Reply #105: hmmm...

[OnTheOtherHand]

That's internally consistent, but it hasn't been well supported, to say the least. The last time I pressed you to support your substantive claims, you changed the subject. So that's where things stand.

Your analogy to AGW apparently makes subjective sense to you. From your standpoint, as far as I can tell, it's inexplicable that expert opinion on Ohio 2004 doesn't parallel expert opinion on AGW. I think you would learn some things if you thought about that question some more.

I really don't know what you mean by "massive fraud," so I can't say whether I agree or not. I think that various forms of vote suppression probably, but not certainly, outweighed miscounting. How much of that was "fraud"? Depends on definitions. My impression is that you've accepted a lot of weak evidence for fraud/error, but until you offer more specifics, it is hard to tell.

Do I believe that fraud could have affected hundreds of thousands of votes? Sure. But that gets me nowhere near where you are.

(edit to change meaningless subject header)