the majority?
No, in WA it is far worse: the Dems went to all-mail balloting in most of the state (and in two years, will probably be the whole state), in large part because you don't need ANY I.D. when voting by mail. Fraud is ten times easier by mail, and paper ballots (especially when sent by mail) are much easier to "fix."
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you just really are not paying attention.
The paper is the Everett Herald, the reporter is Jeff Switzer, who wrote the referenced article about me in Tuesday's paper. I linked to a journal entry that linked to it, but if you still need it, it's right here. He showed up at the preordained time of noon mentioned in the article, where I exchanged pleasantries with some of the people in attendance, including elections manager Carolyn Diepenbrock, who had already heard about the problem when I mentioned it, and she and I spoke of it with Mr. Switzer taking notes. I then voted and reported back to both of them that the problem was still happening, and then Ms. Diepenbrock took me over to where the paper ballots were being counted to show me the operation, and Mr. Switzer followed, and asked me some more questions about it.
All of this has been made clear already; you're just being lazy and ignorant (again).
have you ever heard of someone refer to being maligned by the truth ?
Yes. Odd that you've not. A quote from Oxford, which I already referenced (which you should have read if you cared about context): "You can malign someone, which is to say or write something evil without necessarily lying (: she was maligned for her past association with radical causes)."
Eh, but what do those eggheads at Oxford know? I mean, apart from being the foremost authorities on the common usage of the English language?
Obviously "to malign" in common usage, by just about everyone everywhere, means lying about someone.
Obviously, that is a false thing for you to say.
And specifically as used in the summary of the main topic here, when they say that republicans are, "the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems," they don't means that "obviously it's true that republicans exploit flaws in electronic voting systems" - in fact this means that they believe that it's *not* true.
They may have meant that, but there's no way to know for sure from the context, and unless you have such information, you are, in fact, wrong to say that it in fact meant it.
The phrase is "jibe with" not "jive with"
...
I'll take half the blame, and give the other half to the person who designed QWERTY keyboards.
I wasn't implying fraud
Incorrect.
I was implying that you are the type of person
Heh. Again, nice hypocrisy about name-calling and attacking.
Also, all of what kind of person you say I am is entirely, 100 percent, false. Once again, you are being incredibly ignorant.
There is simply no such implication in the stories
Incorrect.
That's not a good quality to have if you want to be a journalist or a political figurehead.
I wasn't imagining anything, I was stating clear truth (unlike the absolute falsehoods you invented about me in your personal attacks). That said, I don't want to be a journalist or "political figurehead," whatever you think that is. Overactive imagination, indeed.
If anything, the summary declares that the reps. are "the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems" - which outright states the opposite of what you say is implied. Read It Again. (Although, in all fairness to you, you don't know what the word malign really means, so maybe you misunderstood the statement).
Again, incorrect. But if you actually read the discussion, instead of again speaking from pure ignorance, you would know that.
The way the story is written, they are simply contrasting the fact that it's a republican fighting the electronic ballots, when in the past, the press usually maligns the republicans for exploiting the parties tight connections with the major electronic voting companies. It's a valid contrast.
Well no, it's not, because there is no implication that the malignant statements are false, despite your ignorant claim to the contrary.
You're so confused
Incorrect. I see very clearly.
or worse, that all you can think about is demands that I respond to the same things in the article that you're making an issue.
Also false. I can think about many other things. The fact remains that unless someone supports the allegation made in the article, I have no obligation or desire to support the one I offered. And I couldn't care less if you don't like that.
Which is blinding you to the fact
Incorrect.
that you made a flat statement
Correct.
won't back it up
Until the statement I was responding to is backed up? Correct.
and can't change the subject with me.
I've not tried. Again, you only prove you are either unreasonable or a troll by claiming that I am changing the subject by replying to a statement made in the article, and then refusing to discuss my reply in a context OTHER than the statement made in the article. That is not changing the subject, that is stubbornly sticking to the subject.
What you don't care about is how obvious are your tricks. They fail.
What you don't realize is that your silly accusations aren't fooling anyone.
That whole article is a web of lies. And I don't say that loosely. It is some of the most blatant lying I've seen in a mainstream "news" article in a long time.
Confronted with your irrationality, you're changing your story.
Incorrect. My story changed not a jot.
You said "front-page news everywhere" and now its only liberal and Dem blogs, and local papers.
Two words for you: hyperbole. For pete's sake, get a grip. Nothing is literally front-page news everywhere, not even the war.
Maybe the reason why it wasn't "front-page news everywhere" or anywhere was because you didn't bother to make a stink about it in the first-place ("I just post about it, but don't make it into a big deal.").
Um, right, that is what I said, that this is part of the reason. Hello?
How do you expect the public or press to find out about it if your publicity is limited to your Slashdot journal?
It's not. The local paper did know about it, and should have published it. The reporter was right next to me when we found out all about it and talked to the elections manager. He interviewed me about it. But I was being reasonable and said I was relieved it didn't affect any contested races, and said it was funny that it happened to me of all people, instead of going off on a tirade like most Democrats would, about how this is a vindictive attempt to attack a critic of the county blah blah blah. So I guess he thought it wasn't worth printing, when I think it clearly is: the public needs to know about all these anomalies, and it's their job to do that.
Arguing with you is pointless.
... no, I don't think I am going to admit something that the evidence at hand suggests is untrue.
OK there buddy.
I said 'Look up the word malign. It means to maliciously and falsly accuse.'
And you were obviously wrong about the "false" part.
You said, 'there's nothing "false" necessarily or even usually implicated by the use of the word "malign."'
And I was obviously wrong about where I said it does not say that in a dictionary; I already retracted that, saying it does not say that in a GOOD dictionary.
You were the first to use the word necessarily.
Yes, and? Your first usage implicated you meant it was necessary, and to make sure, I used that word. That you subsequently used it confirmed that indeed, you considered that to be the case. That's how things are done. If at that point you had said "oh, I didn't mean necessarily, just usually," then the discussion would have taken a different turn. But you confirmed you believed, in fact, that it was necessary.
The more telling point is that you said it doesn't usually mean false
Correct.
and I think I have shown that it does usually mean false
Incorrect.
You cleverly used dictionaries that are not available on line, so no one can check the veracity of your claims
Also incorrect. I used three dictionaries. Two of the three were from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED. The other was the dictionary included with Mac OS X, which, while not being online, is easy for many people here to check.
I used only online dictionaries, so my claims are easily verifiable.
Not that it matters, since I didn't dispute any of your claims, but you didn't give URLs, and I assumed they were not online at the time.
Sure, dictionaries may be wrong, but the first three that come up in a google search for online dictionary? That's a big coincidence, if true.
Well, for the umpteenth time, that is not true, since THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED contained one of the definitions you say was not online, even though I have pointed this out already umpteen times. Look at it again. It gives four results. You gave the first one, ignoring the next two. The fourth was medical. Even in THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED, it is 2-to-1 against you.
I will admit that I was wrong about malign necessarily meaning false if you will admit to being wrong about it usually not meaning false.
That's silly. If you are willing to admit you are wrong, it can only be because you a. believe you are wrong, or b. are willing to lie and say you were wrong even though you believe you are right. How does what I say have any bearing on whether you believe you are wrong, or on whether you are willing to say so? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
As to the rest: I cited three examples (two from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED, one from Oxford), and none of them says it usually means false. Since I never believed it usually meant false, and the most authoritative dictionary we have here does not say it usually means false, and two of the three definitions in THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED do not say it usually means false
The best argument that you can make that malign does not usually imply false is that most dictionaries are wrong, and that is a very weak and pompous argument.
No, it's not the argument I made. You said that, but I didn't. I do not believe most dictionaries say it is usually means false. You quoted three, I quoted three (two of them from THE ONE URL THAT YOU PROVIDED). I said dictionaries are often wrong, not that most are wrong.
Even if I did make that argument, there's nothing pompous about it. Dictionaries are written by people, and I have many times identified where some of those people get things wrong. Hell, you are willing to concede that
I'm sorry.. you think some story about a Precinct officer would be front-page news? You're deluded.
No. I think a story about a Democrat activist who was fighting against a Republican county auditor and whose name was mysteriously left off an electronic voting machine ballot, would be front-page news. And it would be. It would be on every liberal and Democratic web site, it would be on all the local papers here. Absolutely. It would be Yet Another story supporting the false narrative that Republicans are manipulating electronic voting machines.
Uh, yeah, I see why you failed as a real journalist now.
Yet another ad hominem. How does this jive with you trying to claim I am the one making the attacks?
There are no examples listed because I never made any accusations.
That's obviously false. You directly implied the Republicans are guilty of fraud, twice saying "no matter how true the story (of Republican fraud) is."
As for the rest of your latest post, it was unintelligable...
That says a lot more about you than it does about me. *shrug*
you refuse to stay on the topic of Maryland Voting Machines
You obviously do not understand how discussions work. There was a false implication in the story that Republicans manipulate ballots. I responded to that. That is perfectly on-topic.
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).
What the hell are you talking about?
... ?)
The fact that I was responding to a statement in the article with a statement that is just as true. What are YOU talking about?
Now you won't back that up
As soon as someone backs up the statement in the article, I will.
You tried to change the subject of the story to "Democrats exploiting paper ballots"
No, I didn't. I was challenging the statement in the article by presenting a similar statement from an opposite viewpoint. This is a common literary device; I am surprised you are unfamiliar with it.
I asked you to back that up
Correct.
and now you're trying to change the subject back to something else.
Incorrect. And frankly, I am not sure how it is possible for anyone to think so. Being the first post, and using similar language, I was obviously directly responding to the article. I don't know how me insisting that I am responding to the article can be reasonably considered changing the subject.
You made an incriminating claim
Right, just as the article did.
Now you're scrambling to spin away from it.
Incorrect.
I hate Republicans like you, who try to exploit any system, whether it's online discussions or ballot systems, to make attacks and escape the consequences.
And where is your criticism of the attack in the article?
Oh, that's right, since it was against Republicans, you don't care. (Who's the one being exposed here
Shrugging only clarifies that you're not just a liar, but you don't even care that you're exposed as a liar.
Incorrect. It does clarify that I don't care about something, however.
The point is that you obviously can't name any Senators from other states whose elections had voting regularities ... why would I even try to? To what end? I never made any claim about that.
You just wanted to say that the media was biased for reporting voting irregularities where Republicans were put into office and not where Democrats were.
Well, no. My focus was not about who won the elections, but about who was being blamed for irregularities, regardless of the election's outcome.
I was pointing out the reality that Presidential elections are more widely covered than Senatorial elections, and not because of "the liberal media".
Actually, no, you were not doing that. Perhaps you meant to, but in fact, you said "federal" and not "presidential." And, in fact, Senate races are "federal."
So I responded to what you wrote, thinking (incorrectly) that you meant what you wrote. Then when I clearly stated that Senate races are included as "federal," instead of saying "oh, I'm sorry, I meant Presidential specifically," you went off on some unrelated tangent about Senate elections.
If you had, in either post, actually used the proper word to describe what you were talking about -- "presidential" -- I would have responded differently. Instead, you blame me for responding to the incorrect words you chose.
If you are in the paper, then you must be a liar, as the paper is where you read about Republican fraud, and those people are liars (not matter how true they story is, because if they don't mention Chicago voter fraud from the 70's, they are biased !!!)
Dude, you are high. I never mentioned Chicago, I never said "the press" are all liars. You are attacking a straw man.
first you'll malign the responders
Actually, no, you (and he, and others) all maligned me. I maligned no one. If you think calling you ignorant is maligning you, then you must be admitting the word does not imply falsehood, since obviously, you are ignorant about your claims that I am not working to solve the problems.
then try to change the subject
I never changed any subject. Try again?
then claim that they are the ones being off-topic
I made no such claim.
then you'll bait me into a your name-calling
Again, you name-called me. I never called you a name. I described you as ignorant, but that is not a name, it's an adjective. You did, however, call me a name.
and claim that I should be ignored because I'm biased
I never said any such thing.
I will, however, reassert the claim that you are ignorant.
Lemme see, I'm ignorant
... from blame it doesn't deserver (no matter how true the story is)
About me blaming people, and not working to solve the problems, yes. Very ignorant. Demonstrably so.
(your favorite word used to label folks who don't agree with you)
False. It's my favorite word to describe the statements of people who say things that are obviously false, based on an equally obvious lack of information.
you are one of the only people in the whole country working on solutions
I never stated, nor implied, that. You read incorrectly: the context was "here," as in, "this discussion." And yes, I'd wager I am one of the only people in this discussion working significantly to solve these problems.
you aren't blaming anyone (except for all those links, examples, google suggestions pointing towards Democratic fraud)
False. The links I presented did not blame Democrats for anything. I did give examples, but only as counterexamples to claims of Republican fraud, to show that it goes both ways, and is not all one party or another. I explicitly stated that the problems are *not partisan.* And I never offered any google suggestions.
and you are defending the GOP
Wow. Just wow. On the one hand, I am wrong to blame the Democrats, but then you go and blame the Republicans. And even though I am not blaming the Democrats -- just pointing out that it is not one party being worse than the other -- I actually provide examples of it, which you say are irrelevant, but your accusations against the GOP are not accompanied by any examples of any kind.
And you call me the troll?
And what have you done that is constructive to solve problems, instead of just playing the blame game, as you explicitly did?
Why should I? I never came up with any Republicans, or said they "exploit flaws in electronic systems".
But I didn't make my statement in response to you, but in response to the poster.
you're just changing the subject by quoting statements I didn't make
No, that is the subject. Whether you made the statement or not is beside the point.
If someone wants to defend the claim that Republicans manipulate electronic voting, I'll defend the claim I made similarly. Until then, there's no need, or obligation, to do so, since the whole point is that the initial claim is bullshit. If you think my claim is bullshit, that's fine, because it was only intended to be a contrast to the initial statement. That you are asking me to defend mine outside of that context shows you either don't get it, or you just hate Republicans, or you just hate me. *shrug*
First, tell me, which Republicans "exploit flaws in electronic systems"?
... set ... go!
If you cannot come up with any, then I've made my point.
If you can, then surely, I can mention several Democrats who meet the same burden of proof as the Republicans you come up with.
Ready
Your big mistake here is that you seek only to malign ... people and confuse any real discussion.
False. And wow, how terribly, stupidly, ignorantly false. I went out of my way to point out how this incident actually didn't show anything bad about anyone, and you say I seek to malign?
and yeah, [malign] usually implies lying
Also false.
Your tendency to cite random incidents, without any real context, appears only to be done in order to try to prove some personal point and had added nothing of value to the discussion.
Then you do not understand the conversation.
The post falsely implicated Republicans of being especially guilty of wrongdoing. I pointed out that there is just as much, if not more, evidence of Democrats engaging in wrongdoing, but it merely goes unreported.
That you think this adds nothing of value tells me that you are biased against Republicans, because it is quite clearly relevant.
Here's the thing, no matter how extremely biased you may be, or how blind you are to reality, and no matter how much you think "the other side" is at fault, what's needed is a solution to the problem.
If you actually read the link I posted, and the links at the journal entry, you would know that I have been actively engaged in working with my state and county government to improve voting and find solutions. I am probably the last person in this discussion to accuse of not trying to find solutions. I am working with the county (appointed by the County Council) to help improve the county charter (a process that happens once every ten years), including its election provisions. I've many times spoken directly with county elected officials about ways to improve voting. I've worked as an elections monitor. I've talked bunches of times to my state legislators and even to my state attorney general. And so on. And almost none of these efforts have had anything to do with "blaming" anyone.
I did not even "blame" anyone here; I merely pointed out the fact that neither side is better than the other. OK, I did blame the press and the Democrats in regards to how much irregularities of Republicans get relatively overblown, but that was only in keeping with my larger point about how this is not about one side over the other.
Please give the Blame Game you are playing a break, it's distracting people from talking about solutions...
You could not be more ignorant about what is really going on here. I am one of the few people actively working on solutions, and I am not blaming anyone for the problems; I am, on the contrary, defending the GOP from blame it doesn't deserve.
Hell, on Tuesday, the county elections manager thanked me for what I wrote about the problems with the elections department, the ones I got in the paper about, because she said it was constructive and even-handed, and didn't seek to blame anyone. Oh, but I guess you know more than she does.
Try reading a bit more next time before you display your ignorance.
You said it was underreported because it was not federal. I pointed out the fact that it was, indeed, federal.
So, I don't understand what the point is, and I won't bother looking things up to argue against a non sequitur.
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.
May I see your papers comrade? The point is if you don't *want* to have photo ID you don't need too.
That's a separate issue. I was addressing the logistics.
The *vast* majority of people without ID will be of lower economic status, and also much more likely to vote Democratic.
No, you're conflating the two separate issues. Most people, regardless of economic status, will have no problem with getting an ID, if it is free. The people most likely to not want to get an ID are libertarians (who in my experience tend to be more likely to vote Republican, at least in the states I've lived in) and criminals of various shape and size (who may be more likely to vote Democrat, I dunno, but chances are, shouldn't be voting anyway, since they are, well, criminals).
I believe what he's saying is that the GOP needs to restrict as many possible Democratic voters from being able to vote to maintain their current electoral majority.
And that's nonsense, because the GOP has not changed its views on election reform much over the last decade, and they certainly had no need to "restrict" voters 10 years ago.
Of course, the premise is flawed anyway: the GOP is not trying to restrict any voters. They are only trying to make sure that whoever casts a vote, does so legally. What's far more true is that some Democrats are trying to make it easier for people to vote illegally.
No, you hear less about it because they were statewide elections and not a federal one, and didn't have much impact on those of us in other states.
No. Statewide != not-federal. Indeed, one of those two big ones I mentioned in WA was for the U.S. Senate, Cantwell vs. Gorton in 2000.
Also, most of the news stories we hear about are about other similar statewide races.
In fairness, there was a lot of press about our 2004 governor election, but most of that national press ignored the anomalies and focused on the horse race.
Imagine if this happened to a Democrat:
I, a Republican, was in the local county paper on Tuesday morning criticizing the County Auditor over all-mail voting. I was also a candidate in the primary, on the ballot (unopposed), that same day. But my name was actually hidden on the electronic voting machine ballot. You could not see my name to vote for me. And my name was the only one this happened to: me, the guy in the paper that day criticizing the Auditor.
If I were a Democrat and he a Republican, chances are, this would be front-page news everywhere. "Republicans manipulate voting machines to keep Democrat off ballot." But since I am a Republican and I realize it was probably merely an unfortunate coincidence, I just post about it, but don't make it into a big deal.
So excuse me for thinking that criticisms pointed at Republicans being the ones who manipulating elections, are a bunch of garbage; I see firsthand -- with all the problems in WA in 2000 and 2004, including the unreported ones -- that it's just not true.
There is simply no truth to the implications that Republicans manipulate elections more than Democrats (and I tend to believe it is the other way around, though since I have always lived in Democrat states -- CA, MA, WA -- that certainly colors my perspective). It's just that for whatever reasons, the stuff about Republicans gets more press, and less benefit-of-the-doubt.
That's also why we don't want to have ID requirements. A great many people don't have state issued id's, since they don't drive.
That is an easily solvable problem: provide free state ID to those without one.
Let's turn this around: Republicans, being a minority, want to see as many restrictions and hoops as possible on voting, because it helps them. That explains their support for measures that are biased against people who vote for Democrats typically.
Um, what country do you live in? In the U.S., the Republicans have been the majority for over a decade, and have favored certain measures you (falsely) state are biased against people who vote for Democrats typically. If this is "explained" by them being a minority, then how do you "explain" their support for those measures while in the majority?
None of that makes any sense.
No, in WA it is far worse: the Dems went to all-mail balloting in most of the state (and in two years, will probably be the whole state), in large part because you don't need ANY I.D. when voting by mail. Fraud is ten times easier by mail, and paper ballots (especially when sent by mail) are much easier to "fix."
It was in 2000 and 2004 that Democrats in the state of Washington won statewide elections by tiny margins with very questionable paper ballots.
You just hear less about it nationally than the Diebold stuff because it's Democrats.