Judge has ordered a runoff on Dec. 19. Discuss.

BTW, I haven't been moderating this forum for a long time and I don't have the time to do so. So, this is a free for all. If you have any topics you'd like me to create threads for, let me know.

-- Lighthouse Keeper (lighthousekeeper@my-dejanews.com), December 09, 1998

Answers

I'm not a betting man, but I'll assert that Ada has a better (but only slightly) chance in this election. A few reasons:

Ada gained on Gutierrez all throughout the earlier campaign and has only been strengthened by news of fraud in the election, and now by this decision. It's a triumphant moment for Ada, and he needs to capitalize on that.

Also, as more information comes out about the elections and the government in general, it's more and more obvious to most people that there is corruption in this government. That supports the idea that change is needed.

Finally, as the government takes a nose-dive financially, Gutierrez's claim that he's a good financial manager goes down the drain as well. The deficit is climbing, revenues are dropping, spending is still uncontrolled, and what is Gutierrez doing? Still giving out freebies. Ask UOG how many people Gutierrez ordered jobs for after the election. We're facing unpaid tax refunds, unpaid govguam employees, unpaid vendors and unpaid retirees. I don't think people are going to take much more of Gutierrez's spending.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 10, 1998.

I was listening to the Myk Powell show today and many of the callers felt that this run off would give Guam a black eye and that many of them wouldn't even bother to come out and vote again. What is wrong with these people don't they realize that without a run off and letting things go as they are is certainly going to give the Mainland a distorted picture of our island. We would be considered a "banana republic" should we let these discrepancies go unanswered. The mere of idea of not going to the polls again and placing your vote shows me and the people of the Mainland watching us that we are not really interested in our freedoms or we are definetly not ready for severance from the United States. We are acting like teenagers that have had our curfew lifted for a dance and we stayed out till dawn. Not showing any maturity at all. Was there corruption? I don't know. Was there dead voting? Could be. Whatever it was it was too blatent to not take note and try to rectify it. Should blank ballots count? Why not? That person is casting his right to vote for neither. If the person voted for the Legislature then it is not a blank vote. It should be counted. Why should "98" worry they claimed that they welcomed the lawsuit so that they could prove their honesty and that they won fair and square. So why then did they apply for a stay at 5PM yesterday, hours after the decision. Obviously they had this all prepared. There are spots on the TV already with the Lt. Gov. asking for our support again. That was a fast track campaign slot. Wake up people of Guam the fox is guarding the hen house again.

-- Jane Public (jstfedup@pci.net), December 10, 1998.

ok, this whole election is just choosing which one is worse. we all know carl is corrupted, but joe will be just the same. we need a new candidate, HITa seemed like the right team for this, but they had their faults and lost. i wish there was someone else that truly would end all corruption and get rid of all the problems. i dont know about you, but im going to write in Superman.

-- D (destinystar@iname.com), December 11, 1998.

ADA IS WAY BETTA THAN KARL. ADA WONT HOLD INFORMATION FROM US, CHEAT US, USE PUBLIC MONEY TO KAMPAIGN. ADA DOESNT RAPE HIS NIECES, DOESNT VILATE THE DEAD BY GETTING THE DEAD TO VOTE FOR HIM. ADA DIDNT CHEAT IN THE ELECTION, KARL DID. I KNOW ITS A TOUGH CHOICE, BUT ADA IS THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS NOW, SO I THINKITS WORTH VOTING FOR HIM.

think about it. dead voters, underage voters, non-us citizens, non-residents. why do we want a cheater?

-- (SUPERSTAR@deadvoters.org), December 12, 1998.

Mr. D. Sorry to upset your apple cart but I understand that there will be no room for write-ins. Besides I think Superman has other committments with Lois Lane. You could be right that both are corrupted but we know that Karl is, we are not sure about Joe. So as Mr No-name stated in the post following yours. You take the lesser of two evils and you have to come out with Joe. He seems like a pretty straight forward honest person. But what do I know, I still think Clinton is getting a raw deal. :) Another thing to think about there has been inuendos that the Feds will soon be investigating and serving Karl with warrants. If so do we want our sexy Lt. Gov. to take over with her molded hair. I surely don't. She is scarier than the wicked witch of the West in Wizard of Oz. So let's all get out and VOTE. I am going for Joe but you choose who you want as long as you vote. It is your right but also your responsibility. You can't complain if you don't speak your mind at the polls. Off my soap box and out of here. :)

-- Jane Public (justfedup@pci.net), December 12, 1998.

I agree completely with Jane Public (re: her 1st msg about Myk Powell show). I've stopped listening to talk shows, especially on K57, because the hosts as well as the callers are idiotic. But to say that a runoff election will give Guam a black eye? That's ridiculous. That's like saying taking someone to court after they've murdered your child will give a black eye to your community. The black eye was given when people screwed with our election process in the first place (or when the child was murdered), not when people try to clean it up by having an election mandated by law. Don't blame the solution, blame the problem -- the seemingly screwed up election, the election commission's refusal to look into the problems, and the commission's decision to certify the results despite the problems and despite their own results showing Gutierrez having less than a majority.

The problems are clear. So is the solution. I suggest others stop listening to talk shows as well, because it's nothing but spin doctors reaching desperately for some kind of rebuttal.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 13, 1998.

Nicholai, thank you for your support. I was begining to feel like virgin in a cat house. :) I can't believe the indolent manner which this island seems to be looking at the run off. They are so concerned that we are making the island look bad to the rest of the world. (I am sure this idea has been promoted by our sitting Governor and his entourage as I have seen the latest campaign spots) What is really scary is that these people have children. Are they going to teach their children that when they do something wrong it is better to ignore the situation sooner than rectify it? The whole attitude is as antedulivian as the way people use to handle unmarried woman being pregnant. Like ostrich they would prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

I noticed today that what I had feared the other day was coming to the foreground when I dialed in Myk Powell on my car radio. He is becoming a 98 clone. Or at least that is what he is sounding like and I had to turn him off because he was no longer, in my opinion, an unbiased person. I did however leave the station on long enough to hear the news and it was reported that a man (didn't get his name) that died in Feb of this year did report to the polls on Nov. 3rd to cast his vote. Unfortunately the 6 PM news on KUAM neglected to report this. I guess they didn't think it newsworthy.

By the way Karl is so concerned about this that he is still off island and won't return till Thursday.

-- Jane Public (jstfedup@pci.net), December 14, 1998.

A dead person can pull himself out of the grave to vote, but Carl can't even make it back to Guam to campaign and dance to theme songs before the election. Carl, since when have you started letting dead people outdo you?

Now we'll have to listen to Madeleine babbling on TV about who has the people's interest at heart. Maybe she means the interest on the bank accounts they've filled with our money.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 15, 1998.

Laughing out loud Nicholai. On that point exactly where is he? I heard on the news he was in Kiribati then on another news cast he was in Kiribash. Is this the same place or is he island hopping? If so why?

Read an interesting peice in the PDN today. Letters to the Editor. Person brought out that when Clinton was here Underwood made the statement that his wife didn't vote for him but voted for Clinton. If indeed she did then that means she is registered to vote somewhere else. A state on the mainland. Maybe Underwood is registered there too. If that be the case then he would appear on the list of illegals to be voting on Guam. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

-- Jane Public (jstfedup@pci.net), December 15, 1998.

I'm frankly pissed off that my name was in the paper today. Those damned 98ers used my name in a campaign to get people pissed at Ada for finding out the problem, not causing it. You know who caused it? karl and his cronies thats who. karl, you're a loser just admit it. Where the hell are you, anyway? vacation?

-- troll (vac@ation.net), December 15, 1998.

Jane, Kiribati is prounounced Kiribash,STUPID!

"Troll" must be Curtis Vanderbilt, finally going with a name that matches his looks.

-- No Runoff (norunoff@toobad.com), December 16, 1998.

To Jane Public: Things that make you go DUH! If you think that the Congressman or his wife are not legally registered to vote on Guam then you should get your head checked. If you believe as that letter in the PDN stated that the Congressman said his wife voted for Clinton then you should get your hearing checked.

-- observer (iyq@shs.com), December 16, 1998.

Jane dear, is it Truk or Chuuk? Norunoff is right, you are stupid. (you must get that from the ada camp.

And troll, get your head out of your ass, the "98er's did'nt put out the list dummy, it was that dork vanderdick. the list is public record, so go down to the court and get a copy, and while your there, stop by the book store and buy Jane stupid a book about Islands in the Pacific.

Next time, read the pdn before logging on to this site to get your shit straight. IDIOTS.

-- (g_machie@hotmail.com), December 16, 1998.

Now, now children.......why don't you go out to the playground and smoke a joint and relax....it's OK.....no one's going to hurt you....

-- deepinhalation (gulp98@hotmail.com), December 16, 1998.

Calling a person stupid for not knowing how "Kiribati" is pronounced ... that's pretty petty. Let's not sink as low as Carl has.

Regarding the list of names ... that list was published by the 98 camp. They did it for two reasons: 1) As a campaign tactic, to embarrass the Ada camp; and 2) As a legal tactic, to get people to call in if they know of errors in the list, thus getting people to do their legal work for free. It's a quick research tactic. Neither reason was noble. On the other hand, the Ada camp was ordered to turn over the list by the court -- and it was a court case seeking to find fraud and errors in the election. I applaud that noble effort.

Let's stop the name calling and get our facts straight.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 16, 1998.

Nicholai, if Attorney Troll Gloria Vanderbilt had gone through the "list" just ONCE, the Ada camp would have avoided this mess. They should fire whoever put those lists together for gross incompetence.(Although I have the feeling those people will be out on the street soon anyway) I have a feeling "Jane Public" was involved in the fiasco, based on her idiotic comments in this forum.

-- Tarzan (proofread@yourwork.com), December 16, 1998.

Tarzan,

If I make a mistake and misinterpret information to mean that you cheated on your wife, then turn it over to Jane because a court orders me to, and then Jane tells the world that you cheated with your wife ... who has committed the worse crime? Is it I, who misinterpreted information and turned it over because of a judge's order? Or is it Jane, who took the misinterpreted information and spread it in the community? I think Jane has been more reckless in this hypothetical situation. You may disagree.

I agree that the Ada camp should have checked that list over a lot closer ... but I also can empathize -- they had thousands of names to check over, and a pretty tight deadline imposed by a judge. I don't think there's a good excuse for the actions of the 98 camp in publishing the list for political and legal gain.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 17, 1998.

Gmachie,Observer and Norunoff stupid is as stupid does. I did not claim that Underwood was an illegal voter. I merely stated what was in the PDN. I didn't endorse this person's view. Perhaps you should get your eyes checked. Also I heard the Channel Eight newsperson state that he was in Kiribati. Pronounced Kiri ba te, then on news radio 57 a newsperson there said he was in Kiribash, Ki ra bash. I didn't pretend to make any judgement but asked if this was the same place. I don't pretend to be as all knowing as you all claim to be. But then I don't have to resort to four letter words to complete my vocabulary. I can carry on a conversation with more than monosyllabic words.

Nicholai you were right when you presented the hypothetical situation about releasing to the public facts that haven't been verified. That is why I only stated what was printed and took no formal position. Something that would stir your grey cells. But then that might be asking to much, for the named three, to think on their own. Thank Heaven I have Nicholai to discuss things.

-- Jane Public (jstfedup@pci.net), December 17, 1998.

Kiribati is actually pronounce ki-ri-bas. Kiribati came from the Gilbertese language and it is their way of saying "Gilbert." I hope this sheads some light on a totally irrelevant arguement. By the way, steal the funds, I mean you're still the one.

-- (firiridum@trak.ese.com), December 17, 1998.

Hafa 'mauleg mohons' with your fund raisers and adds it seems you were all seriously expecting a rerun election from Judge John S. Umpingco a good friend and classmate of Fred Castro at Father Duenas High School. You mohons are losers with your sorry and simple debator the biggest cry baby on the island of Guam... Joe F. Ada. It seems now Judge Umpingco's integrity and honesty is on the line.

-- (wish@kuentos.run), December 18, 1998.

Jane Public: Yes, you may not have claimed that Underwood was an illegal voter, but by repeating the misinformation contained in that letter you are perpetuating the erroneous info. You know- casting doubt, trying to make people go "hmmm". Oh, my eyesight is fine thanks. Merry Christmas!

-- observer (iyq@shs.com), December 18, 1998.

Some quick points:

Jane: Just to make sure we're clear, my hypothetical situation wasn't referring to your post. It was referring to Tarzan's post, where he seemed to think all the blame should lie with Vandeveld. Looking back on it, I can see how it could apply to your post, but I agree that you didn't endorse the view, and more importantly, that information was published first by the PDN and Shringi, and if the info was wrong it is the PDN and Shringi who publicized it, not you. It was the 98 camp that publicized the list, so I think they are more at fault than the list's creator.

Wish: You've committed Common 98er fallacy #7, on the Lighthouse Keeper's list. It's a personal attack, with no argument about the issues at hand. Very immature.

Observer: You assert that Jane was casting doubt on Underwood with her comments. That's a matter of interpretation. My interpretation was that she said the letter in the PDN made her think. It stirred up thought. Not doubt. If she wanted to cast doubt, she could have clearly done that by saying "The letter makes me doubt Underwood's vote" or "Can we really believe Underwood now?" But she didn't. She said it made her go hmmm. I think you're assuming more than you can. To see how to interpret the message, we must look to the message writer -- Jane. Jane said she was trying to make people think, to use their grey cells. No one knows what Jane intended except Jane.

I'd like to wrap up the "voters list" debate with a last point: the list obviously has some mistakes. People make mistakes. I don't think anyone can interpret it as meaning that the Ada/Camacho team was trying to smear the good name of people such as Underwood, Judge Maraman or others. What would they have to gain by trying to smear those people? Anyhoo, there may be some illegal voters yet on the list, so let's watch and see how it plays out in court. People who were actually legal voters will be vindicated, and those who weren't will be ferreted out. Let the justice system do its work.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 18, 1998.

Nicholai: Ok so now we are going to debate over what Jane meant. You suggest that we should look to the message writer to understand what she meant. Well, I don't know Jane, do you? Anyway, Jane is the only one who can clarify this point. I find your other comments regarding interpretations to be more interesting. The people who participate in this forum do make their own interpretations as you have demonstrated in your posting. I have mine, you have yours and so on. Fine. As far as the casting doubt/stirring up thought stuff- whether the intention of Jane's posting was to cast doubt or stir up thought it was still based on faulty information. (And yes this info was carried by PDN and written by Bobby Shringi and incidentally has since been corrected) I would like to invite Jane or yourself to now stir up thought based on the new and factual information that has been provided. Or are you just going to ignore that and argue over our interpretations? Anyway, Merry Christmas and peace out.

-- observer (iyq@shs.com), December 18, 1998.

Nicholai I wasn't suggesting that you were referring to me in my post. I was merely stating another side of the hypothical theory you posed. I was trying to make sure our fatuous posters here understood what you were pointing out. Especially since they seem to be blind and needing guidance, perhaps that might explain the group (in my opinion) they seem to be partial to. You my friend are among the few sensible posters on this board.

Observer, I have no intention of trying to discuss anything with you or trading insults as it would be tantamount to dueling with an unarmed man. You make it a point that you don't know me therefore you don't understand what or how I am thinking when reading my posts. Does that mean you don't understand any articles or books written by anyone you don't know. It is called Comprehension 101.

This I will say though there has been too many discrepancies in this election for it to stand. It makes us as seem undisciplined and unable to conduct ourselves in a modern lawful way. The only recourse is to have an election runoff to dispel all shadows and doubt that could be held by the rest of the world.

On that issue I think that the Election Commission's decision that those that didn't vote on Nov. 3rd. will not be allowed to vote now should be challanged. They are treating this as a completely new election when in actuality it is a continuance of the Nov. 3rd. election. People who had good reasons for not voting on Nov 3rd. (Sickness, Death in family, Accident etc) should now be allowed to cast their vote.

If indeed it was a new election we would be casting ballots for the Legislature as well as Governor. The law states that those that didn't vote in the previous election could not vote in the following election without re-registering. This election should be conceived as it started on the 3rd of Nov. but didn't come to completion until whenever the courts deem.

-- Jane Public (jstfedup@pci.net), December 19, 1998.

Kiribati is actually pronounce ki-ri-bas. Kiribati came from the Gilbertese language and it is their way of saying "Gilbert." I hope this sheads some light on a totally irrelevant arguement.

To the poster of this message, I would like to thank you for clearing up this matter for me. You have explained something to me that I did not know and I think any information is definetly not irrelevant. You learn something new everyday. Again thank you.

-- Jane Public (jstfdup@pci.net), December 19, 1998.

TO Jane Public: First off I wasn't trying to say that in order to understand what a person writes you have to know them although, in your case it might help.

Secondly, you say you have no intention of "trading insults" with me and then BAM! you come up with a pathetic insult.

And lastly, I guess you're still not willing to address anything on the original issue that led me to respond to you in the first place.

-- observer (iyq@shs.com), December 19, 1998.

To Jane:

The election commission's decision to deny thousands of eligible voters the chance to vote for governor was idiotic. But if they are going to treat the runoff as a new election, and purge all those who didn't vote on Nov. 3, then they now need to allow new people to register. That means that all those who didn't vote last time, including those who didn't bother to register, should now be allowed to register. There's plenty of time.

To Observer:

I never said we should debate the interpretation of Jane's post. I demonstrated that the interpretation was already settled by Jane (the originator of the statement being interpreted) in a subsequent post (Dec. 17):

"Nicholai you were right when you presented the hypothetical situation about releasing to the public facts that haven't been verified. That is why I only stated what was printed and took no formal position. Something that would stir your grey cells. But then that might be asking to much, for the named three, to think on their own. Thank Heaven I have Nicholai to discuss things."

I think it's clear when she says "something that would make you stir your grey cells" and then refers to thinking on your own that she was trying to incite thought, not doubt. It is no longer open to interpretation, unlike other statements on this forum which obviously need interpretation.

Finally, on the "original issue" you refer to, I'm assuming you mean Shringi's letter about Underwood. In your original post (Dec. 16), you state:

"To Jane Public: Things that make you go DUH! If you think that the Congressman or his wife are not legally registered to vote on Guam then you should get your head checked. If you believe as that letter in the PDN stated that the Congressman said his wife voted for Clinton then you should get your hearing checked."

This is a singularly intelligent post. Especially like the part where you jump to the conclusion that Jane might think the Congressman or his wife are not legally registered to vote on Guam, when she never said that, and then suggest that she have her head checked, and later suggest she have her hearing checked. You mistakenly think the only possible reasons for those conclusions are that she has mental problems or hearing problems. There are other possibilities, of course, such as the possibilities that those conclusions are true, or that the information she's been provided with is wrong, or that there has been a misunderstanding somewhere. I suggest you not take the extreme in your conclusions, because it's entirely possible she could come up with her conclusions without hearing or mental problems. In fact, Jane has already stated that her hearing is fine, and I have seen no evidence of mental problems on her part. I don't even think you have mental problems ... you're just a little eager to jump to conclusions. Finally, Jane has said she doesn't believe the things you said she might believe, so there is nothing to debate.

If you've read this entire message, you, like me, need to get a life. :)

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 19, 1998.

Joe Ada boy is the biggest cry baby mohon loser and a winner he is not. A bitter loser that does not know when to stop crying. Certainly Joe will never win another election because he is full of hate and contempt. Simple Joe why don't you go work for the Bank of Guam? Your buddy may hire you as a guard!

-- (ada@kuentos.cry), December 20, 1998.

OH LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER!!!!!!!!! Please get this "hate and contempt"/"cry-baby loser"/"mauleg mahon", out of the forum he brings nothing to the forum!

-- gethimout (getoutahere@ite.net), December 20, 1998.

Nicholai: Before I settle down to enjoy my well-deserved vacation just one more post. Regarding my original post, I would like to point out that I was obviously being facetious(something that most of the participants of this forum are guilty of). I can only say that on the day that I made the original post I had just about had it with the people I heard both at work and on the radio shows who were saying stuff like, "Hey, did you hear that Underwood's wife voted for President Clinton?", and then I saw Jane's posting and the rest is history.

The problem I have with Jane's posting and the people who say things like, "Did you hear about what Underwood said?", is that they often do not bother to acknowledge that an idea or thought which they have thrown out may have been (and in this case was) inaccurate. I hope you can appreciate what I am trying to say here.

Just for the record I should also say that I am not what is known in this forum as a "98er" nor am I an Ada/Camacho supporter. However, I do support the Congressman, heard his speech, enjoyed his speech and felt like defending him on that day. Just wanted to clear that up. I also want to say that I strongly agree that we need to "get a life"- which I intend to do immediately. So until the next time - Happy Holidays! You too, Jane.

-- observer (iyq@shs.com), December 20, 1998.

Observer,

That was a very reasonable post. I agree that some of the information I get, and others get, is inaccurate and we should acknowledge it as being inaccurate instead of defending it. When we make mistakes, we should own up to them. This is a problem I have with the current administration -- I don't remember them ever owning up to a mistake. Everything Carl does is godlike, and any problem is either covered up or blamed on someone else, such as the previous administration. It's amazing how many times a director says, Oh, it's been like that since the last administration. Well, yes, that may be true, but you've had four years to fix the problem, buddy.

End of rant.

Observer, enjoy your vacation. Happy holidays to everybody.

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 20, 1998.

Observor your last message was intelligent and interesting. I do agree with you fully that sometimes you can hear an arguement from so many sides and so much that one more time can push you buttons.

Nicholai, as to getting a life, that is a scary thought if you really stop to think about it. Perhaps we are just people who are so outraged at the Mickey Mouse way things have been handled over the past few years. We have no recourse but to vent our collective anger at the internet as we have no way of being able to challange or change present conditions. I have seen people with more clout than I have beaten down and losing a great deal when they tried to stand up for an ideal.

To all that read this board may I wish them the happiest of Christmases and a New Year that brings only joy and contentment. May the Great Maker watch over us and our island, guiding us through a safe '99

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night. :)

-- Jane Public (jstfedup@pci.net), December 20, 1998.

Jane and other merry makers:

If you haven't been following the "Election Fraud" thread, I suggest you pop over there. The infamous Bob Kelley, always good for a laugh or two, is making the rounds in that thread.

I'd like to hear from some of you guys on that issue.

Nicholai

-- Nicholai Hel (hel@cio.us), December 21, 1998.

test2

-- test2 (test@test.com), February 11, 1999.

Hey Joe F. Ada

Go file another law suit......come on one more time. You are nothing but a cry baby mohon loser and you are not going to get any high paying goverment jobs.......because Carl the Maugleg Crusher beat you again you two time loser. Go to mama you cry baby loser.

-- Ada (One@More.time), February 16, 1999.

Joe Ada

You mohon loser. So when is the next fundraiser? We just don't get it we have no jobs and you still want to be Gobernor. Come on there is no money you and Carl wasted all the money. You and Carl are fat and lazy. Our lives is better without you. Carl should be Gobernor, cause he knows where is the money and you have no clue.

-- Limited Terminated Juan (runoff@my.foot), December 04, 1999.