I said: "not recognizing that the current voting is not a static thing, and therefore suggesting that if dan or val's votes were changed, no one else might change their votes as well."
and you replied: "You miss the point of the post."
I'm pretty sure I didn't miss any point in your analysis (but feel free to clarify the point you think I missed), but you manage to quote my point about your response and then somehow ignore the argument entirely in your "rebuttal", before launching your attempt to side-track the discussion by attacking me. Great argument technique, btw.