Re: [atlarge-discuss] basic question

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all fellow members,

  You nominating anyone is now obviously not a very good thing
to do and for the members to consider seriously.

  Sotiris as a future Panel member would be a very good thing
IMHO. However participation in your fraudulent election
attempt is likely not a wise thing for him to do, but I can
understand his willingness to participate anyway for the
time being. I personally hope that Sotiris will not
stain or impede his otherwise very good reputation
and integrity in the future.

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> Dear Folks,
> I nominated Sotiris - may be not the best thing I did - and I feel sorry
> for him. So, I carefully read his comments to my posts with the most
> benevolent attitude. I am sorry but I think Bruce is right: "lead, follow
> or get out (USAF)". He wants to get out before not being elected and looks
> for alibis.
>
> I do feel sorry, because Sotiris is a good chaps I know for a long now. He
> has 4 non-alibis:
> 1. he is the least seconded one: nominations are illegal
> 2. he shouts against not knowing what everyone knows nor to click
> http://icannatlarge.org
> 3. he is unable to read the mails he receives - not only from me - but from
> Bruce, Eric, Ron, etc.
> 4. he wants to dispute the code of the most used mailing system run by my
> ISP and a noise filtering program he pompously renames "voting program".
> Because he is probably the only one having not understood there is _NO_
> voting program, that _everyone_ is the real watchdog and that _he_ will be
> the one publishing his results if he wants.
>
> This being said he made me to waste important faimlly time and to rush the
> reporting function: leading to a few typos. I do not want to
> unprofessionnally waste more time. If serious C developpers want the code
> and help validating it, and then report on it, they are most welcome. Just
> tell. Not to help and then insult me because I make it alone does not work.
> I am patient, but if you are not competent, at least be polite. Small help
> is better than big mouth.
> I run a corrected report and go  home.
> jfc
>
> On 18:25 28/05/03, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
>
> >J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> >
> >>To address some concerns of Sotiris Sotiropoulos who did not understand
> >>what I explained several times (but that Mauro understood), I will do it
> >>again. Maybe someone of High Level English Dialect will be so kind as to
> >>translate my Frenglish to him? Thank you.
> >>
> >>The votes are received on the atlarge@execlub.org mailing list.
> >>There is an auto responder.
> >>
> >>This is a Mailman mailing list turned to remove mailnames.
> >
> >
> >Good, so it's open source... I'd like to inspect the code.  Please be so
> >kind as to send the code for your "program" to the list for all of us to
> >inspect.
> >
> >>This list includes Eric and Bruce. We initially included the watchdogs,
> >>but we discovered - and they protested - that the anonymisation did not
> >>protected them against several practices of the Members which disclosed
> >>their identity:
> >
> >
> >Do you mean to say that the watchdogs are NOT included?  If the watchdogs
> >are not included, who is auditing the votes to ensure validity?  Who are
> >the watchdogs, exactly?
> >
> >>
> >>1. leaving the anti-spam mention of their name
> >
> >
> >What does this mean?  I have not understood what you mean by this
> >"anti-spam mention of their name".
> >
> >>
> >>2. copying the ballot to another of their mailbox before voting: the
> >>header of the transfer or their name being then plain in the text
> >
> >
> >This too is obscure... I still do not understand what you mean... copying
> >the ballot to another mailbox?  Isn't that an indication of fraud?
> >
> >>
> >>3. the Message-Id contains very often the name of the host
> >
> >
> >Why is this a problem?  Does it not help to guard against fraud?
> >
> >>
> >>4. many responses came in HTML and were unreadable in ASCII...
> >>
> >>So I developed a program I only intended to develop on Sunday next. It
> >>strips from the text every information except the message-id until the @,
> >>and keeps the ballot lines in the same proper format. Each ballot is numbered.
> >
> >
> >
> >I want to see the code for this program  ASAP!  I'm sure there are others
> >who wish to see it as well.  Otherwise, I cannot accept your "program" as
> >being 1) workable 2) fair.  Furthermore, if nobody else has a problem with
> >your mysterious software, then I am SURE nobody will have problem when
> >Joop runs the election again, this time using his Polling Booth.
> >
> >>The resulting file is sent to the Watchdogs on a daily basis.
> >
> >
> >For the tenth time, WHO are the watchdogs?
> >
> >>This file starts with the initial position of the main Eudora file and
> >>ends with the main Eudora file current position. This should permit (if
> >>needed) to only send a file to the watchdogs with the data of the day,
> >>while permitting them to check the continuity of the data.
> >
> >
> >Who are the watchdogs?!  And your explanation of some Eudora file with an
> >initial and a current position is totally unclear, I do not
> >understand.  Please send the code to the list so we can all inspect it.
> >
> >>Again Eric and Bruce have all the data by their own and no relation with
> >>me. They can easily check the file they receive against the data they receive.
> >
> >
> >I want to know who the watchdogs are, never mind what Bruce and Eric are
> >receiveing.  I also want to see the code for the program you say you've
> >created, for all we know Bruce and Eric are receiving whatever you want
> >them to receive.
> >
> >>Each Polling Officer receives one copy, I receive 2 because I have a
> >>second name for backup where I receive the ballot on a daily basis. There
> >>is also a third source of ballots: the return for a changed e-mail or
> >>from an anti-spam system.
> >
> >
> >Produce the code for all of us to see.
> >
> >>Each received ballot is numbered. So any attempt to add/remove a ballot
> >>would result in the change of the numbering. Watchdogs would be able to
> >>see that inconsistency immediately in comparing the number of the last
> >>message in the previous day file and in the current day file.
> >
> >
> >What file is that?  The Eudora file?  But, from what you state above it's
> >only you, Bruce and Eric who are receiving that file?  And, who are the
> >watchdogs?!
> >
> >>I will not detail all the ways to go through the file and detect a
> >>possible tampering: anyone can think of many of them.
> >
> >
> >I cannot think of them, please do provide details.  In fact, it would be
> >easier if you just produced the code for us to inspect.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>This file is accompanied with a file giving how many copies were received
> >>per VID and if the vote occurred (non voted ballot are obviusly retained
> >>but not considered). Only the first voted ballot counts.
> >>
> >>At the end of the vote, the whole watchodg file will be put at the
> >>disposal of the Members. It could be copied to them right now, but this
> >>would permit them to know the current status of the vote, what was not
> >>voted by the committee.
> >
> >
> >Not 6 sentences ago you said the watchdogs "would be able to see that
> >inconsistency immediately in comparing the number of the last message in
> >the previous day file and in the current day file", but now you say that
> >the watchdogs are NOT receiving somes-called "watchdog file"...  This
> >makes no sense!  1) who are the watchdogs?  2) how are they doing their job?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Problems we met:
> >>1. the report of a few non-responses by the auto-responder. I received a
> >>response when I tested after Sotiris reported the problem. But I did not
> >>received one when I voted. I prefer not to investigate and not to
> >>interfere in something which works to the risk of blocking the list or
> >>losing the archives.
> >
> >
> >HOW CAN YOU SAY  IT WORKS PROPERLY IF IT'S NOT WORKING AS PLANNED!?!? THIS
> >IS TOTALLY LUDICROUS!!!
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>2.the reported problem I reported above: that voters tend to disclose
> >>their identity. In a DNSO vote this is not a  problem as the watchdogs
> >>have been elected. In this vote where watchdogs are self nominated the
> >>answer had to respect the rules and procedures we had set and announced.
> >>I note that I prefer myself self-nominated watchdogs and strong rules:
> >>minorities can then be represented. Sotiris could have decided to be a
> >>watchdog and would have been one.
> >
> >
> >Who are the watchdogs and by what procedure are they doing their job?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>I will try to add an automated report today to inform the Membership on
> >>the situation of the vote.
> >
> >
> >Enough of your doubletalk, produce the code so we can all verify the
> >integrity of your "program".  I, for one, do not trust you, and I believe
> >your "program" is non-existent!  Prove that we ought to trust you by
> >producing the code for all of us to inspect BEFORE any results are announced!
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Currently:
> >>
> >>116 Members have voted.
> >>The candidate with the largest number of votes has 53 votes.
> >>The 11th candidate has 33 votes
> >>The 27th candidate has 4 votes.
> >>Up to now Members have voted in average for 7 candidates and answered 52
> >>questions per ballot.
> >
> >
> >52 questions per ballot?!  That's very interesting!!  Especially since
> >there were only 17 questions on the ballot!!!!
> >
> >Until you produce the code for your "program" and detail who the watchdogs
> >are and how they are doing their job, I consider this election dead in the
> >water, and I will most likely withdraw my candidacy.
> >
> >--Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 19/05/03
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de