From: steve@bucolix.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.dirt,rec.motorcycles.racing,alt.motorcycles.harley
Subject: Re: rec.motorcycles.harley vote acknowledgment
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:23:48 GMT
Reply-To: steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <7139@lib.tmc.edu> 
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.202649.19552@ncsu.edu> 
>steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier) writes:
>>I think it's sad that
>>some individuals fear they have so much to lose/gain, that they will stoop 
>>to "the ends justifies the means."
>I think it's sad that some folks have to react to the death of their pipe
>dream by hollering "CHEATERS!!!".

Jay, it's unfortunate that you didn't realize that I was disappointed with 
cheaters on *BOTH* sides.  I was slammin' Laszlo, too.

>>If you want to know who they are, just peruse the list below, where I've
>>delineated *SUSPECTED* cheats.  You might be surprised.  Some people don't
>>even cheat *well*.  At least it's *FINALLY* over.  :-)
>Geez. Paranoid, aren't we?...

I don't think so, but then again, a paranoid never does, eh? :-)
If anything, perhaps I'm a bit too idealistic;  I expect people to 
have integrity and behave accordingly.

>>   ---A List Of Suspected Ballot-Box Stuffers---
>> CAD8025@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca "Problem Reporting, A" 
>> ACAD8059@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca Mike Mychalkiw 
>> ADVI8721@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca advisor's utility disk 
>What's wrong with three folks from the same site voting for the issue? Oh, you
>mean to imply that they're really the same person? A little email goes a lot
>farther than public accusations.

I never accused anyone, Jay.  I said I *SUSPECTED* cheating.  That's not
the same thing.  I would have been accusing someone *IF* I had not used that
qualifier.  Let "them" explain who "they" are to the net; let "them" publicly
identify "themselves".  Perhaps "they" can prove my suspicions wrong.  And
how would unanswered email accomplish this?

>> FURRJK@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Joel Furr 
>> Furr@cup.portal.com 
>Just how many Furrs are there in the US? For that matter, why should Joel Furr
>pay money to call Portal (in California) long distance when he has local
>Internet access? For that matter, what says Furr@cup.portal.com is using
>his real name??

And Joel Furr could have internet access to far-flung machines over the
internet.  I do.  At no cost to *me*.

As I explained to another person via email (excerpt enclosed):
---
  The "other" person writes:
  >I don't think these are the same two guys at all.  Furr at
  >portal isn't Joel, although I can't for the life of me come
  >up with his first name.  Bob, maybe?  Anyway, it's not Joel.

  I hope what you say is true.  I do rely on my memory a lot, and
  I "recalled" that Joel Furr had both of these email addresses in
  his .sig at the time he called me a bigot.  I could be wrong, and
  that's why I listed them as "suspected cheaters."  I wouldn't mind
  reading the "suspects" explanations.
---

[ other examples of *SUSPECTED* cheating deleted ]

>Still, aren't you reading malicious intent where there may well be none? In
>particular, these folks, far from intending to stuff the ballot box, may well
>have simply forgotten that they had voted, and voted again. I've done exactly
>that, with no intent to have my voice counted more than once.

To me, *SUSPECTED* cheating does not carry the same stigma as an accusation.
If I were to call them cheaters, without the "SUSPECT" qualifier, then I
would be accusing them of malicious intent.  If people assume that I have
accused them cheating with malicious intent, that is their misconception.
I would still like to see their public explanation.

>>I didn't count the guest@junkyard.asd.sgi.com Guest Account, since
>>some people do read from Guest Accounts.
>Mighty civilized of you.

Maybe I should have mentioned the vote from "root@alaska.et.byu.edu System
Operator", eh?  How many people do you know that regularly read news and post
articles as "root"?  Perhaps "cliftf@alaska.et.byu.edu Fred Clift" knows of
someone who does.

>>And before I forget, welcome to USENET, rec.motorcycles.harley!
>This sure rings hollow in light of your previous accusations.

It's you who read it as an accusation.  Perhaps you're paranoid, too, eh? :-)
Certainly the creation of RMH has gone against my opinion, but I also
realize that there is some good in it.  I'm quite pleased that there is a
large number of people who are very happy that RMH has passed.  Is this 
duality difficult for you to understand?

Look, Jay, at no time did I state that I place the outcome of this CFV
in question.  I DO NOT WANT A REVOTE.  I DO NOT CONTEST THE RESULT OF THE
REC.MOTORCYCLES.HARLEY CFV.  What I would like to see is a public
explanation from the "suspected", who they are (if applicable), and why
they made multiple votes (if applicable).  I seriously doubt that all
of the "suspected" will come forth with this information.  I for one,
am sick-and-tired of the pervasiveness of cheating in our society, and
I'd like to help instill the idea in a few minds that cheating is not
acceptable behavior.  If the "suspected" have not cheated maliciously,
then they have nothing to be ashamed about.

Steve Garnier - DoD #00000005 - '79 XS1100SF w/ 157K+ miles and *climbing*
KotF (Flame),  KotAM (Anecdotal Motorcycle),  The Daemon's Byte
steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu       "Ineluctably Prolix" - John Norman Sims, Jr.
Come an' get it!  Served up nice an' *hot*!!  Get yer FREEEEE *logorhea*!!!
Newsgroups: news.groups