Reply #162: Your "scientific" argument/logic is exceedingly unimpressive (and disgraceful)

[BradBlog]

I'm fairly certain that if I identified myself in my sig, as you ridiculously demand, I would be roundly criticized for trying to flaunt my credentials.

Wow. That's pathetic. And also contradicts your previous case that everyone knew who you were, or could find out "in 20 seconds".

Adding your name to your sig -- transparently noting your conflict of interest in "debunking" concerns about election fraud -- is the appropriate and ethical thing to do for a self-proclaimed "political scientist". That you'd argue otherwise is rather astounding, and reminiscent of the pathetic GOP "voter fraud" scammer Hans von Spakovsky who published in favor of his argument, pseudonymously, as "Publius".

You're making all sorts of accusations against me without an iota of proof.

Ironic, that charge. Given that your absurd allegations of my profiting from selling books (which I don't have) and speaking engagements (which I do on my own dime, at the benefit of others).

But pray tell, what "accusation" have I made "without an iota of proof"? I am unaware of any, Mark.

Again, it's an interesting use of your time. It suggests to me that you suspect you're whipped on the merits of the arguments.

Merits of what "arguments", Mark?

The argument that it's unethical for you to post anonymously/pseudonymously both here and at dKos on the issue of Election Integrity when you have a dog in the hunt as a "political scientist" who has previous made the case *against* such Fraud?

It's an interesting use of your time. It suggests to me that you suspect you're whipped on the merits of the argument when you need to create such strawmen with no basis in fact or substance.

Again, not a particularly impressive argument from a "political scientist".