>>>So, I was absolutely right that the wording at the site was unclear -- except for you?

Unclear to me too. That's why I had to figure it out, the best I could. I only posted what I concluded. I make no claim that my conclusion is best or correct. I said in my post it was unclear. We have no disagreement here that I can see.

>>>...Students are generally young and pliable, just the way schools like them to be. Only teacher-authorized upstarts allowed, thank you very much.

What this has to do with whether a fraud was intended or not, I can't fathom.

>>>And this "was" a DSA request -- so which students do you think they were aiming for?

Is it against the law to encourage people to vote for your cause, now? Of course it was a partisan effort. Why do you care?

>>>I would have to say those pliable to the DSA code -- and those who wouldn't mind "bending" a law or two to further block the current admin.

Again, what this has to do with whether a fraud was intended or not, I can't fathom. Or are you saying that you thought they were targeting students because they could get students to do this, while other classes of society would be resistant? I hadn't thought of that.

>>>And another:
- People who commit crimes only rarely announce their intentions on the internet.
...Ergo, internet fraud is very rare?

Apples & oranges, I think. Internet fraud typically shows up as people advertising goods or services that they don't intend to deliver (or deliver in ways that are deliberately unsatisfactory). The internet portion of the fraud does not describe anything illegal. It's just an advertisment for goods or services that, if delivered on, would be perfectly legal.

Here you have something that clearly (if you take Rush's interpretation) - at their website - describes a fraud. A better parallel to this than your internet fraud, would be if bank robbers posted their intentions, prior to their crime. So far as I know, this hasn't happened.

>>>Agreed, but Tom's post was in regard to removing the page as a pop-up. My comment was to the fact they had since deleted the page at http://www.dsausa.org/news/minnesota.html altogether.

I don't see the distinction. I would offer my explanation for either event. I'm sure they were taking heat - of course they would remove it.

>>>Is it possible there is a third direction this could have gone, and everyone misunderstood the utter harmlessness of the little ad?

I'm certain that everyone understood the little ad exactly the way they wanted to understand it.