"How do you try to hide the analysis and correctness of the USAT's action through attacks of me and Jim? Well, referring to Jim as ... engaging in questionable election tactics."

yes, i did this. and yes, you're right, a majority of the board approved the use of these tactics (tho you'll have to demonstrate your assertion that they were "utilized by every other candidate.")

i guess my question is, how is it a personal attack that i state that questionable election tactics were used? you yourself wrote,

"You disagree with the past election system? Me too." and, "I do not support such a technique or candidates' access to ballots."

since these and other tactics are the basis for a legal opinion warning before the election that they shouldn't occur, and now are the basis for a protest which has been deemed by a second lawyer valid, why is it a personal attack when i say these tactics are questionable?

don't get me wrong. i understand that you and i have diverging views as to whether these tactics were legal. but you yourself find them, if not questionable, what? what's the right word?

so, help me out, alan. i don't want to make personal and unfair attacks. i apologize for using the word "questionable" when referring to these election tactics that neither you nor i like. give me another word to use in "questionable's" place and i'll exchange words for future use.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman