Some seem to think I claimed absolutely that Boxer would stand up

[WilliamPitt]

...and are now zapping me for posting wishes as fact. In fact, the Boxer claim was made by another DUer who was at the rally where Lytel made the statement. The DUer mentioned my name as having been there.

If you do a search - always a good idea before you claim someone here said something they didn't, especially if you aren't able to be at your computer a lot - you will see that my information was based entirely upon reporting what Lytel said, and saying I would try to confirm it, and then saying I was unable to confirm it.

My blog entries on the matter, which reflect exactly what I posted here:

---

We have Senators?
Monday 03 January 2005 @ 09:10

I am told by David Lytel, who has been lobbying Senators to stand with Conyers, that Tubbs-Jones is actively considering standing up, and if she asks Senator Boxer to do the same, Boxer will stand as well.

I have no way to confirm this until tomorrow, but Lytel is giving me the phone numbers I will need to get that confirmation. He seems to think something will pop on this some time tomorrow. I will run this to ground with alacrity when the sun comes up.

---

Heading home
Monday 03 January 2005 @ 09:45

I am done here. Lytel gave me the numbers, and I will run the Tubbs-Jones story down in the morning.

---

Clarity
Tuesday 04 January 2005 @ 01:01

I cannot vouch for Mr. Lytel's version of things until I have spoken with these people myself. There may very well be nothing to this other than another source offering wishes as fact. When I attempted to pin him down absolutely on the matter I got a lot of if and then if and then if and then if...

I will run this dog to ground on Tuesday as best I can. In the meantime, if you are one living and dying with every passing page of this tale, hold the celebrations. This needs to be confirmed.

And one last bit, in the form of an apology: I was blogging tonight at this protest on a device about the size of a pack of cigarettes, and everyone was yelling Senator this and Senator that...and I posted something about 'Senator' Tubbs-Jones...who is, of course, a Congresswoman. Somewhere in the zoo I garbled the report that if Rep. Tubbs-Jones steps forth, Senator Boxer will come along for the ride. My sincere apologies for any confusion.

Let's...be careful out there.

---

Re: Tubbs-Jones and Boxer
Tuesday 04 January 2005 @ 11:11

After a series of telephone calls, the aforementioned story regarding Tubbs-Jones and Boxer stands just about where you'd figure. Senator Boxer is definitely considering offering a challenge to the Electors. If she actually decides to do so, however, she won't break cover until Thursday. That is, frankly, wise. To do otherwise would be calling down the thunder on herself and her staffers.

I couldn't get anyone to go on the record to confirm Lytel's statement that Rep. Tubbs-Jones can get Boxer to stand up just by asking her to do so. At the end of things here, Lytel's claim last night (which I am told he has repeated to a number of other blogs) is just going to hang out there in space until it is proven true or false.

Running in circles is fun. Please return to gnawing.

http://www.truthout.org/fyi

Again, the search function is your friend.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Anyone who claims that either wasn't paying attention...

...or is being dishonest. You never made any sort of definitive claim about Boxer.

NGU.

[Not_Giving_Up]

2. I remember the thread

It was titled "We have a Senator", or something similar. You had another thread where you stated that it could not be confirmed.

Chill Will, we know you didn't mislead us!

[SueZhope]

3. I think people sometimes don't pay attention to details

and misinterpret information on this kind of forum
(and in life)

You were very clear as to your position this.:)

[Amaryllis]

5. Yep. You were very clear.

[fasttense]

4. There was an article posted that said that, not you.

I wish I had saved the link but it said that at the Boston Rally yesterday Lytel said Boxer would contest. Lytel did not Equivocate, at least it wasn't reported that way.

[pixelthief]

6. I've read all your posts

and blogs, and I never got that impression. Some people just don't take the time to read beyond the subject line.

Keep up the good work.

[ohtransplant]

7. "Let's...be careful out there."

Nice tip o'the hat to Hill Streeet Blues. Was it really that long ago Sgt. Esterhaus?

Sorry to be off topic.(Couldn't resist.)

[displacedtexan]

8. It's those pesky parts of speech, Will!

Especially modal auxiliaries: will, shall, would, should, can, could, may, might, must and ought

Many readers completely ignore modals and assume they understood what they've read.

What part of you will see that my information was based entirely upon reporting what Lytel said, and saying I would try to confirm it, and then saying I was unable to confirm it do people NOT understand?

[emulatorloo]

9. Some willfully misrepresent things to get controversy going

for fun or profit, I guess.

[krrywon]

10. That's crazy.

Your posts are always easy to read and understand. Someone must have misinterpreted.

[Kota]

11. I think your posts have been very clear

[No Mandate Here.]

12. The circles analogy is telling

Take a group of ten or more, and whisper a sentence around the room. It will come back to the first guy completely different.

I just emailed Boxer, and hope it helps her stand.

http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Wouldn't it be sweet, especially in light of Blackwell gloating about the "election"...

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=528

Thanks for your leadership, Will.

[rox63]

13. I know there are no guarantees

I also know you didn't say that that Boxer was on board. I know someone who was at the rally, and he said that Lytel seems to think Boxer will step up. There are other sources stating that Boxer is seriously considering it. But I don't think anyone has said that it's chiseled in stone. It would be ridiculous for Boxer or any other Senator to confirm this ahead of time.

[hiley]

14. Your posts

are clear and if someone reads the entire thing they should be able to understand. Thank you for your hard work.:hi:

[Malikshah]

15. It is indeed our friend

As are you-- sorry to see that folks still need to read a bit more carefully. It's getting to be like a strange telephone game here.

i.e.

William Pitt: Lytel was at a rally where he said Boxer may stand up.
Reader 1: Lytel was at a rally where he saw a boxer stand up
Reader 2: Lytel said to Sally that he saw a boxer give up.
Reader 3: Lysol was used on Sally when a boxer threw up on her.

You get the picture.

[catgirl]

16. It was luaptifer who posted it

with the headline "Faneuil Hall: Boxer on board!!!! :-)

He goes on to mention several people who have been tombstoned here.

PaineInTheArse of the same fame reports:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showto...
This may be dated by now, but I just left Faneuil Hall.
David Lytel announed that SENATOR BARBARA BOXER has agreed to be the senator to challenge on 1/6!!!!!!!!!!
Pitt was there and has probably will be blogging this on THUTHOUT.ORG.
I'm in a neaby hotel business center, will write more when I get home.

and...

 i probably don't need to repost the CGCS stuff here, huh :-)
there are more anonymous users and guests showing up on that thread right now than i've ever seen
"42 User(s) are reading this topic (37 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
5 Members: luaptifer, JamBoi, american woman, Bushbegone, laborrep"

[catgirl]

17. Here's the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x230175#230274

[luaptifer]

36. catgirl, maybe you DIDn't see this post

on that thread?!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x230175#234125

[catgirl]

43. Oh I saw it

when I was looking up who the misleading poster was. Now you blame the readers for not being cautious anout your posting. Well, if you noticed, I was cautious, and will continue to be. Thanks for the reply though.

[luaptifer]

44. catgirl, you saw the hearsay nature of the quote and applied common sense

there's no blame in your direction, you did exactly as is necessary.

that's what my note intended. it's those who didn't and try to blame Will need to go back and understand just who really is to blame, first themselves, then me.

[keepthemhonest]

18. some people

try to get things mixed up on purpose and talk in circles. It seems to be going on round here lately, things seem to be heating up around here. Only one day to go to see if justice will be served.

[catgirl]

19. And they work together

[keepthemhonest]

22. yeah

they have been working together I wonder sometines ,if it is the same duer. Who knows.

[luaptifer]

31. anonymous assurances of "NO, not the same poster" are worth alot

i know :-)

but i challenge you to follow my entire history here, on cgcs, on bbv, or on kos to find something -- ANYTHING -- evidentiary towards your speculation.

in fact, i think you'll find a pattern of reporting that aims to be very careful and very clear and in prose quite different from that of Bozos. IN FACT, i think you'll find my posts generally too long because i expend the effort to attempt ensuring people are clear about the degree of precision (or its lack) and accuracy involved in my statements.

it's easy to speculate so this anonymous-entity-formerly-known-as-nothing-other-than-luaptifer recognizes you're only wondering. i simply present you the means to assess the doubt or not.

cgcs luaptifer's posts:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=2518149e959e94efbbd83fb71fab0826&search_in=posts&result_type=posts

dKos luaptifer's diaries
http://www.dailykos.com/user/luaptifer

dKos luaptifer's comments
http://www.dailykos.com/user/luaptifer/comments

bbv forum search (username there is same 'luaptifer') i don't know of another means to get all my posts presented there
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/search.cgi

unfortunately, here i'm not a paying customer and don't know another means beyond search to get those posts presented for your perusal but i do tend to stick mostly to "2004 Election Results and Discussion"

oh yeah, there's also my blog you can take a look at
http://beyondcomfortablynumb.blogspot.com/

if you're interested enough in the debunking story i laid out for catgirl, you can see much of the story here:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/12/5/14232/7575/31#31

under this diary's comments by the scammer we were debunking
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/5/14232/7575

i only learned later that johnnycougar, a DUer also on that thread,
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/12/5/14232/7575/33#33

was not the same as DU Bozos for Bush, who showed up on dKos after later http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/12/5/14232/7575/88#88

whatever, my obsession to be understood, if not always clear, makes this another too-long post!

[Vidar]

20. Your credibility is intact, Will. Too many rumors flying.

[luaptifer]

21. i believe i first brought "Boxer on Board!!!!!!" here

until i see authenticating print from authoritative sources, i'm always reluctant to repeat hearsay. when i do -- anytime i refer to anything not observed by myself, i qualify the assertion with how it came to me. i'm trained as a scientist. like journalists, we must always be able to back up what we say with how we were confident enough to report what we said. we must always ensure the chain of verfiability/fact-checking.

PITA, whose post i quoted, also seems to be sure in attention to his attributions as far as i've seen. so reporting that "David Lytel announed that SENATOR BARBARA BOXER has agreed" should be understandable, clearly, that it's hearsay he's reporting.

PITA referred to Will Pitt as the hopefully-forthcoming validator of the information because he, as all of us on this board do, counts on Will as our early-warning Truth-Outer. so that was PITA's caution to check Will's blogging of the announcement for authoritative reference.

so, by the time i reposted on this forum, it was clearly third degree hearsay. i knew Will would be reporting DETAILS of whatever had occurred there and he gets less sleep than most so it'd be soon. i was counting on validation/invalidation shortly from the sleepless wonder!

so Wll documents accurately his statements and when uncertainty started emerging, it was because Will had done the fact-checking on what i'd quoted here.

any tone of certainty came here first in my quote of PITA's quote of Lytel's announcement of Boxer's having agreed

that chain of attributions is the common sense indicator here

--->>> CAUTION WARRANTED!!!!

Will, as i both imply and state above, i DO count on the great stuff you do for us here and can't thank you enough for that effort! please feel free to point detractors to my - this - note or the original i made

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=230175&mesg_id=230175&page=

as the source of the first implied certainty. it's exactly because PITA reported your presence i was confident we'd soon be able to know the validity of the claim, or not! you injected the "unconfirmed" into the picture rather than what i hoped you'd be able to report.

thank you as always for doing exactly what i was counting on!!!


--------
Faneuil Hall: Sen. Boxer on board!!!! :-)

Edited on Mon Jan-03-05 10:59 PM by luaptifer
PaineInTheArse of the same fame reports:
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/index.php?showtopic=13384&st=0&p=126002&#entry126002


This may be dated by now, but I just left Faneuil Hall.

David Lytel announed that SENATOR BARBARA BOXER has agreed to be the senator to challenge on 1/6!!!!!!!!!!

Pitt was there and has probably will be blogging this on THUTHOUT.ORG.

I'm in a neaby hotel business center, will write more when I get home.

[luaptifer]

24. problem: it maybe that counting on the common sense of people

to read "CAUTION" when they see clear indicators of third or fourth-degree hearsay.

guess that's the problem in my getting too comfortable with the level of intelligence i have come to expect here. if people don't understand the implications of "he said that he said that he announced that she said"...

i guess i need to create a disclaimer and put it in my signature.

[katinmn]

23. you didn't, but others sure have

I think it's the excitement of the moment and wishful thinking.

[emlev]

25. Lytel said at San Francisco rally last night

(and I'm not quoting) that he believes Boxer will stand up. I think he was a bit stronger than that, but not absolute. I was only a few feet from him, and I could tell for sure that he wasn't you, William.

[ClassWarrior]

26. Waitaminnit... what EXACTLY are you trying to say here?

Your words seem to imply that John Kerry told you he wants to personally stab each and every one of us in the back with a rusty butter knife. I didn't want to get a false impression, so please clear this up for me. Thank you.

:evilgrin:

NGU.

[Verve]

27. LOL! n/t

[dandrhesse]

28. does someone know the answers?

Can anyone with legal knowledge verify for me, what I believe to have learned by speaking with the DOJ and looking over the HAVA sections and the Voting Rights Act and its amendments:

It seems that there is no legal recourse if discrimination at the polls is based on party, age, (ie college students) or any other "voting bloc" as long as it isn't based solely on race or disability?

Is this the case?

It also seems that any voting machine without a verifiable paper audit trail is breaking the law specifically (HAVA section 301) Is this true?

If yes, then why haven't those counties involved been sued by the US Attorney's office?

Does anyone know a good, free online source that lists all of the US code that pertains to voting and elections, including election fraud and ballot tampering?

The reason I listed this on this thread is that these issues are the underlying issues in regards to what transpired on election day. If there is no recourse for the widespread discrimination that was largely based on party lines and in some cases also racial lines, but no all cases, then there is little that can be done.

If this is the case, a Senator should stand, if only to bring to national public attention the fact none of us have a legally protected "right to vote". If you have a horrendous time at the polls for whatever reason, you basically have no recourse. This is mind boggling and I don't believe anyone on a large scale knows this.

[luaptifer]

34. HAVA mandate require paper trail by 2006 n/t

[gotitans2]

29. The Corner says Boxer will contest and

Senate will vote down by voice vote. I think this is very good news.

[ClassWarrior]

30. What's the Corner? Link?

NGU.

[gotitans2]

32. link below - you may have to cut and paste

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

[ClassWarrior]

33. Link doesn't work.

NGU.

[gotitans2]

35. I edited my message to make it work.

[ClassWarrior]

37. IT DOESN'T SAY BOXER WILL CONTEST!!

It says the hack who wrote this gossip item "hears" she will. And it's against board policy to link to Radical Rightwing "news" sites, anyway.

NGU.

[gotitans2]

40. Sorry

I apologize. I should not have said she would contest. I was not aware it was against the rules to link that site. I just thought it was good news if they were reporting what they hear.

[Laurab]

39. Why is it a good thing

for the Senate to vote down by voice vote?

[gotitans2]

41. I believe that any contest will get us MSM coverage.

Which is why it is a good thing.

[nmoliver]

38. That was me

That was me, I take responsibility for any misunderstanding. I mentioned William's name but I didn't say BOXER WILL CONTEST. I said that Lytel announced to the crowd that Boxer will contest, but after we questioned him privately, he put a lot of caveats to it and said MAYBE IF IF IF.

I mean no harm to William: he is one of my most treasured, cherished human beings. Apologies for any harm I caused!

[Liberty Belle]

42. Help educate Boxer's staff! Letter from someone who met them yesterday

Here's an e-mail I received this morning from someone who was at the sit-in yesterday at Boxer's San Diego office. He mentions that Boxer has introduced some voting reform legislation, but further down expresses serious reservations about the knowledge level of her staff. Perhaps some here could help remedy that situation, fast! Boxer may be our best bet in the Senate to contest this election.

TEXT OF E-MAIL:

For those not aware of the legislative efforts to date since 2001 to help improve/fix our election issues, below is a great page listing the HAVA amendments currently stalled in committee. I am happy to see that Boxer is a co-author of one of the Senate bills.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?list=type&type=13

Nice overview/summary about HAVA (passed 10/02):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/sr_technology_act.html


It is critical that we help our officials get these amendments through even if we are let down Thursday. The key point is the addition of a voter verified paper trail that HAVA woefully lacks. I am at least a little relieved that Boxer is aware and concerned enough about these issues enough to sponsor legislation.

Many of us who have been at the Boxer sit-in this week have been wondering if she’s really engaged or not on this issue; I believe so now, but it will take the urging of her peers more than her constituents for her to “step out of the box.” Regardless, it’s disconcerting that she has not taken a public stand at this late hour. Even her web site does not list ‘election reform’ as one of her apparent “priority” topics on her survey page. http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/survey.cfm

As I mentioned, many of us have been staging a sit-in at Boxer’s office since yesterday and we will be back tomorrow. Today, we did a nice interview with Telemundo/Univision (Cox ch. 17, 20). We still have hope that she will exhibit true gutsy leadership on this issue on Thursday. I hope she will at least use that forum to bring attention to these issues and thereby jumpstart the passage of her amendment. This will force mass media coverage more than any other foreseeable action in the near term.

One last note/observation. After interacting with her staff this week, one of my biggest concerns is that activists’ knowledgeable and passionate voices are too often ranked, summarized, and thus diluted down to mere bullets buried on a report. I have the impression that her representatives in her local offices (at least in SD) may not be informed enough and are not engaged to the extent necessary to convey a compelling argument that fully reflects our issue’s gravity. I believe they just collect tally sheets on who calls and for what. In SD’s case, it was iterated that they focus on local issues, like immigration obviously. If this is the case, it would seem that an even greater need exists to focus more effort on educating them while pressing for more opportunities for direct engagement of her more senior staff. Lastly, we need to more fully engage groups like Save Democracy in order raise awareness on this issue locally and statewide to enable comprehensive state legislation. I would like Boxer and Feinstein to be able to say that California is the nation’s model for election reform.