----- Original Message ----- From: "der Mouse" <mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca> To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 1:18 PM Subject: Re: West meets East Perot was the only candidate to get any percentage of the vote that I can remember in my lifetime. As long as the media relies on 3 second soundbytes you will end up with simpletons like Bush where everything is black and white yes or no answers.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Goodwin" <acme(a)gbronline.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:40 PM Subject: Re: West meets East can Well if being 36 years old makes me a youngster, guess I am.

Seriously,. I am still confused that there are people who want to elect this man to four more years of running this country. To Wit: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." --President Gerorge W. Bush, Washington, DC March 31, 2001 "I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news. And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." -- Fox News interview with Brit Hume, September 22, 2003. "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." -- Trenton, NJ, September 23, 2002. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" -- Florence, SC, January 11, 2000 "Do you have blacks, too?" -- Washington, DC, March 2001, during Bush's first meeting with Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Reported April 28, 2002 by columnist Fernando Pedreira of the Estado Sao Paulo in an article titled "An Overwhelming Ignorance." "I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." -- aboard AirForce One, June 4 2003. Remember vote early and vote often Cheers Tom -- --- Please do not read this sig. If you have read this far, please unread back to the beginning.

As opposed to electing an admitted war criminal who is also guilty of acts of treason while an officer in the American military? Sadder still is the fact that he has rested his campaign on this instead of his 20 years of service in the Senate. Perhaps that's because he and we have nothing to show for those years? That opinion cuts both ways, of course. . . with an election this close and with a population so thoroughly divided we can assume an equal number of pissed off folks no matter who wins the election. I'm with Dwight. Why can't I vote for someone I like rather than always voting against someone I hate? Erik Klein www.vintage-computer.com www.vintage-computer.com/vcforum The Vintage Computer Forum

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Ron Hudson wrote: Why can't we kill who ever is elected if we don't like them? -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Hudson" <ron.hudson(a)sbcglobal.net> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 4:35 PM Subject: Re: West meets East Or better yet vote for who you really like instead of the only 2 choices and make it so a majority is needed to get elected, coalition governments are nice since they tend to weed out the extremes in both parties and concentrate toward the center. I think people with ability would rather be a CEO with nice perks and a better salary while not having their family looked into, people who run for president tend to have a power trip going on.

As if there were not many in the last Presidential election! You could be right!! And it could just as easily go the other way!. One of the things that pollsters hate is uncertainty, and, in an effort to make polls more reliable, they tend to want responses from people who actually, reliably vote, not just register. Herein lies to problem. The polls tend to, credibly, give more weight to people that have previously voted in the last election. presidential or otherwise. If you are polled by one of the numerous survey companies, one of the more pertinent questions, and sometimes the very first one, is: "Did you vote in the last election" Your answer to this one goes a long way to the weight of your response to the survey company. The general accepted perception is that, employed, and middle-class tend to vote more than the unemployed and lower-class that elderly vote more than the young, and that whites vote more than minorities. It is also generally perceived that these are all general characteristics of more republican voters than democrat voters. There are anomolies, of course, There are a lot of wealthy middle-class democrats and black or hispanic republicans. But pollsters have generally NOT been surprised when these general perceptions are followed in polling. What throws a monkey wrench into things is when a group or groups of voters do not follow the general perception of pollsters. This happens when a lot of new voters are registered, when voting groups become active after histrically being nascent, or when an election polarizes groups. It seems that these factors are all hallmarks of thise election. Case in point; Arizona, normally a conservative, mostly republican, state elects a democratic female democratic governor, over a conservative well-supported, state senator. As expected, a study of all the precincts show that everybody voted as expected. Conservative suburban precints showed the normal high turnout, minority inner-city had a small higher than expected turnout but really not enough to turn the elction around. So what happened! A ballot initiative that would have reduced and heavily taxed Indian Gaming and would have allowed racetracks to enjoy the same gaming priveledges as Indian Reservations was put on the ballot. This caused a massive Indian voter registration drive to defeat the measure (which the republican party mistakingly supported) and lead to an overwhelming vote by the hereto unregistered Indian voting population. The verdict is still out obn how this will effect this Presidential election, some Indian voters like Bush and there is no Indian Gaming propostion on the ballot. Wht this voting population will do is anybody's guess as it is a new and untested voting population. Other points: although Al Gore won the election by 500,000 votes, in all the rust-belt states where there is a heavily democratic presence as well as voters, a large percentage of them "voted with their feet" and did not vote, due to Gore's support of NAFTA and other pro-business, anti-union stances. These non-voting voters are not counted as heavily by pollsters, as they are now considered unreliable. New voters by the score. Generally the perception that newly registered voters tend to vote or register democratic. If this perception is true then the huge new-voter registration in this election would tend to favor democrats WITH the caveat that these voters are "unreliable" If these voters are reliable, they are not as heavily weighed or not counted at all by the pollsters, leaving a huge gap between what is polled and what actually transpires at the polls, > Of course I may be wrong, it happens. > Y'all will know then how to judge what I say in the future. > But, if it IS a debacle, and you thought it was going to be a "close" race, > you have to ask yourself, "Why didn't I see this coming?" > I'd say it's because our opinions are malformed due to all the > thalidomide the media is spewing. What the media sees is a result of the polling!! (see above) One man's BS is another's gospel truth. Or they could be spo-on or have nothing to do with what the media says or does. Many do not sell the twenty items, as they appreciate the intrinsic value as opposed to what they could fetch on ebay. > Of course, if it IS close, maybe I'll join Sellam and go elsewhere > because how could so many people be fooled. Dubya expressed it so eloquently: There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. --President George W. Bush, East Literature Magnet School, Nashville, Tennessee, September 17, 2002. > Guess I'll go eat worms as the ditty goes. Fried with hot sauce is best. Cheers Tom > -- --- Please do not read this sig. If you have read this far, please unread back to the beginning.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Joe R. wrote: Please spare us.

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 05:53 -0700, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: This'll be on topic then. Sort of. :-) We live in scary times, that's for sure :-(

At 05:41 AM 10/28/2004, you wrote: Promises, promises. Do you promise to leave? Alec Baldwin promised the same thing 4 years ago and he's still hanging around. Yap, yap, yap, just a lot of silly pretentious drivel. Ed K.

Rumor has it that Vintage Computer Festival may have mentioned these words: Here ya go, Sellam! http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20041024&mode=classic ;-) [[ Altho I must say, I doubt you'll go thru with it! You may be serious about the time, but when the time is right, the money never is! Believe you me, I've considered it, too.... :-/ ]] Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers _??_ zmerch(a)30below.com (?||?) If at first you don't succeed, nuclear warhead _)(_ disarmament should *not* be your first career choice.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: www.residensea.com Cheers Ahab

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, John Foust wrote: Not much different than Beverly Hills (or Manhattan), save that - when your apartment pitches up, down, sideways, and back-and-forth - no one starts screaming and runs to stand in the doorways. Cheers Dr. Richard (Rick) Richter

At 05:58 PM 10/28/04 -0400, you wrote: That's a great idea but finding any surplus at sea would be sort of tough! Joe

Can we drop this unbelievably neanderthal "politics" discussion? I'm increasingly embarrassed to be American. Not simply because of any particular idea, view, or action (though there's enough of those), but because the level of discourse is mean, mainly ad hominem and mostly stupid and agressively uninformed. It sounds like an argument over who's "cooler", in a high-school cafeteria.