[EM] Russ's overlong, off-topic poting

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Russ posted:

Dear EM subscribers,

I just joined this list to reply to a post regarding me and my website
http://ElectionMethods.org. Some of this post may be off-topic, but I am
replying to a post that went off-topic regarding me, so I feel that I
should have an opportunity to reply.

I reply:

No, my explanation for what happened to electionmethods.org was on-topic, 
because it was about a voting system website.

But yes, I did include one or two brief sentences about your support of the 
carnage being perpetrated on the Iraqis.

But your posting goes on at very great length about off-topic things, like 
9/11. EM isn't the place for you to post your opiniions on 9/11 at such 
great length.

Russ continued:

I realized very early that he and I were on opposite sides of the
political spectrum.

I reply:

The moral/ethical spectrum.

Russ calls himself a libertarian, apparently not understanding that 
"authoritarian" is the opposite of "libertarian". Few if any libertarians 
would  call Russ a libertarian.

rRuss continiued:
.
Well, it couldn't last forever. I don't remember exactly when it
happened, but a few months ago we started talking politics.

I reply:

Most people, normal people, can speak in a civil manner when they disagree. 
But Russ is loud, and couldn't keep from spewing some namecalling about 
those with whom he disagrees.

And it finally became evident that Russ says what he says because he derives 
satisfaction from hearing himself say it, and without regard to details such 
as fact or accuracy, or even his own belief regarding the accuracy of what 
he's saying.  EM has guideliness asking that we not kep repeat arguments 
that have already been answered, so you know what I'm talking about.

After a while, with Russ, one realizes that it won't make any difference 
what one says, because Russ merely wants to say what gives him satisfaction 
to say. As I said, without regard to any other consideration, such as what 
Russ believes to be true.

Anyway, predictably, Russ's behavor became worse and worse, until finally he 
was no longer someone with whom I wanted to work. When I asked him to not 
have material from me, or material deriving from things I'd sent to him, his 
anger and namecalling escalated, and after a few days of that it was 
necessary to ask him not to send any more e-mails to me. I eventually had to
block his e-mail. So, for that reason apparently, he's now  imposing his 
off-topic grudge on you.

Russ continued:

Not just
"garden variety" politics, mind you, but really bizarre stuff. Mike put
forth the notion that the Bush Administration was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I reply:


Russ believes that telling people that will devastatingly discredit me.

The funny thing is that that comes from someone who believes that the 
evolutionof species has never taken place.

For instance, here's a quote from a recent e-mail from Russ:

"And just wait till everyone finds out your wacko views on 9/11 !"

That was in an e-mail that threatened to reveal my 9/11 oipinions, as if I'd 
been keeping them secret . How flattering, to have a website devoted to my 
opinions on 9/11, without even having to ask for it. But I reminded Russ 
that there are no exceptions to my refusal of permission to have at his 
website anything that I'd sent or anything deriving from what I'd sent to 
him.

My reply to that threat was:

"You mean the wacko views of families of 9/11 victims, families of fallen 
firefighters, at least one congressmember, a long list of military officers 
in the U.S. & elsewhere, 46% of New York City residents, 41% of New York 
state residents, 1/3 of Germans, a Republican presidential candidate, 
fire-protection journals, an increasing number of fire-protection engineers, 
leaders in the defense departments of Germany & Russia, and every non-U.S. 
intelligence service that has expressed an opinion on whether 9/11 could 
have been done without help from the administration?"

Many believe that something is very fishy about 9/11, and advocate a 
thorough investigation by people not appointed by the administration. Many 
of those people say that administration particpation in 9/11  is the most 
likely explanation for the evidence.

With great faith in his president, Russ considers that to be out of the 
question, beyond-the-pale, something that shouldn't even be considered.  It 
doesn't matter that there's a mountain of evidence that something is very 
wrong with the administration's account of 9/11. It doesn't matter how many 
respected and responsible people say that there's something very fishy about 
9/11.

But this isn't the place to debate 9/11.

Russ continued:

At first I thought Mike was suggesting that Bush had merely "allowed"
the attack to occur because he thought it would help him politically. I
didn't think that was likely, but I was willing to consider the
possibility. I then soon realized that Mike believed more than that. He
believes that Bush or his aids actively organized the attacks.

I reply:

Making sure that, on that day, only on that day, the U.S. air defenses would 
be unavailable to intercept hijacked planes, would amount to active 
participation in the attack. Russ wants to acll it "allowing". I call it 
participating.

Russ continues:

He also
believes, for example, that the WTC was wired with explosives that were
detonated on cue to make the WTC collapse.

I reply:

Russ wants to debate details of 9/11, and I apologize that the list's time 
is being wasted on so much off-topic discussion. Please understand that I 
wouldn't have started a detailed 9/11 debate here. I'll keep my reply brief, 
because the matter is off-topic.

Don't take my word for it.

Because everything I've written here about voting systems would be 
discredited :-) if I didn't defend against Russ's charges, I'm justified in 
citing other sources, to show that many others find the administration's 
9/11 story
   fishy.,and so that you can get information to show that Russ is wrong to 
say that those claims are wacko.

First, let me recommend the book _The New Pearl Harbor_, by David Ray 
Griffin, available in many progressive bookstores.

And in the Canadian magazine _Global Outlook_, issue #9,which will be 
displayed till Feb 28,  on news-stands and magazine shelves of progressive 
bookstores.

Their website is:

http://www.globaloutlook.ca

Their e-mail:

editor at globaloutlook.ca   or info at globaloutlook.ca

Griffin's book, and many others, are available from them, by mail.

Their phone number for callers outside Canada:

: 1-705-720-6500

  Fax: 1-888-713-8883  or 1-705-726-7300

Issue #9 is about  the odd facts of 9/11. Global Outlook is also an 
organization that offers many books, tapes & DVDs regarding the questionable 
aspects of the administration's 9/11 story, by many interesting asuthors.

I wouldn't have posted that information here if the topic hadn't been 
brought up. The information available from those sources is relevant to my 
answering of Russ's criticisms.

Another website relevant to Russ's claim that only a few isolated kooks 
question the administration's 9/11 story:

http://www.911inquiry.lorg

That's the website of International Citizen's Inquiry Into 9/11.

Summarizing a little here:

Though incompetence is the official explanation, no one has been fired or 
even reprimanded for that incompetence. In fact, some of those who presided 
over the alleged incompetence were promoted. That includes, in partilcular, 
people in the FBI who consistently blocked investigations and buried reports 
about things such as Al Qaida members entering the U.S. illegally, and 
taking flying lessons at American flying schools, some of them on U.S. 
military bases. There were an impressive number of blocked investigations 
and buried reports before 9/11. A number of people who did that were 
promoted instead of fired or reprimanded.

I won't go into the many odd things abouit 9/11 here, because this isn't the 
place for that topic, but because Russ implies that no one should consider 
that demolition was used:

Fire-protection experts say that a hydrocarbon fire can't melt steel, making 
it difficult to explain the  pools of melted steel that were found in the 
rubble, reported by a number of different reliable witnesses. Explosives or 
thermite could melt steel.

Fire protection experts say that it would be very surprising and unlikely 
for a fire to collapse a steel-frame bldg. If fire collapsed the twin 
towers, that would be the first time in history that a fire has ever 
collapsed a steel-frame bldg.

Experts on the subject have found it decidedly odd that so much of the 
concrete was turned to powder. Falling wouldn't do that.  Explosives could.

Even the "independent" commission's authorized report says that one of the 
towers collapsed in 10 seconds. Others have reported that figure too. That 
means that the roof of the tower fell with an average downward accleration 
of .85g. Some say it's difficult to explain how that would be possible, 
considering that the falling floors, on their way down, had to bash through 
about 80 intact floors.

There's even a report that one of the bldgs collapsed at g.

Though it's well-known to be a felony to remove or conceal evidence in a 
felony, the govt quicklly removed the pieces of steel from the bldg frame 
(which was conveniently in truckbed-size pieces, as demolition companies 
advertise that they can do) and hustled them away in trucks in which $5000  
GPS devices had been installed. One truck driver was fired because he 
stopped for lunch instead of getting his load of bldg steel pieces to where 
it was supposed to go, shipped overseas to be melted down.

During that removal, a fire protection journal forcefullly objected to the 
removal of evidence and sad that it's got to stop. It didn't stop of course.

Efforts to conceal or destroy evidence are usually considered a sign of 
guilt. Is that how we  "smoke out" the terrorists? By destroying evidence?

Though there were all these questions about the bldg collapse, the 9/11 
commission doesn't comment on how the collapse happened, its mechanism or 
manner. Just a vague statement that it happened due to fire.  One would have 
expected that that would be central, especially when the matter was in 
question.

Check the video. Doesn't the bldg just appear to melt into dust all at once?

Russ continued:

Wait, that's not all. Mike is convinced that that a US missile, rather
than an airplane, hit the Pentagon. Why? Because he read a book by a
Theologian that says the hole in the Pentagon was too small for the
airplane to have penetrated, and not much of the airplane was left
outside the wall.

I reply:

No part of a 757b was found outside the wall or inside the demolished bldg. 
Every trace of it apparently burned up in a fuel-fire. :-)

What I pointed out to Russ was that there was only the small hole in the 
facade, and apparently the wings, engines and all, went through that small 
hole, without the heavy and fast-moving engines making any mark on the 
facade or the lawn. And the tail too. "The case of the tall tail".

  I also pointed out the Pentagon is probably the best-defended place in the 
world, and the question of how that big slow airliner was able to crash into 
it,  when it had been known for a long time that the airliner was on its way 
there.

Russ continued:

When I asked him where the
airplane (and the people in it) went if it didn't hit the Pentagon, he
said it could have simply flew out over the ocean and ditched.

  I reply:

  What I replied was that apparently something went wrong. Maybe the 
passengers overpowered the hijackers, as happened on one of the other 
hijacked planes. Apparently the plane wouldn't be available to hit the 
Pentagon, and apparently someone decided to substitute a missle. That 
decision would of course be more likely if the plane went down in the ocean.

Witness are divided on whether it was an airliner or something much smaller. 
The professionally qualified witnesses, if I remember correctly, say it was 
somethign smaller. And remember that the witnesses kept hearing that it was 
a jumbo jet, and under the great stress of the incident, they might not have 
remembered the detail of what the craft looked like, and could have adopted 
what they'd heard about that.

Russ continued:

I told Mike that such a massive conspiracy would not only be incredibly
risky

I reply:

Maybe not, if one can trust the public's gullibility and the media's 
unwavering support for the administration.

Russ continued:

, but any net benefit to Bush was highly questionable.

Everyone agrees, including members of the administration, that 9/11 was the
  answer to the administration's dreams, enableing them to push agendas that 
otherwise were stalled.

Russ continued:

Had Bush
been caught in such an act, not only would he be hung by the gonads, but
the Republicans could plan to be out of power for the next 50 years!
B

I reply:

Maybe they felt there wasn' t much risk, for the abovementioned reasons.

Russ continued:

Well, at that point I started to wonder what sort of person I had hooked
up with, but I decided to just ignore it and keep the website as is.
Then we started talking about the war in Iraq. Now, I respectfully
disagree with the position that the war is unjustified and too costly in
terms of lives

I reply:

Russ says that because it's the life of some Iraqi child instead of his own 
life.

Actually, according to the medical journal  Lancet, and a study by Johns 
Hopkins University, it's likely more like 100,000 lives, so far.

Worth it to whom? Not to the victims or their families.

Russ continued:

  Guess what
Mike believes. He believes that the people of Iraq would be better off
with Saddam still in power. He also thinks that the US is torturing
Iraqis as bad or worse than Saddam and his regime ever did.

I reply:

What I said was that nothing like the current killing rate was taking place 
before our invasion. International law calls for an immediate threat of 
civilian deaths to justify an invasion. It's widely agreed that no such 
thing existed.

Russ has decided that those 100,000 people, and more, on an ongoing basis, 
should die in order to allegedly benefit the abstraction known as a country.

Russ continued:

And
apparently Mike's committment to democracy doesn't extend to the Iraqi
people.

I reply:

They don't have democracy. The puppet regime that we'd install if we could 
wouldn't be a democracy. What a joke, the notion that we're going to give 
democracy to Iraq when we don't have it here.

Democracy? All the polls, including recent ones, say that nearly all the 
Iraqis want us out. How is it democracy, then, when we stay and continue the 
killing? Apparently to Russ, the little detail of what the Iraqis want 
doesn't enter into his democracy.

I asked Russ:

How much sense does it make to speak of forciblly keeping a people liberated 
against their own will?

Russ continiued:

But even that wasn't enough to end our collaboration on the website. It
turns out that Mike is also convinced that Bush stole the 2004 election
by means of rigged voting equipment with no paper trail. Now, I agree
completely with him that we need paper ballots, and I even wrote an
article at the website about it that has been there for years.
Furthermore, I am even willing to consider evidence that the machines
were rigged. But I was absolutely amazed that Mike is certain it
happened when even the Democrats aren't making that claim. That was the
straw that made me realize what sort of person I was dealing with.

I reply:

What I said was that, with or without proof that the result would have been 
different with verifiable voting, the mere fact that we're supposed to take 
the machine vendors' word for the outcome, when the results are completely 
unverifiable,  and when the programming of the machines is secret and not 
available for examination, means that the election was not legitimate.

Aside from that, I heard that the odds against  all those "glitches" being 
in favor of Bush are billions to one. And that  those upsets where the 
result contradicted the exit polls tended to be where the unverifiable 
machines were used.

The owner of one machnine provider said that he'd deliver Ohio to Bush. 
Ohio's secretary of state, a co-manager of the Bush campaign there, made the 
same promise. A Republican politician said that it would be necessary to 
"suppress" the vote in Detroit, where there are many Black Democrat voters.

Russ continued:

Things got really nasty when Mike ordered me to "take down the website"
or, as he put it in his post to this group,

[quoting me]

["I've asked Russ to either take down his website, or at least remove
from it my articles, and anything there that has its origin in any
suggestions or comments that I'd sent to Russ."

Well, Mike does not have the authority, either legal or moral, to order
me to take down the website that I spent so much time developing. The
website was my idea to start with, I own the domain, I wrote most of the
material

  I reply:

  ...only to the extent that you slopily reworded my definitions.

I don't care if Russ posts information on Approval, Condorcet, & IRV that he 
gets from other websites. All I'm saying is that he shouldn't have anything 
that's specificallly from me, that he can't find elsewhere with a different 
origin.

If Russ believed any of his rabid, ranting-&-raving namecalling about me, he 
wouldn't want any material from me to be at the website. If there's any 
dispute about the website, it's about whether Russ should have material that 
he couldn't find elswhere with a different origin. If Russ wants to keep 
that material, then he's eating humble-pie and admitting that he doesn't 
believe any of his namecalling.

If Russ has any self-respect at all, he won't have at his website anything 
specifically from me. He won't have anything that he couldn't get elsewhere 
with different origin.

Russ continued:

I'd said:

"Over the years, Russ's website has been an ongoing embarrassment on EM,
because Russ has often reworded my definitions in a way that is
ambiguous or means something different from the wordings that I'd sent
to him."

Russ replied:

This is gross distortion. Here's how it worked. Mike would send me his
definitions and other material, and I would edit them for readibility.

  I reply:

Russ's readibility usually or always meant vagueness and ambiguity.

Russ continued:

His text was often convoluted and garbled. I spent a lot of time
improving his text.

I reply:
\
As I said, Russ's improved text was often the object of justified derision 
at EM, where people pointed out its vagueness, ambiguity, and befuddledness. 
When I corrected the sloppified definitions, when I stated on EM what my 
actual definition was, the criticizer agreed that now it made sense, wasn't 
ambiguous or vague. What was criticized here for sloppiness, vagueness and 
ambiguity were Russ's befuddled, sloppified rewordings.

And contrary to Russ's claim, often the first I heard of those 
sloppifications was when I was criticized for them here.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement