Dan:
How do you try to hide the analysis and correctness of teh USAT's action through attacks of me and Jim? Well, referring to Jim as sneaky, engaging in questionable election tactics (although approved by the board and as utilized by every other candidate including those that you supported), about 8 or so posts that denounce me as biased (while I did support Jim, you have yet to show how that infected my legal analysis); that state that I engaged in the handling of other people's ballots (I did not), the state that assisted people sued by the USAT (I did not), that stated that I and others at my club took up a PR campaign for some who sued the USAT (I and we did not), that most insulting and f'n degrading attack that likens my alleged (and erroneous) involvement in an election to one of the saddest and most dispectable acts in human history (dropping poison pellets into a mass shower). Gee, I don't know - guess I'm just thin skinned.
After approximately 20 posts - your addressing of the validity is: "I am not addressing the validity. It has ben addressed in two prior opinions." This is part true, part false. First, it is true - you have yet to address or even discuss the validity and actual analysis. Second, it is false - the two prior opinions do not address my analysis (how could they - they pre-date it) and in fact one was on an entirely different topic.
Funny, I guess the links above by you showing support to Girand's opponent are typos. Also funny that now, you have a paragraph of good things to say about Jim and even claim to have supported him in past elections - but in one of the posts above state that you really know nothing about Jim Girand. Tough when your own words come back to bite you, uh?
Alan
How do you try to hide the analysis and correctness of teh USAT's action through attacks of me and Jim? Well, referring to Jim as sneaky, engaging in questionable election tactics (although approved by the board and as utilized by every other candidate including those that you supported), about 8 or so posts that denounce me as biased (while I did support Jim, you have yet to show how that infected my legal analysis); that state that I engaged in the handling of other people's ballots (I did not), the state that assisted people sued by the USAT (I did not), that stated that I and others at my club took up a PR campaign for some who sued the USAT (I and we did not), that most insulting and f'n degrading attack that likens my alleged (and erroneous) involvement in an election to one of the saddest and most dispectable acts in human history (dropping poison pellets into a mass shower). Gee, I don't know - guess I'm just thin skinned.
After approximately 20 posts - your addressing of the validity is: "I am not addressing the validity. It has ben addressed in two prior opinions." This is part true, part false. First, it is true - you have yet to address or even discuss the validity and actual analysis. Second, it is false - the two prior opinions do not address my analysis (how could they - they pre-date it) and in fact one was on an entirely different topic.
Funny, I guess the links above by you showing support to Girand's opponent are typos. Also funny that now, you have a paragraph of good things to say about Jim and even claim to have supported him in past elections - but in one of the posts above state that you really know nothing about Jim Girand. Tough when your own words come back to bite you, uh?
Alan