> Why on earth should you or michael determine that you can divine the recent
> vote on the basis of ignorance of all these things? Why should voting for
> Imadickinajar naturally be understood as support of theocracy
Minor point: I for one have never used the term "theocracy", nor have I characterized the vote for Ahmadi in those terms. My question has always been: why *did* people vote for him? Because it seems pretty clear that a bunch of 'em did -- and with a turnout undreamt-of in this modern, enlightened land of ours. Unless of course we accept the hypothesis of result-changing levels of fraud. So far few people if any in this venue seem to be making that claim explicitly, however, and neither has anybody offered an explanation for this strange behavior.
> but maybe
> something very different, that can't be understood through your Western
> eyes, that might require paying attention to something other than your
> digestive system as your head cruises straight up your ass right on
> through to your cranium where you can floss your teeth with the detritus
> collected along the way.
Nice! I love to see that the grand tradition of scatological invective is not dead. This is something Thomas Nashe might have written -- though not on his very best day, maybe.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org