[EL] Rick's disagreement with my statement about Trump

[Steve Hoersting]

I am among those who only see them when someone replies, fyi.
On Oct 22, 2016 12:13 PM, "Trevor Potter" <tpotter at capdale.com> wrote:

> I saw the original post several days ago...
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 9:33 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rha
> sen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
>
> If I'm counting right people on the list will now have seen this five
> times. There must be an issue on your end.
>
> Rick Hasen
> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
> _____________________________
> From: jboppjr at aol.com<mailto:jboppjr at aol.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 6:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Rick's disagreement with my statement about Trump
> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>, <
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Cc: <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu<mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu>>
>
>
> This post was not emailed out. I am asking that that be done. Jim
>
> In a message dated 10/22/2016 8:59:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
> We have had some problems in the past with aol users receiving messages.
> One can always check archives to see if a message was sent out.
>
> Rick Hasen
> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 5:17 AM -0700, "JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppj
> r at aol.com>" <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
>
> Several of my colleagues have told me that they don't see my post
> distributed by email, unless someone responds. Same with me. I am resending
> this since it was not emailed out yesterday when I origionally sent it. Jim
> Bopp
>
> In a message dated 10/21/2016 11:59:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> writes:
> This is Rick's third personal attack on me in the last 3 days:
>
> The first and second are here:
>
> Rick, this is the second time in so many days that you have personally
> attacked me.
>
> Yesterday you said:
>
> 3. If you don’t like the selection of articles, you can continue to send
> your own. Or you can unsubscribe to this list. Or you can do with my posts
> what some list members tell me they do with yours: delete without reading.
>
> I am sure every one on this list serve has deleted posts without reading
> them, including myself, but I have never felt a need to personally attack
> them by publicly broadcasting that.
>
> And today:
>
> I always thought of you as a straight shooter before this election and
> this voter fraud garbage. We’ve disagreed but I’ve seen you as making
> fundamentally honest arguments.
>
> It is an unfortunate trait of some to assume that because they disagree
> with someone, the other one is being "dishonest." I am sorry to see that
> you are in that number.
>
> And now below Rick says:
>
> [cid:X.MA1.1477142864 at aol.com]
> Of course, a comparable ad hominem attack that someone could, but
> shouldn't, make on Rick would be "For (Rick Hasen) to (attack) this
> statement which (ensures accountability in our electoral system by not
> waiving the possibilities of a recount in a close election) is
> disappointing but not surprising. (Rick) is a hard-core (leftist) who cares
> about the balance of power on the Supreme Court more that anything else. A
> (Trump) presidency could bring his years long project to (gut the First
> Amendment) to a halt."
>
> This statement shouldn't be made about Rick, not because it is not true,
> but because we should try to rise above these personal attacks if possible.
> And three in three days by Rick on me is really a bit too much. Jim Bopp
>
> In a message dated 10/21/2016 11:00:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu> writes:
> Jim Bopp and I Differ in Understanding Trump’s Comments About Not
> Conceding<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878>
> Posted on October 21, 2016 7:47 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878>
> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> What else is new?<https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/
> 788946270471749637/photo/1>
> [https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878&
> title=Jim Bopp and I Differ in Understanding Trump’s Comments About Not
> Conceding]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%
> 3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D87878&title=Jim%
> 20Bopp%20and%20I%20Differ%20in%20Understanding%20Trump%
> E2%80%99s%20Comments%20About%20Not%20Conceding>
> Posted in election administration<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election@
> department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> [image: This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
> from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
> confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
> copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please advise us by
> return e-mail, or if you have received this communication by fax advise us
> by telephone and delete/destroy the document]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161022/6adaa471/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 116102212065901575.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161022/6adaa471/attachment.png>