> Interesting. So, then, what did you intend to say when you wrote:
>      So to say that my late father was a Democrat means that he
>      was registered as a Democrat. As it happens, this is pretty
>      meaningless, because the vote is secret, and you can vote
>      for whomever you like.

> <sigh> You know, this isn't rocket science.

No, it's not. It's called "reading".

> All you have to do is read, not cut and paste selectively
> in what appears to be a deliberately polemical way.

In fact, I cut and pasted to preserve the meaning as much as possible 
without simply requoting your entire email.

> I had already made my point about state conventions, then went
> on to write what you've quoted.

Wrong. The part I quoted was at the beginning of your email. You then 
went on to expound even more after that.

> Again you've quoted me out of context.

Marc, go back and read your email. I have quoted you perfectly in 
context. Sheesh. Just admit you were wrong, and you really don't know 
everything, despite how you might wish to appear.

> This particular reference is to voting following the primaries.

No, Marc, it is not. Would you like me to quote your email at length and 
demonstrate that you were *not* talking about "voting following the 
primaries"? I can. Easier would be for you to go back and read what you 

> Was it that hard to figure out, or are you your own worst
> enemy when it comes to understanding what others write?

Is it that hard to be honest, Marc, or are you your own worst enemy in 
remembering what you yourself wrote?

> If you were referring to primaries, then why did you say that
> affilliation was "meaningless, because...you can vote for
> whomever you like"? This is clearly false, even in primaries.

You lose either way. Either you were talking about primaries, as you 
claimed second, in which case you are just plain wrong; or else, as you 
originally (and now again) say, you were talking about the general 
election, in which case your claim that everyone had to be registered 
with a party is clearly false in every single state.

> And you never did respond to the question of why your
> statement, "[i]n the U.S. every voter registers for a
> party (or as an independent)", was not false on its face,
> given that not all states require registration in a party to
> participate in primaries, much less the general election.

> Because I thought it was a dumb question, if you really
> insist on an answer.

And yet, you still don't answer the "dumb" question. Probably because 
the "dumb" question shows that you are wrong. Your statement was false, 
any way you slice it. There is no sense in which your claim "In the U.S 
every voter registers for a party (or as an independent)" is true.

Curses upon those dumb questions!

> If you want me to be tactful, give me room to be tactful.

Marc, I no more expect you to be tactful than I expect a skunk to smell 
nice. Your tact, such as it is, almost always ends whenever you are 
shown to be wrong. I must admit, however, you put on a most impressive 
display of gymnastic ability in seeking to avoid direct responses to 
challenges to your assertions and claims.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to