Reply #63: Ok, I read it.

[crispini]

First point: I do not say that there is not enough proof of fraud to convince me.

I say, simply, that I do not have the training or the brains to evaluate for myself the statistical arguments that I have seen so far. In other words, the *nature* of the proof is such that I cannot speak to it.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your point about the game has to do with it. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? It's a nice parable, and the point to the parable is that the game is rigged without being apparent, but I don't quite see how you move from "this game is rigged" to "this election was rigged"?

Namaste ~