|
1. Why don't you do your own analysis? I can't come up with a good criterion for putting states into the two categories. That's why I keep asking TIA for his. He gave one, but it doesn't fit with at least NH, which I would put into the "paper trail" column (as would many others--read the posts on his many threads to see this). Bev Harris tells us there are only two states that are all paper, and I believe her. Putting any other state into one category or another under these circumstances seems arbitrary to me, and arbitrary doesn't cut it when your trying to prove something very important.
2. It's easy to sit in your chair and criticize the work of others. And it's easy to recognize a flawed analysis. Do you understand the concept of burden of proof?
3. I'm around here pretty much all the time. Easily said, difficult to prove. Check out the threads in the meeting room (except for the last few weeks). You'll find I'm a regular poster who takes a skeptical view of Astrology, UFOlogy, etc., and is very pro-science. Some of my fellow skeptics there are Arwalden, Rabrrrr, and Enki123. I guess you could PM one of them and ask if I'm around pretty much all the time. I am.
4. I FEAR your flawed analysis will be spread around as our position, labelling any later good analysis as also coming from us "tinfoil hatters". Not calling you a freeper, but this statement is ridiculous. Suppose we spread this around and I'm right that it's bullshit. If it gets to the press, they'll see it as bullshit right away and point that out. Now suppose somebody comes out with an analysis that isn't bullshit later. Won't they question the credibility of the good analysis because it also comes from the left, where a proven bullshit analysis also originated? Of course they would. Once we lose our credibility on an issue, it's almost impossible to get it back.
5. If you suspect, wishful thinking, then take the time and do the research to prove your theory. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Oh, I can't prove it's wishful thinking. Never said I could. Assuming TIA is honestly trying to get to the truth on this, it's just the most likely probability. And I'm not asking anybody to believe anything just because I say it. Ask yourself--why is NH in the category it's in? Why are so many states in the "paper ballot" category when there are only two that are all paper? Look at these questions yourself and come to your own conclusion. I've made mine, that it's wishful thinking.
6. Only re:puke:'s believe that if you say something enough, eventually it becomes truth. True, but it's human nature to want to believe something so much that we overlook flaws that others will see. The solution is something called critical thinking, which is hard to come by.
7. I look forward to your most truthful analysis. Or your absence. I've explained why I can't do my analysis of this issue. If you don't like it, too bad. I've explained why I don't have to do my own analysis in order to discredit the one done (do yourself a favor, google "burden of proof"). You're not going to chase me off this board. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a freeper. And I'm not a wuss. What I am is a Wellstone liberal. And a critical thinker.
|