> avogadro wrote:

> a scientist is whoever claims to be one.

I disagree with that!  I should know!  I'm a scientist, after all! 

irrelevant to this thread...

when will all media refocus on iranian election issue instead of micheal jackson?

SHEESH!!!!

problems in iran are not over yet, the protesters are getting more quiet day by day but they're still twittering and videos are still pouring in youtube.com, it's not over yet

it will be over if Mousavi decided to drop election challenge OR Iranian authorities managed to kill all protesters (i doubt that will happen) :-P

Yes. Start a new thread, but beforehand make sure you understand the difference
between a /peaceful protest/ and a /riot/."

A peaceful protest is useless when you have the likes of the Ayatollah in power.

> avogadro wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> > avogadro wrote:

> a scientist is whoever claims to be one.

I disagree with that!  I should know!  I'm a scientist, after all! 

ok, mr. scientist what are your views on global warming?

Oh, that's not my field!  I'm a specialist in bullshitology!

So you propose that they did in fact count 30 million ballots in an hour?

You additionally propose that when more votes come from an area than that area has registered voters, this can happen somehow without foul play?

@Blind Guardian

Educate yourself.

In Iran, there's no such thing as a "registered voter" that is required to vote in a specific area. In Iran, you can vote wherever the hell you want. I could theoretically go from one end of the country to the other and vote there. Having over 100% voter turnout in discticts is very common.

So...unless you can conclusively prove there was cheating....you built a hourse without foundation.

The Ayatollah put it best:

"If some people have doubts or some proof they should show it through the law... I will not just follow press allegations.""

Edit: Even if there were cheating, you have to wonder, who had the motivation to cheat? Ahmadinejad was projected to win in the polls by a large margin. He had no reason to cheat. His opponents and the Americans however, did have reason to make it seem as if he were cheating in their efforts to gain power and destabilise the country respectfully.

"Educate yourself."
Then he is not the only one. But let us stick to the debate and not get personal now will we?

"In Iran, there's no such thing as a "registered voter" that is required to vote in a specific area. In Iran, you can vote wherever the hell you want. I could theoretically go from one end of the country to the other and vote there. Having over 100% voter turnout in discticts is very common."
But having more then 100% outcome in total is ridiculous.

"The Ayatollah put it best:"
Idd. the one time he admit there were to many votes himself.

"Even if there were cheating, you have to wonder, who had the motivation to cheat?"
You say that in the next sentence

"Ahmadinejad was projected to win in the polls by a large margin."
It was, in fact, the other way around... but either way your numbers come from the one and only television station in this world we can trust.

"He had no reason to cheat."
Except for the reason people do anything for: power.

"His opponents and the Americans however, did have reason to make it seem as if he were cheating in their efforts to gain power and destabilize the country respectfully."
The americans? I bet thats why BW and flint are not around now. They are busy starting riots in Iran. Yes its in the intrest of every american but this lies far beyond the power of the CIA or whatever organization. Please. It has been said for years now that the youth, and especially the students are turning more and more away from the current course Iran is taking.

You proof in any way this election was honest and fair. Appart from the media being biased and political oppresion and disappearing opponents. You proof their is any chance at all to check one way or another the results of this election.

@BG

"Secrecy in an election serves one function: Fraud"

Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.

If there was cheating, there will be conclusive proof. There is no such thing as a "perfect election fraud" on the magnitude you are suggesting.

You can discount reports of "intimidation" and polls "closing early". Those are meaningless and losers complain about them in virtually all elections (e.g.  2000 American election). Of course, there are some nuts here who will tell you the 2000 American election was rigged too. So...unless you have proof....

@LP

"But having more then 100% outcome in total is ridiculous."

As I already told you, it's quite common. You can vote wherever you want. So when you have a high voter turnout, and it's common for people to vote in other "districts" (e.g. popular desert vacation areas like some of the cities that reported over 100% turnout were), then it's quite easy to see how you could get over 100% in many of those less populous towns.

You also need to get your information right LP. Ahmadinejad was always the clear favourite. The opposition never had a chance, cheating, or no cheating.

You're seeing what you want to see instead of the simple truth: The Iranian people support Ahmadinejad. It's unfortunate, but true.

"Mousavi's newspaper, Kalemeh Sabz, or the Green Word, reported on its Web site that more than 10 million votes were missing national identification numbers similar to U.S. Social Security numbers, which make the votes "untraceable." It did not say how it knew that information.

Mousavi said some polling stations closed early with voters still in line, and he charged that representatives of his campaign were expelled from polling centers even though each candidate was allowed one observer at each location. He has not provided evidence to support the accusations."

He really just sounds like a sore loser to me.

I'll defer that to LP The_Yell for the moment.

After all, he stated:

"the cheating btw has been proven by now. Its a matter of how big they were cheated. But about the support;"

So...let's wait for his "proof". I'd be interested in seeing what he considers "proof". (His answer might also help explain how he could believe in things like the 9/11 conspiracy ).

"So...let's wait for his "proof". big_smile I'd be interested in seeing what he considers "proof"."
The fact that ayasmelly said it himself. He said that it was not enough to be influential but he admit there was a big amount of cheating. But if even he sais it before you guys, it shows a great level of biasedness on your sides.

In any case the leaders have to agree with your candidacy and denied over 1000 parties the right to compete. That is a fact they do not deny but it IS cheating.