On Nov 29, 10:54 am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:39 am, zdrakec wrote:

snip

..."Polgar and Truong,
who clearly got elected by impersonating me ..."

An utterly ridiculous contention, demonstrating very clearly that your
grandiosity has led you into delusion.

Jeers,
zdrakec (the "real" one)

Why do you say that? Truong got elected to a 4-year term on a margin
of 30 votes. If the voters had known that he had been impersonating me
for the previous two years, he clearly would not have been elected.

Sam Sloan

Okay, be careful he what you are about to see is called "logic".
I'm not sure you would recognize it without it being pointed out to
you.

First, you say "he clearly got elected by impersonating you"... how is
this clear? The only way to make such a contention clear would be to
identify everyone who voted for him, but NOT for you, and ask them if
they based their vote on some posts they read on Usenet. How exactly
could this point be proven else? However, the ballot is secret, is it
not? Therefore, this point is simply not provable, and your contending
it does not remotely make it so.

But hey, just for the sake of argument, let's grant that indeed,
enough people chose to vote against you because of the specious posts,
that you lost the election therefore. Mind you, I reject that
contention, and I do NOT approve of the fake posts, but we'll grant
the point for a minute.
Everyone who voted has a perfect right to determine who they will vote
for. It is simply not the court's affair, or anyone else's for that
matter, as to how these voters made up their minds. Presumably, they
are able for themselves competently to determine who will get their
vote. Unless the ballot box was actually rigged, the results are
perfectly valid, whether the voters read Usenet to make up their minds
(a highly doubtful proposition), or merely tossed some dice.
Got it?

Scorn, and slight regard,
zdrakec