Reply #55: For the record, do YOU, or do you NOT agree with...

[tommcintyre]

"It makes our "implausibility of rBr" claim stronger." (From Ron Banaim - in the opening post of this thread above. A CLEAR YES or NO please.
-------------
Again, you said in your post above:
"I am not take issue with the current version of the working paper."

Since Ron Banaim clearly states, "It makes our "implausibility of rBr" claim stronger."

You must agree, or you are still "taking issue" (with at least part - THE MAIN PART/THRUST) of Bainam et al's paper.

This IS pretty CLEAR isn't it?

------------

Also, for the record, do you believe that USCV should be allowed to present their case against the rBr hypothesis at the upcoming Carter/Baker Election Reform Hearing on June 30th?

Again, a CLEAR YES or NO answer would be very much appreciated.

I'm only asking you for your opinion, so please don't tell me your not qualified to answer this etc. After-all, just about EVERYONE here has an opinion on this; and you have set yourself up (and/or, been set up) as an "opinion-maker" on the pro/anti rBr issue.

BTW (just in case you're NOT aware of this): Mitofsy's rBr "hypothesis" was given as the reason that the exit poll discrepancy evidence was NOT allowed to be presented at the first C/B hearing in April.

So, you can imagine, your work will only be used, even further, to discredit the exit poll discrepancy evidence, and consequently deny USCV a "seat at the table" - resulting in further hiding the possibility from the American public that THIS ELECTION WAS STOLEN. (Welcome to the "smoke and mirrors" world of American politics Lizzie - a little different than the British system where you count the paper ballots on television, eh? ;) ) And, all the evidence I am literally stumbling over, points to the fact that Mitofskys CHIEF role has been to be an obfuscater - NOT an unbiased pollster.

One final question to illustrate/elucidate this point: Do YOU think there is ANY REALISTIC POSSIBILITY that Mitofsky would've hired (and publicly praised) you if your formula INDICATED A CLEAR EVIDENCE OF FRAUD? If you can be honest (especially with yourself), the answer is pretty clear, isn't it? NO WAY IN HELL!

So, dear Lizzie, whether it was intentional or not, YOU have become a dupe (pawn?) in Mitofsky's "game" to cover up the election fraud.