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

Sat Oct 22 11:13:42 PDT 2016

You might try adding Mr. Bopp to your email contacts. Those spam filters can be so weird. For example, they spend every single email from DCCC and Hillary Clinton campaigns to SPAM even though I have repeatedly marked them NOT JUNK. Of course, I subscribe to Hanlon’s Law, so I don’t assume that the people who created my mail program have a plot against Democrats. 

RuthAlice AKA “RuthAlice"

> On Oct 22, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Steve Hoersting <hoersting at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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:rhasen at law.uci.edu><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen 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><mailto: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><mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>>, <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu><mailto:law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>>
> Cc: <lowenstein at law.ucla.edu <mailto:lowenstein at law.ucla.edu><mailto: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><mailto: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:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>>" <JBoppjr at aol.com <mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com><mailto: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><mailto: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 <mailto:cid%3AX.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><mailto: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 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878>>
> Posted on October 21, 2016 7:47 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878>> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3 <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>>
> What else is new?<https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/788946270471749637/photo/1 <https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/788946270471749637/photo/1>>
> [https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878&title=Jim <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87878&title=Jim> Bopp and I Differ in Understanding Trumpâ€™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 <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 <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>>, The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60 <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu><mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
> 
> 
> <116102212065901575.png>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election <http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161022/1000eea1/attachment.html>