Activism Change » Internet activism

AAPD = Avaricious Abuse of People with Disabilities

admin — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Disabled Voters for Democracy wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:42:33 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >>For one thing, I am not engaging in behavior that alientates people. I > Really? Do you not consider that some find your apathy > and superficiality to be offensive?

Apathy and superficiality? Moi? Do you have trouble comprehending? You are the very first to ever accuse me of that. BTW, care to point out where I am apathetic or superficial? Note that the absence of ranting and raving is not a prerequisite to being apathetic or superficial. >>As for the voting issue, I have addressed comments directly to my >>elected representatives at all levels and have provided them with >>information showing how a paper trail is needed. > To what effect? Any?

Yes, several. All of my elected reps believe that a paper trail is necessary. They believed that before I told them. >>Firstly, by your not responding to the question as asked > Your failure to comprehend my responses does not mean > that they were not offered.

Truly, I carefully examined your post, and found nothing that, to a rational mind, would consitute a response to the question I asked. >>irritating manner. > You are irritated without cause. That’s a form of weakness.

For one thing, I am not irritated by you. If anything, I find you somewhat amusing. Second, you have no idea (add that to a growing list) of my strengths. > The real problem is the subversion of elections, and the abuse > of disabled people to promote it. > It’s not my fault you’re unable to address the real issue here.

But I did. Part of the problem is getting those who make decisions to listen. Your manner gets in the way of that. >>… grasp of logic is less than tight. > That must be why you’ve offered fallacies rather than validity.

I have offered no fallacies as I carefully explained to you. The fact that you had to edit that shows your lack of intellectual honesty. >>Can you actually explain how disabled people are being exploited? > I have done so. It’s not my fault you didn’t read up on it.

No, you may "think" (best term available) that you have, but, alas, you have not. >>Firstly, can you actually prove that he is a shill? > The links provided do that.

So, you have no proof. > Accessibility for the disabled does not require > defective DRE systems at all; nor does HAVA. >>… closed to any suggestions. > You could do better if you weren’t distracted, no doubt.

When you snip as you do, you change meaning. That is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty. >>I read before I respond and I have been aware of this issue since the >>stolen election of 2000. > There were other forms of disenfranchisement involved > there. The need to avoid them in the future is real, as is > the need to avoid others such as those to which I allude.

However, the use of e-voting came to the forefront back then. >>So you say. However, that is just your opinion. He is a spokesman for a >>group. > He’s taking advantage of tax-free status to promote the > inappropriate agenda of admitted partisans.

So you say, but you offer no proof or explanation. >>So far, you are only a spokeman for yourself. > You are mistaken. The links would show you otherwise.

Like I said, I read the links, and you are missing from them. >>I see. So, another veiled attack > You feel attacked by being told the truth in Usenet postings > which you are free to avoid reading altogether?

Again, snipping to change meaning. > How very sad that is for you.

The only thing that is sad is that you do not get it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>A voter verified paper ballot that would be readily accessible for all. > You are right: the voter must be able to verify that the vote > recorded is the vote intended. > Furthermore, the official counts must be based on the VVPB. > Rapid tabulation is fine, but the electronics alone, designed, built, > programmed, and tested as they are in total secrecy, must not be > trusted in isolation. > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:52:42 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >>I am well aware of the problems we have with elections. > Really? What do you claim they would be? What have you > done or are you doing about them? >>Do you know what the issue was that we were addressing? > You were wallowing in the fallacy known as "ad hominem", > apparently because you aren’t well enough educated to know > why it’s invalid to do so. > It’s not good news that disabled people are being exploited to > promote a partisan/criminal attempt to subvert elections. It’s > not sugar-coated. If you can’t handle it, steer clear of it. >>Do you know who you are talking about? > If you could click on and read the links provided, you’d know, > too, and you could act meaningfully rather than irrationally. >>It sure sounds like Dickson is doing his job. > He’s just a shill for manufacturers of defective equipment > known to lose, change, and fake votes. > That’s not an admirable job at all. >>… I suggest … > Your suggestions might be worth something someday, if > you were to bother to become informed. >>…jockey shorts >>emulating a thong…. > Try to calm yourself. Can you find comp.risks? If so, you > might become better informed about security issues known > to exist with electronic voting systems. >>… he DOES represent people with disabilities… > Not the informed, honest ones … >>And, other than you having read his mind, how do you know what he really >>thinks? > His actions speak clearly, at least to the attentive. >>BTW, I would like to see all voting with a verifiable paper trail. > But not a voter-verified paper ballot? Are you aware of the difference? > If not, I suggest you look into it a lot more. > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:47:41 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >>Disabled_Voters_for_Democr…@yahoo.com is > It is a valid email address. It is a valid issue. There are many > of us who don’t want to see elections subverted at all, much > less via the exploitation of people with disabilities. You can > examine the links as they confirm the reality of this situation. >>… i non-existent. > That something eludes your awareness does not, logically, > imply that it’d be nonexistent. >>… manner will turn off … > So you’d rather see the exploitation and subversion than > have to be told honestly about it. > That’s such a shame for you. > Your logical errors notwithstanding, here are the facts: > The AAPD seeks to exploit and harm disabled people. > It offers them for sale, pimping them as shills for those > who want to deprive them of their votes. It does not > qualify as nonpartisan at all. > The AAPD has greedily accepted huge contributions > from the rabidly-partisan manufacturers of systems > designed to facilitate election subversion. > Jim Dickson is a cheap prostitute for disenfranchisement > who, in his rage against others, wishes they would be > unable to perceive the ways their votes are thwarted. > "DRE", or "Direct Recording Electronic" voting systems > are defective and have been proven to discard, alter, and > generate fake votes. They’re intended to subvert elections. > They’re not required to provide optimal conditions for > the disabled voter. They’re not required by the "Help > America Vote Act", or "HAVA". > Most disabled people are not weak, but powerful, to > compensate for impairments with which others do not > have to contend. They do not want to be considered > inadequate or helpless to manage their affairs, but Jim > Dickson is claiming, falsely, that they’d need faulty poll > equipment when they do not. > Jim Dickson, wallowing in his self-pity and hatred, is > hoping to use his ‘impairment’ as an excuse to cause the > people of America, disabled or otherwise, to lose their > right to vote. > This shameless shill does not represent disabled people. > In fact, he hopes to see them unable to vote, along with > everyone else, and he takes that position out of greed. > Jim Dickson abuses disabled people for fun and profit. > Learn more about this criminally anti-american activity > and why decent honest disabled people reject it. > http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000451.html > http://www.countthevote.org/ > http://www.ecotalk.org/Disabled.htm > http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/e-vote_white_paper_20040517.php > http://www.helpamericarecount.org/ > http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0312/S00150.htm > http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5797

Response:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:59:51 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: >I do not trust people’s motives who spout on in a very aggressive and >paranoid way, then cross post all over the place.

So you don’t trust your own motives. No one had asked about it, though. Nothing you’re posting has any relevance to any of these groups, while the abuse of its tax-exempt status by the AAPD in promoting the campaign efforts of a specific party by its misuse of the disabled certainly is. That means that you aren’t respecting the groups and your ‘netcop’ efforts make you a hypocrite. I have stated facts. They are pertinent to everyone who understands that the quality democracy in the USA makes a difference worldwide. You have made it clear that you don’t know and don’t care. That’s your prerogative. Others will look after your interests better than you will. >Certainly, discuss the thing, but the original reads like some kind of >indoctrinatitional outburst from someone a trifle deranged.

It’s factual. Sometimes facts aren’t comfortable to people who prefer the equivalent of pablum instead of news. Don’t read articles which have content which you can’t handle. If you doubt the accuracy of that which is being stated, you are free to verify it via the links. If you can’t handle that, well, no one is forcing you to read anything. >People are abused for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of people, and

Apparently that’s fine with you. It isn’t with those who have ethics. >raise blood pressure. >Brian

May you get better medical assistance with your anger management issue. Here’s the ontopic and pertinent information: The AAPD seeks to exploit and harm disabled people. It offers them for sale, pimping them as shills for those who want to deprive them of their votes. It does not qualify as nonpartisan at all. The AAPD has greedily accepted huge contributions from the rabidly-partisan manufacturers of systems designed to facilitate election subversion. Jim Dickson is a cheap prostitute for disenfranchisement who, in his rage against others, wishes they would be unable to perceive the ways their votes are thwarted. "DRE", or "Direct Recording Electronic" voting systems are defective and have been proven to discard, alter, and generate fake votes. They’re intended to subvert elections. They’re not required to provide optimal conditions for the disabled voter. They’re not required by the "Help America Vote Act", or "HAVA". Most disabled people are not weak, but powerful, to compensate for impairments with which others do not have to contend. They do not want to be considered inadequate or helpless to manage their affairs, but Jim Dickson is claiming, falsely, that they’d need faulty poll equipment when they do not. Jim Dickson, wallowing in his self-pity and hatred, is hoping to use his ‘impairment’ as an excuse to cause the people of America, disabled or otherwise, to lose their right to vote. This shameless shill does not represent disabled people. In fact, he hopes to see them unable to vote, along with everyone else, and he takes that position out of greed. Jim Dickson abuses disabled people for fun and profit. Learn more about this criminally anti-american activity and why decent honest disabled people reject it. http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000451.html http://www.countthevote.org/ http://www.ecotalk.org/Disabled.htm http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/e-vote_white_paper_20040517.php http://www.helpamericarecount.org/ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0312/S00150.htm http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5797

Response:

JoettaB wrote: > "Mark Probert" wrote in message > news:Gucze.88770$mx5.81026@fe08.lga… > [snip] >>When you snip as you do, you change meaning. That is a sure sign of >>intellectual dishonesty. > I know this is terribly off-topic, but when I snip, it’s sincerely to reduce > scroll rather than change the meaning of something. I get so tired of > scrolling through a lot of past text and trying to reconstruct the blooming > thing. I’d rather read through the discussion from the start.

I have never found your snipping to be anything but ethical. BTW, Ohio’s government problems were featured on a newsmagazine on TV the other evening. Cannot recall which one. I immediately thought of you. > But… on topic… and to DVD… I support the AADP and always have. I may > not agree with everything they lobby for, but who can with any association?

I belong to organizations that I support in part, and disagree in part. I get them to try to change what I disagree with, without being disagreeable. > My mother belongs to AARP, but she certainly isn’t happy with their Medicare > position and told them so. I think it’s rather like this: If they represent > something you don’t like, 1) tell them, 2) cancel or membership or don’t > join, and 3) write coherent non-bashing, non-name calling complaints or > informative articles about them, but don’t do the name-calling thing. It > just doesn’t make your point. I know shut down immediately after I read the > subject line. Whereas, I might have considered something short and on point > that didn’t sling mud. AND… I might have even wrote a letter to them about > it, but as is, I won’t. End of input from me.

That is the point I was trying to make to DVD. DVD decided to play word games, etc. DVD is what I call a ‘one noter’ which gets stale awful fast. As for DVD, I am finished playing. Back into the toy box.

Response:

Disabled Voters for Democracy wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:11:31 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >>Apathy and superficiality? Moi? > Yes. You’re all upset over being told harsh truths > in an accurate way. You’ve done nothing to work > to improve the deplorable conditions which exist.

There ya go again…snipping, not mentioning it…and changing the meaning. If I did not know better, I would think that you are afraid to deal with me. oops! I do know better…. >>All of my elected reps believe that a paper trail is >>necessary. They believed that before I told them. > So you accomplished nothing. Your reps have > done nothing but tell you what you wanted to > hear, and no real action has resulted.

What action do you expect if there is nothing before them to vote on? > You should learn more about the distinction > between "paper trail" and verified ballots, too. > The "trail" can be interpreted as a file dump of > the faulty algorithm of a DRE without any form > of ballot being seen by the voter. >>…found nothing … > No one can force you to find what you refuse to > seek, however.

Again, snipped to make it impossible for me to respond without going back to my original post..what are you afraid of? >>For one thing, I am not irritated … > Yet you described, not what I wrote about, but the > way it was written, as "irritating".

Yes, it is irritating, but I am not irritated. I am amused by it, simply because I have dealt with real irritations, and really irritating people. You are a lightweight exercise. However, those without the thick skin that I have would be seriously irritated by your manner. Their minds would close and you would not be heard. >>But I did. Part of the problem is getting those who make decisions to >>listen. … > When you have no vote, you can’t do that.

There are other ways…such as attending community meetings (two of my electeds have them regularly), writing to them, visiting their offices, finding them in other ways. >>…you offer no proof or explanation. > Your failure to discern it doesn’t make it nonexistent.

However, one cannot discern what is not there. Again, you have snipped without notice, and have changed meaning. Keep demonstrating that level of intellectual dishonesty and people will vote just the opposite of what you would like, merely to be irritating to you.

Response:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:05:14 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: >over emotive, almost frenzied

If you’d calm yourself, you could examine the facts, which include unsavory things, and even come to the realization that action is needed. You fear unpleasant realities, but they remain nonetheless. More courageous people will be taking care of it for you. Relax. On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:59:52 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: >This person sounds in need of help.

I do hope you get the help you’re claiming you need. >I’m not an American, so I can say that…

It’s an error of logic no matter where you are, though. Most disabled people are perfectly capable of reasoning with validity. You do them a disservice by pretending that you’d represent others in your failure to do so. Your country is also affected, whether you realize it or not, by the political situation in the United States of America. Others care about circumstances you’re afraid to address, too, and your limitations aren’t to be imposed on them. Here’s the information of which everyone should be aware: The AAPD seeks to exploit and harm disabled people. It offers them for sale, pimping them as shills for those who want to deprive them of their votes. It does not qualify as nonpartisan at all. The AAPD has greedily accepted huge contributions from the rabidly-partisan manufacturers of systems designed to facilitate election subversion. Jim Dickson is a cheap prostitute for disenfranchisement who, in his rage against others, wishes they would be unable to perceive the ways their votes are thwarted. "DRE", or "Direct Recording Electronic" voting systems are defective and have been proven to discard, alter, and generate fake votes. They’re intended to subvert elections. They’re not required to provide optimal conditions for the disabled voter. They’re not required by the "Help America Vote Act", or "HAVA". Most disabled people are not weak, but powerful, to compensate for impairments with which others do not have to contend. They do not want to be considered inadequate or helpless to manage their affairs, but Jim Dickson is claiming, falsely, that they’d need faulty poll equipment when they do not. Jim Dickson, wallowing in his self-pity and hatred, is hoping to use his ‘impairment’ as an excuse to cause the people of America, disabled or otherwise, to lose their right to vote. This shameless shill does not represent disabled people. In fact, he hopes to see them unable to vote, along with everyone else, and he takes that position out of greed. Jim Dickson abuses disabled people for fun and profit. Learn more about this criminally anti-american activity and why decent honest disabled people reject it. http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000451.html http://www.countthevote.org/ http://www.ecotalk.org/Disabled.htm http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/e-vote_white_paper_20040517.php http://www.helpamericarecount.org/ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0312/S00150.htm http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5797

Response:

Brian Gaff wrote: > Yes, I see. Cannot you see that it is the way you use the language in an > over emotive, almost frenzied way, that is putting people off from reading > it? reads like some extremist has written it, anyway, I’ll not be drawn out > any more on this one, you go your way, and I’ll go mine. I am not a > conspiracy theorist, we have enough trouble sorting out the inadvertent > discrimination.

Disabled_Voters_for_Democr…@yahoo.com is posting from Supernews, which does not provide a traceable NNTP posting host and, further, is only posting in this thread. Otherwise, DVD is non-existent. And, BTW, you are correct. DVD’s manner will turn off anyone who should be listening.

Response:

When organizations try to hide behind a veneer of respectability, but abuse that as well as their tax exempt status to interfere with the democratic process itself, they shouldn’t expect to be regarded well, or for their misdeeds to be glossed over. On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:30:36 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >…snipping …

I’d suggest that you quit obsessing about the irrelevant, but that may not be possible for you. >What action do you expect if there is nothing before them to vote on?

There are other possibilities. You should look into what can be done about the problem. >Yes, it is irritating, but I am not irritated…

Then how could it be irritating? You contradict yourself. Worse yet, you do so over things that don’t matter at all. >… intellectual dishonesty …

That must be why you keep bleating about deletions of totally irrelevant things you’ve written, rather than deal with the real issue here. On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:11:31 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >Apathy and superficiality? Moi?

Yes. You’re all upset over being told harsh truths in an accurate way. You’ve done nothing to work to improve the deplorable conditions which exist. >All of my elected reps believe that a paper trail is >necessary. They believed that before I told them.

So you accomplished nothing. Your reps have done nothing but tell you what you wanted to hear, and no real action has resulted. You should learn more about the distinction between "paper trail" and verified ballots, too. The "trail" can be interpreted as a file dump of the faulty algorithm of a DRE without any form of ballot being seen by the voter. >…found nothing …

No one can force you to find what you refuse to seek, however. >For one thing, I am not irritated …

Yet you described, not what I wrote about, but the way it was written, as "irritating". >But I did. Part of the problem is getting those who make decisions to >listen. …

When you have no vote, you can’t do that. >…you offer no proof or explanation.

Your failure to discern it doesn’t make it nonexistent. On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:42:33 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >For one thing, I am not engaging in behavior that alientates people. I

Really? Do you not consider that some find your apathy and superficiality to be offensive? >As for the voting issue, I have addressed comments directly to my >elected representatives at all levels and have provided them with >information showing how a paper trail is needed.

To what effect? Any? >Firstly, by your not responding to the question as asked

Your failure to comprehend my responses does not mean that they were not offered. >irritating manner.

You are irritated without cause. That’s a form of weakness. The real problem is the subversion of elections, and the abuse of disabled people to promote it. It’s not my fault you’re unable to address the real issue here. >… grasp of logic is less than tight.

That must be why you’ve offered fallacies rather than validity. >Can you actually explain how disabled people are being exploited?

I have done so. It’s not my fault you didn’t read up on it. >Firstly, can you actually prove that he is a shill?

The links provided do that. Accessibility for the disabled does not require defective DRE systems at all; nor does HAVA. >… closed to any suggestions.

You could do better if you weren’t distracted, no doubt. >I read before I respond and I have been aware of this issue since the >stolen election of 2000.

There were other forms of disenfranchisement involved there. The need to avoid them in the future is real, as is the need to avoid others such as those to which I allude. >So you say. However, that is just your opinion. He is a spokesman for a >group.

He’s taking advantage of tax-free status to promote the inappropriate agenda of admitted partisans. >So far, you are only a spokeman for yourself.

You are mistaken. The links would show you otherwise. >I see. So, another veiled attack

You feel attacked by being told the truth in Usenet postings which you are free to avoid reading altogether? How very sad that is for you. >A voter verified paper ballot that would be readily accessible for all.

You are right: the voter must be able to verify that the vote recorded is the vote intended. Furthermore, the official counts must be based on the VVPB. Rapid tabulation is fine, but the electronics alone, designed, built, programmed, and tested as they are in total secrecy, must not be trusted in isolation. On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:52:42 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >I am well aware of the problems we have with elections.

Really? What do you claim they would be? What have you done or are you doing about them? >Do you know what the issue was that we were addressing?

You were wallowing in the fallacy known as "ad hominem", apparently because you aren’t well enough educated to know why it’s invalid to do so. It’s not good news that disabled people are being exploited to promote a partisan/criminal attempt to subvert elections. It’s not sugar-coated. If you can’t handle it, steer clear of it. >Do you know who you are talking about?

If you could click on and read the links provided, you’d know, too, and you could act meaningfully rather than irrationally. >It sure sounds like Dickson is doing his job.

He’s just a shill for manufacturers of defective equipment known to lose, change, and fake votes. That’s not an admirable job at all. >… I suggest …

Your suggestions might be worth something someday, if you were to bother to become informed. >…jockey shorts >emulating a thong….

Try to calm yourself. Can you find comp.risks? If so, you might become better informed about security issues known to exist with electronic voting systems. >… he DOES represent people with disabilities…

Not the informed, honest ones … >And, other than you having read his mind, how do you know what he really >thinks?

His actions speak clearly, at least to the attentive. >BTW, I would like to see all voting with a verifiable paper trail.

But not a voter-verified paper ballot? Are you aware of the difference? If not, I suggest you look into it a lot more. On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:47:41 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >Disabled_Voters_for_Democr…@yahoo.com is

It is a valid email address. It is a valid issue. There are many of us who don’t want to see elections subverted at all, much less via the exploitation of people with disabilities. You can examine the links as they confirm the reality of this situation. >… i non-existent.

That something eludes your awareness does not, logically, imply that it’d be nonexistent. >… manner will turn off …

So you’d rather see the exploitation and subversion than have to be told honestly about it. That’s such a shame for you. Your logical errors notwithstanding, here are the facts: The AAPD seeks to exploit and harm disabled people. It offers them for sale, pimping them as shills for those who want to deprive them of their votes. It does not qualify as nonpartisan at all. The AAPD has greedily accepted huge contributions from the rabidly-partisan manufacturers of systems designed to facilitate election subversion. Jim Dickson is a cheap prostitute for disenfranchisement who, in his rage against others, wishes they would be unable to perceive the ways their votes are thwarted. "DRE", or "Direct Recording Electronic" voting systems are defective and have been proven to discard, alter, and generate fake votes. They’re intended to subvert elections. They’re not required to provide optimal conditions for the disabled voter. They’re not required by the "Help America Vote Act", or "HAVA". Most disabled people are not weak, but powerful, to compensate for impairments with which others do not have to contend. They do not want to be considered inadequate or helpless to manage their affairs, but Jim Dickson is claiming, falsely, that they’d need faulty poll equipment when they do not. Jim Dickson, wallowing in his self-pity and hatred, is hoping to use his ‘impairment’ as an excuse to cause the people of America, disabled or otherwise, to lose their right to vote. This shameless shill does not represent disabled people. In fact, he hopes to see them unable to vote, along with everyone else, and he takes that position out of greed. Jim Dickson abuses disabled people for fun and profit. Learn more about this criminally anti-american activity and why decent honest disabled people reject it. http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000451.html http://www.countthevote.org/ http://www.ecotalk.org/Disabled.htm http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/e-vote_white_paper_20040517.php http://www.helpamericarecount.org/ http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0312/S00150.htm http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5797

Response:

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 08:59:52 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: >This person sounds in need of help.

I do hope you get the help you’re claiming you need. >I’m not an American, so I can say that…

Response:

This person sounds in need of help. I’m not an American, so I can say that… I wonder if you ask him about something really mundane, would he still use such language and inappropriate words to reply? Hmm, i’m just off to power up my discriminatory scanner software before I have to prostitute myself by getting a neighbour to read my mail… Brian — Brian Gaff….Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can’t hear them Email: bria…@blueyonder.co.uk ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________ "Disabled Voters for Democracy" wrote in message news:7q3kc1thu6ruj16ts37oh9o6qkbv0dfs5v@4ax.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:22:07 -0500, Don Baker > wrote: >>… Ask me >>if I give a s***. > It’s obvious that you don’t. Real Americans care about democracy > and the representation in government that the founders were willing > to give up their lives to secure for this nation. > The issue is genuine, as the conscientious reader discerns by clicking > on the links given. Your ignorance does not make reality go away. > The AAPD seeks to exploit and harm disabled people. > It offers them for sale, pimping them as shills for those > who want to deprive them of their votes. It does not > qualify as nonpartisan at all. > The AAPD has greedily accepted huge contributions > from the rabidly-partisan manufacturers of systems > designed to facilitate election subversion. > Jim Dickson is a cheap prostitute for disenfranchisement > who, in his rage against others, wishes they would be > unable to perceive the ways their votes are thwarted. > "DRE", or "Direct Recording Electronic" voting systems > are defective and have been proven to discard, alter, and > generate fake votes. They’re intended to subvert elections. > They’re not required to provide optimal conditions for > the disabled voter. They’re not required by the "Help > America Vote Act", or "HAVA". > Most disabled people are not weak, but powerful, to > compensate for impairments with which others do not > have to contend. They do not want to be considered > inadequate or helpless to manage their affairs, but Jim > Dickson is claiming, falsely, that they’d need faulty poll > equipment when they do not. > Jim Dickson, wallowing in his self-pity and hatred, is > hoping to use his ‘impairment’ as an excuse to cause the > people of America, disabled or otherwise, to lose their > right to vote. > This shameless shill does not represent disabled people. > In fact, he hopes to see them unable to vote, along with > everyone else, and he takes that position out of greed. > Jim Dickson abuses disabled people for fun and profit. > Learn more about this criminally anti-american activity > and why decent honest disabled people reject it. > http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000451.html > http://www.countthevote.org/ > http://www.ecotalk.org/Disabled.htm > http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/e-vote_white_paper_20040517.php > http://www.helpamericarecount.org/ > http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0312/S00150.htm > http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5797

Response:

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:11:31 -0400, Mark Probert wrote: >Apathy and superficiality? Moi?