Reply #5: You don't "buy" it. That statement is meaningless.

[TruthIsAll]

Back it up with more than a curt one-liner, buddy. So far, no one has been able to refute the work of Freeman, Baiman, Simon or 10Phd's at uscountvotes.org - or of mine.

What makes you think you can?

You say that my intentions are good.
Very condescending.

I've already done the work , as have others at DU who have strived to get the facts out in their own area of focus.

Are there any posts of yours available for review? You will have to do a better job than to just toss a one-liner. Take it as a challenge. Are you sure you are up to it?

Are you ready to employ the statistics you supposedly do for a living? Because if you are, we are ready. And it's not just myself who you'll be dealing with, but also some very knowledgeable, no-nonsense DUers who will be more than happy to jump in and put your arguments to the test. Remember, we've heard it all from others like yourself over the past four months. And none have succeeeded in putting a dent in the analysis of myself or the people at uscountvotes.org. On the contrary, naysayers like yourself have only helped by giving us the opportunity to expose the fallacy of their arguments.

Before you enter the ring, I suggest you read the papers from Baiman/Simon, as well as and Freeman and the 10 math/stat PhDs at uscountvotes.org. I assume you are already familliar with my posts; if not, there are hundreds to choose from to commence your attack.

You should probably start by reading this article by a famous mathematics professor at Temple University:
http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=9953&fcategory_desc=Election%202004

I know you'll need some time to train before entering the ring.

Good luck.