Reply #77: But not accidentally...

[BradBlog]

As you may or may not have noticed, you spend hours on this site and on dKos arguing against those who suggest their may be election fraud here or there.

As you also may have noticed, you a sig-line on each and every post, where you could post your real name, and your credentials with a link to the paper you offered in which you stake your reputation on a number of states in 2004 NOT having been stolen.

That would offer a great deal of transparency, so folks could just whether or not you've got a dog in this hunt for themselves.

While I realize only "peer-reviewed academic papers" mean anything to folks like you (which would also be clearer to others if you bothered to exercise appropriate scientific ethics by identifying yourself when you post on things about which you are interest-conflicted), some of us believe that evidence put forward by those who do not publish in such journals nonetheless offer valuable, and independently verifiable information.

Experts like Bob Fitrakis and Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips are certainly far more expert in Ohio elections than you are. As well, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the staff of the Democratic Judiciary Committee (and many others) have compiled an enormous body of convincing evidence to suggest that John Kerry would have won Ohio in a fair election and/or a fair count of the ballots as cast.

For my part, I don't particularly have a position on the matter, though from the evidence that I have seen, I believe a compelling case has been made that Kerry likely would have won Ohio had all of the ballots been counted transparently and *certainly* had all of those who wished to vote actually been allowed to vote.

Nonetheless, while I'd fight for your right to argue against that case -- honestly or otherwise -- it's a simple fact that you have staked no small part of your reputation on the notion that neither Ohio, nor any of the other states in question were stolen in 2004.

When you argue otherwise, and/or when you forward arguments that marginalize the ease of fraud capacity elsewhere (which, in turn, might have easily applied to 2004) you ought to identify yourself.

That's what a responsible <i>scientist</i> would do. You have, decidedly, for years not done so when posting here, at dKos, and probably elsewhere.

If your work was a solid as you obviously believe it to be, there would be no reason for you to hide who you are. I have seen your posts for years both here and at dKos, and had no idea until only recently, who you actually were.

That's both disgraceful and unethical. It's not my job to go hunt down who you might be. It's your job to be transparent in the first place. Period.

Brad