I see we're quite fond of beating dead horses...

horses...ducks...you have an animal-thing going on, right?

Yep. you caught me. Voyeur of duck fetishism and zoomaniac.

You've got a little bit of a mythomania-sophomania-egomania thing going on yourself, right?

"I see we're quite fond of beating dead horses..."

Hmmm! With regards to the "flogging of equine cadavers" - I, for one, think is about time that the RNC and the Estate of the late Richard Milhous Nixon insist on a recount of the 1960 Presidential vote in Illinois and Texas.

From your use of the plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first person - "we", I take it that you side with the folks at Democratic Underground and Black Box Voting who "continue to pursue a cause that has no hope of success", to wit - the recounting of the 2004 and 2000 Presidential vote.

Movwater,

There is no reasoning with these people. God knows I have tried but they are not interested things like REALITY. I have done my best to make it clear that they are not welcome here but for some reason they just can't seem to take a hint.

Movwater,

Not sure why you chose to weigh in on the dead horses, but nevertheless, you did. Based on your comments, I'm not sure what you thought I was referring to, but I'll explain to you so you can be more informed.

In his original post, Mr. Cox said the following: "Links between BlackBoxVoting.com and Bev Harris have been denied by some Harris defenders - on this site and elsewhere."

Mr. Cox conitnues to be fixated on the fact that I made an ambiguous and confusing statement about Bev Harris and BBV.com, despite the fact that I have admitted my mistake and provided further clarification. Hence, my accusation that Mr. Cox is "fond of beating dead horses."

As for my use of the plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first person - "we", don't take it for anything other than what it is-- a condescending, sarcastic, snarky comment intended to help articulate my disrespect and disapproval of bad behavior.

m,

You did not make "an ambiguous and confusing statement" and by portraying what you said this way (repeatedly on this site) you have not "admitted my mistake."

You said "They [blackboxvoting.com] are not running away from her [Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org], they were never affiliated her to begin with and just trying to make it clear." You also accused me of not getting my facts straight.

In fact, as I have amply demonstrated, it is you who did not get your facts straight - Bev Harris was intimately associated with blackboxvoting.com.

Having spuriously insulted me, having been proven wrong in spades, you continue to portray your statement as having been "unclear" instead of flat out wrong.

If you want to just simply say "I was wrong to say that Bev Harris was never associated with blackboxvoting.com" that would be a start. Is that really so unreasonable? I think not.

Bob,

As usual you refer only to the original statement and do not provide the further context of the argument. After my original INCORRECT statement (can I get a little credit now?) I went on to clarify that what I meant was that Bev Harris was not connected to BBV.com in regards her efforts in election 2004.

I have referred to my statement as ambiguous because I was not intending to make the claim that Bev Harris was NEVER associated with bbv.com, I was intending to point out that Bev Harris is not currently associated with bbv.com. I made those comments because YOU wrongly implied that Bev Harris had recently been associated with bbv.com, and in fact, she has not. My use of the term ambiguous is simply based on the fact that my statement was misleading because I did not use the qualifying statement "in regards to her voting irregularities investigations for election 2004." If you would prefer that I use the words "incorrect statement" instead of "ambiguous statement" I am willing to concede. That still doesn't change the fact that what I intended to say, and later did say, is true.

Can we please let the dead horses retain some of their dignity by just being dead, instead of continuing to flog them post mortem?

ps. If I "spuriously offended" you, I respectfully apologize. I had no idea you were so sensitive.

Ahhh, well, tagging people with "loon alerts" certainly isn't an ad hominem attack at all. Glad to see you've decided to refrain from the kind of attacks that you find so distasteful from the "tin foil hat" crowd.

I am not sure why you think I have not provided "context" when I have about 2,000 words on this site from you which provide any reader plenty of "context" for your statements. I am hardly censoring you on this site - you post more comments than anyone other than me.

The Loony Level warning icons became necessary to protect my clear thinking readers from the harmful effects of overexposure to loonthink.

In your case, warning icons are necessary because the velocity of your circular arguments is so high that they not only subject my readers to loonthink but can also induce a mild form of vertigo for the unaware.

Let's take one example, in the hope that our concerns might have some resonance with you. On the one hand you have claimed that I don't have my facts straight, on the other hand you claim that you are not a blackboxer and have only the most passing knowledge of BBV.com and BBV.got, on the other hand you have said that you clarified your initial "ambiguous" comments, on the other hand your claim to have clarified your comments by making yet another claim about Bev Harris and her various relationships with the blackbox universe which you have said several times you know nothing about it. Not only is the line of reasoning deeply flawed but it leaves you with four hands. As having four hands is a known result of being abducted by space aliens I feel it is safe to conclude that a Tin Foil Hatter warning icon is most appropriate in your case.

You still haven't bothered to refute anything I've said in the above statement. I'm not a "blackboxer" (as you like to call them), if you don't want to believe me, fine, continue working yourself into a tizzy about it. I also have no problem if you want to tag my comments, it makes you look petty.

I did clarify my ambiguous statements. And, as per your request, I have admitted making a mistake in my comments. It's perfectly obvious to anyone who reads this that you're being unreasonable. I even offered an apology for "spuriously insulting" you. You're being obsturate and childish.

I haven't made a single comment about the election being "stolen" or that there was fraud in Ohio. I openly admitted, again as per your request, that Bush won the election. What's your justification for continuing to label me?