Maptalk-Digest Wednesday, December 29 1999 Volume 99 : Number 544
Is the fix in? Re: Legalize marijuana? POLL!!!!
From: Richard Lake <>
Re: About your Michigan Marijuana Initiative Poll
From: Richard Lake <>
Judge Judy Throws Book At Folks Who Deserve It
From: Richard Lake <>
Corrected msg Re: Judge Judy Throws Book At Folks Who Deserve It
From: Richard Lake <>
MI MJ poll. Chicago voting works! Vote early and vote often!
From: Richard Lake <>
A Different Spin on the MJ poll at Detroit News
From: barman <>
Re: MAP: Fwd: Article from www.mediainfo.com -- Steve Outing's Stop the Pre
From: Involuntary <>
Legalize marijuana-rigged? yes
From: Larry Seguin <>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Is the fix in? Re: Legalize marijuana? POLL!!!!
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:39:37 -0500
I smell a rat! I am almost sorry I sent the message about the poll to all
you many fine folks that responded. I am starting to believe that someone
at the Detroit News is fixing the poll.
So I selecting a dozen email address of folks who seem like they could be
responsible from this page:
http://detnews.com/TDNHOME/who.htm
I sent them the following msg. And I posted a version of it to the poll
feedback. I am not going to say which dozen Detroit News people I sent the
message below to, 'cause if you also wish to send something, it would be
best if it did not appear organized. Just select the folks you feel may be
most responsible, or in authority to put a stop to the b.s.
Oh, and if you have not voted yet, please do! Maybe we can turn the poll
around once and for all if they know we are watching.
Richard
~~~~~
About your Michigan Marijuana Initiative Poll
RE: http://data.detnews.com:8081/poll/survey.hbs
Is the fix in?
I think so. I and several others have been checking your poll every few
minutes over the last three days.
It seems strange, actually close to impossible, that every time the YES
vote climbs above 50%, there is a point reached that within minutes it
drops back well below 50% again.
While hard to prove, it sure looks like someone at the controls is making
the change. Folks do not suddenly vote like that, within minutes, all one way.
And if they were, somehow, why are the comments over 95% on the yes side?
Maybe someone at the Detroit News is demanding a politically correct answer?
Perhaps because you accept ads from the Partnership for a Drug Free
America? Or the Drug Kzar?
Richard Lake
------------------------------
Subj: Re: About your Michigan Marijuana Initiative Poll
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:02:52 -0500
Thank you for your response, and the numbers, which it would be interesting
to have posted along with the poll so we can really tell how substantial a
vote there is.
What I find strange is the pattern, which seems to be one of a steady rise
over about a 24 hour or so period, and then a sudden, within minutes, drop
back. My friends and I are having a hard time understanding how a voting
pattern like that could happen, each day, Sunday, Monday and again just a
little while ago today.
I hope you are right! I will pass your response along to my friends
(hopefully before they all write to you).
Richard
At 06:41 PM 12/28/1999 -0500, Pam Shermeyer wrote:
>Dear Mr. Lake:
>
>No, the poll is not fixed. As of this minute, the vote total is Yes 1891,
>No 1946. We have no political agenda here at the web site, and frankly we
>wouldn't know how to change the coding to alter the vote total even if we
>wanted to -- the numbers are automatically generated. Our interest is in
>having people participate in the poll and in the discussion.
>
>This poll does follow a pattern we have noticed with other hot issues.
>Usually the people with a strong vested interest in the issue are the first
>to check in -- in this case, pro-marijuana activists. Typically they find
>out about the poll through e-mail lists or other web sites on the topic.
>They write the majority of the letters. Then our "regular" Detroit News
>Online readers trickle in and vote on the topic, but may not be inspired
>enough to write a letter. However, their large numbers gradually change the
>vote percentages.
>
>Check our previous polls on gun control and gay marriage and if you want
>to see other examples of this phenomenon.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Pam Shermeyer
>Content Director
>Detroit News Online, http://detnews.com
------------------------------
Subj: Judge Judy Throws Book At Folks Who Deserve It
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:48:37 -0500
Newshawk: John Smith
Tracknum: .000001bf508d.63f562a0.1b1043d8
Pubdate:
Mon, 27 Dec 1999
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 1999 The Seattle
Times Company
Contact:
Website:
http://www.seattletimes.com/
Author: John Kiesewetter, The Cincinnati
Enquirer
Note: Not about drug policy. But this positive review of Judge
Judy needs
to be countered.
See: DrugSense FOCUS ALERT: http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0139.html
Shortcut: to Judge Judy press clippings: http://www.mapinc.org/judy.htm
JUDGE JUDY THROWS BOOK AT FOLKS WHO DESERVE IT
Yes, there's some justice
in this world.
After years of watching America's abnormalities parade past
Jerry
Springer, Jenny Jones, Ricki Lake, Montel Williams and Sally
Jessy
Raphael, finally somebody is telling these goofballs what we've
all
been thinking.
Judith Sheindlin, TV's Judge Judy.
My new
hero.
"Something's wrong with you! Big time!" she shouts at a father
whose
teenage daughter ran away from home.
"You have no morals," she tells
a bartender who took financial
advantage of an older woman.
"Get used to
it!" she screams at a stepmother who has been feuding
with her husband's
ex-wife over treatment of her stepdaughter.
It's not surprising to me that
"Judge Judy" has rocketed in the
national ratings. We're fed up with all
the lyin', cheatin' losers who
pollute the airwaves. We're ready for
someone to slap these people
around, if only verbally. We've been waiting
for the reality check
that Judge Judy delivers from the bench every
day.
Nationally, "Judge Judy" has passed "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and
"The
Jerry Springer Show" to become the highest-rated syndicated show
that
is not a game show. Only "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy!" have
a
bigger syndication audience. Judge Judy's 7.3 million viewers
outmuscle
Oprah (6.1 million), Springer (4.4 million), Montel
Williams, Sally Jessy
Raphael (each 3.2 million) Maury Povich (3.1
million), Ricki Lake (2.7
million), Roseanne (2.3 million) or Jenny
Jones (2 million).
None are as
blunt as Judge Judy, the former New York Family Court
judge whose 1996 best
seller was called "Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell
Me It's Raining."
(Harpercollins, $24).
Judge Judy doesn't just sit there, nodding in tacit
agreement at
dysfunctional folks, like Jerry or Jenny or Sally Jessy.
On
"Springer," they tossed chairs. On "Judge Judy," she throws the book
at
'em.
"You're a liar. I can tell you why you're a liar," she confronts
a
woman in her TV courtroom, while looking over her case.
"You have no
morals," she tells a 33-year-old bartender refusing to
repay a $3,339 loan
from a woman, 48, who was romantically interested
in him. "That makes you
sort of a despicable person, doesn't it?"
"You want to buy a car for a
17-year-old who left your house against
your wishes, and went off to live
with her boyfriend? You don't reward
bad behavior by giving them a car!"
she admonishes the father of a
runaway teenager.
"It was very dumb, and
stupid, and irresponsible!" she scolds a woman
who alerted authorities
about an unlicensed day-care service operated
by her husband's ex-wife.
"It's not your business!"
Many cases are small-claims stuff, disputes over
bad debts or broken
promises. At the center of most cases are shattered
hearts or
fractured families. Judge Judy hears real cases from people who
agree
to submit to her ruling, technically an arbitration process. She
tapes
in a Los Angeles studio. You get the impression that some of
these
people could have walked into Judge Judy's courtroom directly
from
Jerry Springer or Jenny Jones. (In fact, her on-air solicitation
says:
"Are you in a family dispute? Call Judge Judy at
888-800-JUDY.")
Cash settlements aside, the harshest judgment from Judy
comes when she
stares at the guilty party and barely whispers the verdict:
"Don't do
it again!"
My personal theory for her popularity is that, as the
movie "Network"
(1976) predicted, we're mad as hell and we're not going to
take it any
more. For years, we've been yelling at the TV set, particularly
at the
weirdos who have taken over TV talk shows. Now we have someone
who
does it for us. We have someone we can cheer for, putting
these
disgusting degenerates in their place.
That's why Judge Judy rules.
------------------------------
Subj: Corrected msg Re: Judge Judy Throws Book At Folks Who Deserve It
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 20:23:43 -0500
It has been a long time since I managed to send a laddered post. Sorry!
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 1999 The Seattle Times Company
Contact:
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Author: John Kiesewetter, The Cincinnati Enquirer
Note: Not about drug policy. But this positive review of Judge Judy needs
to be countered.
See: DrugSense FOCUS ALERT: http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0139.html
Shortcut: to Judge Judy press clippings: http://www.mapinc.org/judy.htm
JUDGE JUDY THROWS BOOK AT FOLKS WHO DESERVE IT
Yes, there's some justice in this world.
After years of watching America's abnormalities parade past Jerry Springer,
Jenny Jones, Ricki Lake, Montel Williams and Sally Jessy Raphael, finally
somebody is telling these goofballs what we've all been thinking.
Judith Sheindlin, TV's Judge Judy.
My new hero.
"Something's wrong with you! Big time!" she shouts at a father whose
teenage daughter ran away from home.
"You have no morals," she tells a bartender who took financial advantage of
an older woman.
"Get used to it!" she screams at a stepmother who has been feuding with her
husband's ex-wife over treatment of her stepdaughter.
It's not surprising to me that "Judge Judy" has rocketed in the national
ratings. We're fed up with all the lyin', cheatin' losers who pollute the
airwaves. We're ready for someone to slap these people around, if only
verbally. We've been waiting for the reality check that Judge Judy delivers
from the bench every day.
Nationally, "Judge Judy" has passed "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "The Jerry
Springer Show" to become the highest-rated syndicated show that is not a
game show. Only "Wheel of Fortune" and "Jeopardy!" have a bigger
syndication audience. Judge Judy's 7.3 million viewers outmuscle Oprah (6.1
million), Springer (4.4 million), Montel Williams, Sally Jessy Raphael
(each 3.2 million) Maury Povich (3.1 million), Ricki Lake (2.7 million),
Roseanne (2.3 million) or Jenny Jones (2 million).
None are as blunt as Judge Judy, the former New York Family Court judge
whose 1996 best seller was called "Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's
Raining." (Harpercollins, $24).
Judge Judy doesn't just sit there, nodding in tacit agreement at
dysfunctional folks, like Jerry or Jenny or Sally Jessy. On "Springer,"
they tossed chairs. On "Judge Judy," she throws the book at 'em.
"You're a liar. I can tell you why you're a liar," she confronts a woman in
her TV courtroom, while looking over her case.
"You have no morals," she tells a 33-year-old bartender refusing to repay a
$3,339 loan from a woman, 48, who was romantically interested in him. "That
makes you sort of a despicable person, doesn't it?"
"You want to buy a car for a 17-year-old who left your house against your
wishes, and went off to live with her boyfriend? You don't reward bad
behavior by giving them a car!" she admonishes the father of a runaway
teenager.
"It was very dumb, and stupid, and irresponsible!" she scolds a woman who
alerted authorities about an unlicensed day-care service operated by her
husband's ex-wife. "It's not your business!"
Many cases are small-claims stuff, disputes over bad debts or broken
promises. At the center of most cases are shattered hearts or fractured
families. Judge Judy hears real cases from people who agree to submit to
her ruling, technically an arbitration process. She tapes in a Los Angeles
studio. You get the impression that some of these people could have walked
into Judge Judy's courtroom directly from Jerry Springer or Jenny Jones.
(In fact, her on-air solicitation says: "Are you in a family dispute? Call
Judge Judy at 888-800-JUDY.")
Cash settlements aside, the harshest judgment from Judy comes when she
stares at the guilty party and barely whispers the verdict: "Don't do it
again!"
My personal theory for her popularity is that, as the movie "Network"
(1976) predicted, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any
more. For years, we've been yelling at the TV set, particularly at the
weirdos who have taken over TV talk shows. Now we have someone who does it
for us. We have someone we can cheer for, putting these disgusting
degenerates in their place.
That's why Judge Judy rules.
------------------------------
Subj: MI MJ poll. Chicago voting works! Vote early and vote often!
From: Richard Lake <>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:27:54 -0500
It appears I wrong about how the poll is being tilted back to the no side.
It is the Detroit News that does not understand how a person can do it.
By simply going to preferences in my browser (Netscape) and under Advanced
checking the button Disable Cookies I have been able to vote repeatedly.
This is what our expert (and MAP editor) figured out, so if you are so
inclined, vote away....
http://data.detnews.com:8081/poll/survey.hbs
~~~~~
I don't think Detroit News are fixing the poll, but rather some hacker
from outside. It is not hard to do.
I have investigated the technical side of the Detroit News Poll a little
and found the following:
- - Provisions to keep people from voting more than once rely solely on
cookies, not on IP numbers of submitters. This makes it possible to delete
the cookie and repeat the vote as many times as wished within the same
dialup connection. If IP numbers were also used to identify users, this
would be prevented. To vote a second time, the user would have to use a
different computer or dial up a second time after having deleted the cookie.
- - DetNews does not check whether the cookie was really accepted.
This makes it even easier to vote several times in a row. One can
simply deactivate accepting and sending of cookies and vote, click the
back button, vote again, and so forth. With a fast Internet connection, a
single person can so easily place dozens of votes per minute.
I have actually checked whether this method really works. I managed to
increase the plus vote by 2% within five minutes (I used a slightly
different method that saved me from having to move the mouse over the back
button; with that method, I can cast about 30 votes per minute).
Note that polls can always be tilted (and are always tilted anyway by the
very nature of polling, but that's a different story). It must be said,
though, that Detroit News makes it exceptionally easy for a user to cast as
many votes as desired. That cookie activation is not checked, is actually a
bad and unnecessary programming flaw. If this flaw were repaired, it would
require more time (deleting the cookie after having it set) to cast a second
vote; with some basic programming skills, it would still be easy to get a
lot of votes in within a brief period.
Excluding votes with the same remote_address variable would provide an
additional mechanism that would make such attempts harder and more costly.
Without these provisions, Detroit News polls are very easy to tilt.
Cheers, Eric
------------------------------
Subj: A Different Spin on the MJ poll at Detroit News
From: barman <>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 01:18:08 -0500
Richard and all
Why not consider forwarding to Pam at the Detroit News the flaw that you
have discovered regarding Disabling Cookies?
Sure, we could pile on and 're-tilt' the poll in 'our' favor.
so what? Since we realize the polling tool is flawed, it is more beneficial
to ALL if we try and allow the Detroit News to correct an obvious major flaw
in their polling system.
I am only passing this back to you Richard since you were the one who
initiated contact with Pam at the D News.
I am happy to help if needed, but feel that further votes of any kind on
this poll are a bigg jackoff.
I will submit that if the Detroit News elects to use the poll results as
cause for an editorial against MMJ or MJ, THEN WE KICK THEIR ASS with
letters etc....
Last I might suggest that we make a point of watching ALL cyber-polls on WOD
issues and trying the DISABLE COOKIES option...if it is flawed elsewhere I
think we more honestly serve our role as 'media watchdog'(I agree with you
Richard on this)by informing any webmaster who uses such flawed programming.
Who knows, maybe we can get a good in with some of the polling
agencies/newspapers if they need help making the changes?
peace(not War) from Largo
Steve Heath
------------------------------
Subj: Re: MAP: Fwd: Article from www.mediainfo.com -- Steve Outing's Stop the Presses
From: Involuntary <>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 02:45:09 -0600
>Letter> Is there a better way? Sure, do a better job of
>Letter> integrating the Internet with your publication’s
>Letter> letters to the editor section in print. It will make
>Letter> your readers happier, and demonstrate to your community
>Letter> that you support the free exchange of ideas.
Sounds like a good idea for a new magazine called something like
"Letters to the Editor" though titled in a way that makes it obvious
that letters are not edited or shortened.
I'd subscribe.
Involuntary
Hmmm. Anybody know of a website with that format?
------------------------------
Subj: Legalize marijuana-rigged? yes
From: Larry Seguin <>
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 05:05:15 -0500
Frist- "Involuntary" $110 billion came from McZar himself, Quote is below.
(I don't write anything I can't prove)
( quotes on deaths per year came from Time magazine Dec. 13 1999)
"Each year drug use exacts $110 billion in social costs, contributes to
52,000 drug-related deaths . . . ."
Letter from Barry McCaffery to Governor Gary Johnson, September 16, 1999.
Next- McZar is lying its not 52,000 drug related! 9,082 1998 O D deaths-If
you add everything drug related,stabbing,shootings,car accidents, etc, it's
around 20,000!
But as you say " driving stoned" The EMIT drug test they give you after and
accident shows pot back 30 "DAYS".So the accident is called drug related,
but you wouldn't actually be under the influence!!!
I've seen people run stop signs,car searched, nothing found,thats "just an
accident",Pot found then its "caused by drugs"
legalize poll:
When I went to the poll I voted twice to see if it worked. And it did!
Other polls I have done wouldn't let me vote a second time, so you are
right! the minute they see yes ahead some one could keep hiting the no
botton over and over!!!
I have seen a local legislator and a local drug task force officer lie in
my little county so it's going on all over the U.S.(I'm sure) They have to
lie to win.
But the biggest thing I think that's going on is the brain washing from ads
on tv and radio!!!
Has anyone noticed-every third or forth ad is-Talk to kids about drugs-cigs
cause cancer-try our quite smoking patches-do you know some one that drinks
to much? call 555-5555- this is your brain on drugs- we are burying our
kids-I drive truck all night every nite and it's,hazelden (sp), ONCDP,PDFA,
CASA,ads all f_ _ ken nite, everyone is addicted to drugs and beat there
wifes,molest kids and shoot there neighbors,ONCDP and PDFA are in papers
every week, I only watch tv 1-2 nites a week ,and ONCDP and PDFA are all
over that the two nites I"m home!!
Right now I have been approached by a father who's son went informant, the
son wanted out, but because of what he knows about dirty drug task force
officers, he's in jail and can't get any help. Dirty cops know what will
happen to and informant if they can get them in jail! Yipes 5:00 am got to go.
Sorry!! Sounded off a little.
Larry S ;)
By the way Involuntary, I've driven over 2,000,000 miles, no accidents,
Toked on alot of them, you don't toke till your brainless!!!!Just a hit or
two to kill the boredom. Like medical use,just enough but not "too much"
At 04:10 PM 12/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Dec 1999 21:55:44 -0500, Larry Seguin <>
>posted article <>, which
>said:
>
>> Voted at:
>> http://data.detnews.com:8081/poll/survey.hbs
>> Its now 55%-yes, 44% no.
>
>As of 4:00pm CST on Tuesday, Dec. 28, it's 45% Yes, 55% No. Methinks
>that perhaps word has gotten out to prohibitionists?
>
>> Here is my comment I left:
>>
>> We can put $110 billion a year to better use!
>
>Is it 110 billion? I've been telling people it was 30 billion until I
>heard 50 billion.... but 110 billion is the highest yet. Is it that
>high now?
>
>> 9,082 deaths from over dose from illegal drugs 1998 (hard drugs)?
>> 245,000 homeless in US!
>> 165,000 die each year from prescription drugs!
>[...]
>> 42,000 " " " " breast cancer!
>> 31,000 " " " " suicide!
>> 20,000 " " " " homicide!
>> 0 " " " " marijuana!!
>
>I agree with your Zero on marijuana deaths, however there are always
>those that come back and call the statistic irresponsible because of car
>wrecks in which a driver was high, or fork lift accidents in which the
>fork lift operator was high.
>
>I have driven stoned and I found myself to be more cautious and more
>courteous when I'm high, like using my blinkers properly... allowing it
>to flash three or four times before changing lanes, etc... But when I
>wasn't high, I was usually in a furious rush, breaking the speed limit,
>swerving in and out of traffic, etc...
>
>So people like to use marijuana as a scapegoat. If there's a car wreck,
>and one of the drivers is high, it's the marijuana that caused the
>accident, so the perception goes. Even when I point out that people
>eating Big Macs have wrecks, people using cell phones have wrecks,
>people who are sober have wrecks, and people who are admiring themselves
>in the mirror have wrecks, they still insist that marijuana causes car
>wrecks. With alcohol it's been proven. With marijuana, it hasn't, to
>my knowledge. This is not to say that I think that all people should
>smoke a joint before driving, but I am saying that I don't believe that
>driving under the influence is a valid argument against legalization
>when you consider that it's just as easy to have a wreck while trying to
>keep a hamburger together or while dialing a number on your car phone.
>They're making it illegal in some areas to talk on car phones while
>driving. Next might be eating while driving. If nothing else,
>legalizing marijuana might reduce air pollution and conserve fuel if
>people know they have to stay home to get high. I would.
>
>
>
------------------------------
End of Maptalk-Digest V99 #544
******************************
Mark Greer () ___ ___ _ _ _ _
Media Awareness Project /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651 | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258 (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759 | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ (_)
|
