Reply #64: Good for the goose, is good for the gander

[mgr]

Nice argument from faith. Having not read Bruce's paper--

"<WOW! again. What a lot of assumptions. I don't "like" or dislike Ron. There ARE things I do like about him though. There IS quite a difference in the two statements. For example, he is the most qualified commentator on this issue here (PHD in statistics), etc. But, if he did something that was counter-productive to advancing election fraud discovery and election reform, I would have no emotional attachment ("liking him") standing in the way of necessary criticism. You are "bad to disagree with Ron"? My my, now isn't THAT a good example of assumptive AND emotive language? ;)"having the audacity to pursue the truth in public"? (The "victim" once again.)>"

When does a Ph D in statistics make one more qualified than a Ph D in engineering, or biology, or psychology? It is the power and substance of the argument which matters, all a Ph D implies is that one has presumed mastery of a small area of arcane knowledge. It does not translate to overall mastery, or authority.

You do a very good job of attacking the form of arguments, but you don't seem able to address the substance. Your points are little more than distractions. Read the damn paper.

Mike

Mike