Reply #19: I need to share your own words with you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

Yes, I know that you stand by everything you've written. That's the problem. OK, let's review:

Klinkner: "Over at the Huffington Post, Brad Friedman continues to peddle the idea that the 2005 election in Ohio was marred by massive voter fraud. As I point out in my post below, there's little if any evidence to support such an assertion. It seems to me that if Democrats want to nail the Republicans next year (and Ohio seems like a great opportunity for that), they should spend their time thinking about positive solutions to the nation's problems rather than sounding like a bunch of guys with foil helmets who run around making outlandish fraud accusations. (Besides, everyone knows that foil helmets actually help the government to read our minds!)"

Friedman: "(blah blah blah) I'm sorry to see that apparently you haven't read the GAO Report (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001940.htm) recently published confirming everything I've been reporting on as FACT. Nor have you read the "Cyber Alert Warning" (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001838.htm) as issued by US-CERT, a branch of the DHS, prior to the election warning that Diebold Central Tabulators are vulnerable to attack by a single malicious user. Your democracy is being gamed, and yet you don't seem to care. I wonder why.

While you characterize my work as "peddling massive fraud" (or however you worded it), it's unfortunate that you fail to characterize what I'm *actually* peddling. And that is, that without a transparent democracy in which the electorate can have confidence -- no matter the results of any election -- you destroy the very basis on which democracy rests.

As a "PolySigh" guy, I'd think you'd understand that more readily. Apparently you don't. Or, perhaps as with Blumenthal, apparently you simply don't care.

http://polysigh.blogspot.com/2005/11/move-on-brad.html

This went on several more rounds. Now, what's wrong here? You didn't even try to justify the argument you had actually made, which was that the results in Ohio were "staggeringly impossible." Did the GAO report confirm that? Of course not. Did the Cyber Alert Warning confirm that? Of course not. Was Klinkner criticizing something you had said about transparent democracy? Nope. He was criticizing your claims about fraud in Ohio. Did you defend them? No. Will you defend them? We shall see. I think they're indefensible, and you never came close in your colloquy with Klinkner. But you sure trashed him along the way -- and, to be sure, he gave as good as he got. A nifty coalition-building strategy you've got, dude.

And why is it that in all of the places you write, you don't have the decency or courage to actually make it clear who you are and what you do?

Anyone with the discipline to click on the profile button knows who I am and what I do. In case anyone missed the point, I often link to my work. Go lecture TruthIsAll and his faithful minions about decency -- I don't need it. So, will you stand by this, too? Sort of reenacting your "outing" of DHinMI?

And what is it that "pile of crap" you claim I will not "support"?

You need me to repeat your attacks back to you? Jeebus. Why don't you go find one thing of mine that you disagreed with, offer a reason, and win the argument? I'm assuming because it's easier to hurl fireballs.

And yeah, it brought him a great deal of support and funding.

Riiiiiiight. Not enough funding to complete the recount, but....

You keep apologizing for the shitty state of our electoral system, it's utter lack of transparency....

I'm doing no such thing. You are transparently moving the goalposts -- even if you yourself can't see it.