Just a point of clarification. You should check your facts a little better. There are two Black Box voting sites. blackboxvoting.org and blackboxvoting.com...they've had the "we're not affiliated with Bev Harris" comment up for at least a month now. They are not running away from her, they were never affiliated her to begin with and just trying to make it clear. And I'm not sure Bev Harris was ever a source for Keith Olbermann. That was sort of the point of his blog.

Bob Cox, you are the most spineless, whining, cranky little prick I have ever encountered in cyberspace. You carry on about people "being really mean and selfish" and "leaving you free to rant at will is the best way to expose your limited mind for what they are...vapid wastelands" (when you are the chief ranter on this site), then you post an attack on a poster--who did NOT post anonymously--on the home page of this eyesore. Why no one else? Or can't you address all the pro-KO "loons" because most of the comments on this site are pro-Olbermann?

Why don't you just shut down this little fascistic ego-boosting kingdom and take up a collection so you can buy yourself a port-a-spine or a pair of balls, you loser?

If you insist on keeping this charade going, however, change your title from "managing editor" to "insecure prick." The former gives all editors a bad name; the latter is accurate. Oh, and change the title from "Olbermann Watch" to "Vapid Wastelands--The Cyberspace Home of the Terminally Insecure (like Bob Cox).

Thanks for the nod on your front page. And for the record, I'm not a spineless fool. The posting wasn't anonymous, it just had my first initial and that was it. I don't use my name when posting. Just a habit I guess. I'm a woman, so I'm cautious when I'm on line. Get over
it. Your attack on me -- over what I think was a relatively benign post given what I've seen here-- was so ridiculous and out of line I decided to respond. I have a problem with your "Olbermann begins to back peddle" post for the following reasons:

1) yes, you linked to both sites. But unless you clicked on the .com link it was not obvious that there were two sites; which is why I clarified it in my post. I didn't "miss" it, I was clarifying your ambiguities. Moreover, your comments imply that bbv.com was recently affiliated with Bev Harris and trying to
distance themselves from her because of her behavior in Florida. That is a misleading statement. The separation between Bev and bbv.com happened in July before the election, months ago (all you had to do was look at the statement from David Allen). Perhaps I should have been more clear when I said Bev was
never affiliated with bbv.com, I meant in regards to the election 2004 investigation. My mistake, so let me clarify...bbv.com's disclaimers regarding non-affiliation were up on the site before the election. You imply otherwise and that's just as bad as what
you accuse Mr. Olbermann of doing.

2) Keith Olbermann has stated he was in contact with Bev Harris regarding BEV HARRIS'INVESTIGATION IN FLORIDA. He did not say he was in contact with bev Harris as a source for any of the "voting irregularities" coverage he has done thus far. To my knowledge he has not used her as a source for anything. Most of
Keith's coverage has been on the Ohio recount, not Florida, so I don't know how you could go about making the connection that "Keith finally admits that one of his primary sources is full of it." Keith cites sources for everything. You may not think they are credible sources, but they aren't Bev Harris. That was my only point.

On an added note, you should proof read your own site as well as fact check more regularly. At the end of your totally unjustified rant you said "how about YOUR CHECK YOUR FACTS you spineless fool."

I'm not exactly sure why you got so defensive over my post, it was fairly harmless by most standards. Also, I've posted here before and it hasn't ever been unfair or mean like some of the others. I don't agree with what you're
doing, but I certainly haven't been mean or disrespectful. I think calling me a coward and a spineless fool was over the top ridiculous. Criticize Mr. Olbermann if you'd like, but don't engage in the same behavior you are accusing him of, it's just bad form. And you could try to be a little less defensive and reactive. You put the blog up, stop being so pissed off and freaked out now that you're finally getting some attention.

Regards,

m....the spineless fool.

I am very very sorry. You are soooo right. Your post wasn't anonymous. You signed it "m".

What are you, five years old?

You either sign your name or you don't. Don't give me this "m" garbage.

Signed

R.

M.,

Last night I responded to your email only to discover that you had also submitted a comment to the web site. I am glad that you posted there. I would very much prefer that exchanges take place on the site so that others have the opportunity to weigh in (as elitegrammarian has done in defending you and attacking me). It is fine that you have identified yourself to me, and I will certainly respect your reqest not to publish your name or e-mail but that does not change the fact that you DID submit your comment anonymously. As I wrote in my off-blog e-mail to you, your post WAS anonymous no matter what the reason (although I understand and accept your explanation). As a rule I don't have much respect for (a) anonymous bloggers (b) anonymous posters. I am willing to take shots from anyone but not when they shoot and scoot. For this reason I list my name, my email, my IM and a way for people to call me and speak directly to me (skype). I don't hide and I don't respect people who do - for any reason.

That said, you are right in that your post was not strident just misinformed. Let me take your original comment one by one:

You wrote "there are two Black Box voting sites. blackboxvoting.org and blackboxvoting.com"

Yes and I linked to both of them. As you may not be terribly familiar with blogging and blog protocol a link serves the same purpose as a footnote in a term paper. If a reader does not bother to click a link that is there problem not mind. In addition, it is as clear as could be that "BlackBoxVoting" is different than "BlackBoxVoting.ORG." That these two lovebirds had a spat and chose to continue to use the same name for their organization is not my fault.

You wrote "...they've had the "we're not affiliated with Bev Harris" comment up for at least a month now"

This comment is very revealing as it suggests that you are enough of a visitor to BlackBoxVoting.com to know this which only serves to show that your decision to comment anonymously has more to do with the explanation you offered. Anyone who reads a kook web site like BlackBoxVoting.com (or .org) is nothing more than a left wing loon. No wonder you did not want to identify yourself.

You wrote "They are not running away from her, they were never affiliated her to begin with"

I think we have established that you are a "BlackBoxer." For those SANE readers who don't know, BlackBoxer is shorthand for the loony left, tinfoil hat crowd that believes the introduction of electronic voting machines is part of a fascist conspiracy to replace our Republic with a dictatorship. As a blackboxer, you know full well that Bev Harris was intimately involved with BlackBoxVoting.com until a few weeks ago, that the head BlackBoxer himself posted on the reason for his split with her - that she lied to him, embarrassed him, secretly filed a lawsuit, and so on. The founder of BlackBoxVoting.com published Bev Harris' book and distributed it via the BlackBoxVoting.com web site.

You wrote "I'm not sure Bev Harris was ever a source for Keith Olbermann. That was sort of the point of his blog."

I was writing about Olbermann's reliance on the Blackboxer's long before he publicly admitted that his staff had been talking to Bev Harris for the past month. I was already familiar with the BlackBox-Bev Harris-Kathy Dopp freak show before Olbermann began put out his conspiracy theory claptrap and wrote about it in posts last month. It is the reason for the need for this important site. Anyone who watched Erica Solvig from the Cincinnati Enquirer on Countdown knows what I am talking about. Solvig supposedly came on to discuss a story she had reported about a a County Commissioner who briefly barred reporters from watching the vote counting in Warren County. Solvig talked about Ohio for about two minutes before switching gears to talk about Florida. What does a local beat reporter know about Ohio? Not much but that didn't stop her - or lead Olbermann to stop her - and she began rattling off election returns in Florida counties lifted directly from an utterly discredited "report" from another BlackBoxer in Utah named Kathy Dopp, a self-proclaimed "math expert" who cried "fraud" upon "discovering" that the red neck riviera around Pensecola had voted overwhelmingly for Bush despite having more registered Democrats than Republican apparently unaware that this voting pattern has existed for years and is common knowledge among informed political analysts.

While I have your attention riveted to my brilliants analysis of your absurd comments let me add a few additional comments on the nature of a good blog, commenting, and typos for you and the other lefty loons taking up valuable bandwidth on my wonderful site.

The entire point of a blog (at least a good one) is to allow a full, frank exchange of views. Where I draw the line is posters who use bad language and using what I deem to be hate speech. Other than that everyone is free to comment including to attack me. I would also point out that I have enabled "registered comments" which means that if you sign up with a TypeKey account your comments will be automatically approved. Those who choose not to register can comment but all comments generate an email to me asking to manually approve the comment. Unless the comment is SPAM I approve it but there is always some delay.

You should be aware that I get 10-20 SPAM comments per day for every legitimate comment that I approve so permitting unregistered comments with moderation entails sorting through an inbox full of junk mail to find legitimate comments and then going through a two-step process to approve them. I take the time to do this, at some time cost to me, because, despite assertions to the contrary by soom lefty loons on this site, I do care about everyone having an opportunity to be heard including those who not just disagree with me but make ad hominem attacks on me. In my opinion, crude, anonymous comments do far more to validate my arguments that anything I can say.

As far as the "corrections" you and others offer me, in case you have not noticed I do not care at all about typos and misspellings. I write ALOT and I write FAST and my emails and blog posts are never intended to be "publishing quality." Because I do write this way I can get a lot more done - like replying to your e-mail, something most bloggers (or anyone else for that matter) would not do. I suspect the real reason you and others seem preoccupied with this kind of thing is in lieu of making an actual case for your point view. These types of arguments are along the lines of "you misspelled a word, you made a typo, you are dumb, and therefore you are wrong and I am smart and so I am smarter than you and therefore I am right." I am pretty sure your point is not to assist me in editing my e-mails or blog posts.

In the meantime, try not to take anything I say on this blog too seriously. I don't and I am not sure why you do. The tag line for the site ought to be a clue.

Bob,
Let me just start by saying I am glad you have decided to respect my request not to have my name and email published by choosing to address me by name on your site. Thanks. I appreciate it a lot.

You�re expressed lack of respect for people who �hide� is quaint, but with all due respect, a little simplistic. My choice to keep my identity anonymous was anything but an attempt to �hide� from my views or opinions as I�ve expressed them on this site. If we were having this debate in a physical public space I would have no problem discussing this with you face to face or taking full responsibility for my views. The internet is not, however, a physical public space (where one can actually see not only their opposition, but those who are spectators of the public debate as well). My choice to identify myself as �m� is not as much about my personal need for anonymity then it is about avoiding interactions with people who may use the anonymity provided by cyber space in order to engage in bad behavior. (Maybe you�ve never had the misfortune of encountering these people. I have and I don�t like them. I prefer to avoid all contact with them. Hence the use of �m� instead of my name) Call me overly risk averse if you�d like, perhaps one could even say I�m a captive of the �prisoner�s dilemma�� accusations that I am �hiding� because I am ashamed of my personal views or that I am a �dopey coward� and �spineless fool,� however, are just simply not accurate.

That said, thank you for acknowledging my post was not strident, as yours most certainly was. As for being misinformed (save my �they were never affiliated� comment that I agreed needed to be clarified), well, you�ve attacked me, called me names and made wrong assumptions, but as of yet not offered any evidence that I was misinformed or wrong in my comments.
I don�t need a lecture about the conventions of blogging. I understand them just fine. My comment regarding the two different BBV sites was for people who don�t understand the conventions. You think the distinction was perfectly clear. I do not, so I posted a comment of clarification.

As for your suggestion that I am a regular visitor of either BBV sites , I have this to offer, I�ve been to each site exactly once. I ended up on the BBV.com website just shortly after the election because of all the �voting irregularity� stories that were floating around. I saw the disclaimer and went to the BBV.org website where I briefly read some of the headlines. I have not visited either site since that time. I only know that the disclaimer has been up for sometime now because I visited the site just after the election (which was a month ago) and I have a good memory. Call me a �left wing loon� if you�d like, but ad hominem attacks do not prove your case.

And no, contrary to your strange deductive reasoning, we haven�t established that I�m a �black boxer.� Bad assumptions based on ignorance do not lead to solid logical conclusions, they really only lead to embarrassing logical fallacies. And no, I don�t have any knowledge of Bev Harris and the book peddling on BBV.com because I really don�t care. I was annoyed at your suggestion that BBV.com was �running away from� Bev Harris because it isn�t true. From what I can tell, based mostly on information provided by you, they�ve had some kind of a fight and you should probably just stay out of it instead of using one to discredit the other. If you�re going to discredit Bev Harris, do it with credible journalism not by using the ad hominem attacks from some personal dispute. It makes you as silly as they are.
As for Keith�s use of Bev Harris, unless you can prove it, shut up about it. Your best evidence that he�s been relying on Bev Harris is some Cincinnati reporter who came on his show and talked about not Bev Harris but some other BBV affiliate? Are you kidding me? Making claims about the things you think go on �in secret� over at MSNBC, while offering zero proof, is exactly what you�re accusing Olbermann of. You�re a hypocrite.

If you�re really interested in having a spirited debate over our differing points of view then let�s get on with it. Yes, I have commented on your inability to proof read, but I have also articulated my arguments and disagreements with you quite clearly and to the point. Why don�t you start by addressing the arguments instead of dismissing my comments with ad hominem attacks about my status as a �left wing loon engaged in tin foil hattery.�

For the record, I have not ever championed the claims of voter fraud or the efforts of Bev Harris in any of my comments on this site. Nothing I have said here indicates that I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. To the contrary, I think most people would find my comments quite grounded in reality.
Your comments thus far have made it clear that you misunderstand my motivation for engaging in this discussion. I am not here to defend Bev Harris or Black Box Voting. My comments were specifically directed at your inaccurate portrayal of Mr. Olbermann�s coverage of the �voting irregularities.� I am also not here to defend Mr. Olbermann. I�m quite sure he�s more than capable of defending himself should he choose to. I take issue with the accuracy and integrity of what you are doing on this site. That�s it.

As for your comments about not taking what you say too seriously, if that�s true then you are more of a hack then I ever could have imagined. Who attacks the professionalism and integrity of another journalist as a joke? It�s just bad form, and you�re wasting everyone�s time.
As for the seriousness with which I view your comments, don�t flatter yourself. Lots of people mistake the intensity of my arguments as some kind of compliment about the seriousness of their views. I have a habit of being quite adamant while standing on my �it�s the principle of the thing� soapbox. My willingness to engage in this discussion with you is not at all an indication of how seriously I take your views; it�s really about avoiding a paper I�m supposed to be writing.

�still waiting for you to remove your unjustified attacks on me from the front page.

Cheers,
Marisa

I agree with Marissa 100% in regard to the "seriousness" issue. It's nothing but destructive and hurtful to the public good to attack a professional in a "joke" site, which doesn't look anything like a joke.
This site is funny only insofar as it purports to be anti-O, but must be at least half pro-O by virtue of the comments.
What IS your purpose, then? If you want to be treated with respect, treat us with respect. Give us evidence for your assertions. Treat your words seriously. On the internet, words are all we have to know you by, after all.
An awful lot of what I see on this site is nonsense, stuff that you seem to make up on the fly.
Keith Olbermann is working his butt off to help his fellow man. He makes mistakes. He still is to be commended for making the attempt.
What do you offer? Who do you help?
-q

Marisa,

You are going to wait a long time for me to "remove" anything from this site.

Let's see if we can score this discussion so far....

You said previously that you did not post anonymously that you used the word "m" but now you say "My choice to keep my identity anonymous was anything but an attempt to hide from my views or opinions as I've expressed them on this site." So after repeatedly denying the obvious you now admit that you posted anonymously

Bob 1, Marisa 0

You said they [BBV.com and BBV.org] were never affiliated which is clearly wrong, and on multiple levels

Bob 2, Marisa 0

You said I did not distinguish between the "two different BBV sites" which is wrong. BlackBoxVoting is the legal name of the original organization not "blackboxvoting.com." When Bev Harris stormed out of BlackBoxVoting she created a new company. The legal name of that company is "BlackBoxVoting.org". I clearly used the two differnt names correctly and I linked to both sites. The confusion created in your mind (or your percetion that others MIGHT be confused) is the result of these two nutjobs decision to operate under names that are very similar. And somehow that's my fault? Anyone who follows these issues knows full well that there are two organizations and why. People who don't have the option (a) clicking on the link I provided for each organization; (b) reading your comments on the matter. You assertion that somehow my site is causing confusion about these two organizations is absurd on its' face

Bob 3, Marrisa 0

You said "I've been to each site exactly once" but your statements make it clear that you have been on at least one site more than once. or how else can you claim that the site now is the same as it was a month ago.

Bob 4, Marrisa 0

You said that you went to the BlackBoxVoting web site shortly after the election because of "all the 'voting irregularity' stories that were floating around." These stories were floating around left wing crack pot web sites like Democratic Underground and the Air America Radio web site. No mainstream newspaper, magazine or television news organization was reporting these stories, Even Keith Olbermann was not covering the "voting irregulaties" story. Only left wing loons get their news from these crackpot web sites. This is where you are getting your news and therefore you are a left wing loon. Further, that you choose to spend your time commenting not on discussing Keith Olbermann (the subject of this site) but demanding clarification of the difference between BlackBoxVoting.com and BlackBoxVoting.org tells me that for some reason the distinction is important to you. The only people who would care about the distincition are left wing loons.

This is not an ad hominem attack on you it is a statement of fact based on many years of careful study of left wing loons. This is similar to saying that Michael Moore is a fat slob (except on Leno this week). It is not an ad hominem attack to say Moore is a fat slob beacuse he IS a fat slob. It may impolite to say this to his face at a dinner party but then we are not at a dinner party now are we?

Bob 5, Marrisa 0

You said you were "annoyed at your suggestion that BBV.com was running away from Bev Harris because it isn't true. From what I can tell, based mostly on information provided by you, they've had some kind of a fight and you should probably just stay out of it instead of using one to discredit the other.

Here you say that you were not aware that Bev Harris had a fight with BlackBoxVoting. That says a lot considering that this has been a MAJOR issue within the "Verified Voting" crowd. The first thing you see on the web site is a strong disclaimer that BBV has nothing to do with Bev Harris, hardly an endorsement.

Apparently you were not aware that Harris has repeatedly, publicly threatened to sue BBV and their founder and his publishing firm. That she has made this threats publicly, in print, on the radio and in the Democratic Underground web site where she has been repeatedly suspended and finally banned from posting. There is a lengthy article on BlackBoxBoting.com by David Allen (the founder of BBV) about his decision to disassociate himself and his organization from Bev Harris where he cites numerous example of bizarre behavior. There has been an ongoing fight in the DU forum for the past month between supporters of Allen and supporters of Harris where the BlackBoxVoting.com people have repeatedly distanced themselves from Bev Harris.

There is no doubt that BlackBoxVoting.com has been aggressively disassociating themselves from Bev Harris (as have Keith Olbermann and the producers at MSNBC, and the administrators of the Democratic Underground). I believe my characterization that "BBV.com was 'running away from' Bev Harris" is entirely accurate; to claim that "it isn't true" is absurd.

The real point here is that your original post asserted that I did not have my facts straight yet you now state that you went to the BBV.com and BBV.org site once and were unaware of the civil war that has errupted among the BlackBoxers. Given the FACTS cited above, do you still contend that MY FACTS needed to be checked? I would suggest that either it is you who did not know your facts regarding BBV.com and BBV.org OR that you are lying. Which is it?

Bob 6, Marrisa 0

You now say, "unless I can prove Keith's use of Bev Harris shut up about it."

Did you even read Olbermann's post on Bev Harris? Have you even watched Countdown or read Bloggerman since Keith began covering the VoteFraud2004 story? Bev Harris has been making claims on BBV.org and the DU forums since election day (actually some were made even BEFORE election day) and these claims have turned up time and time again on Olbermann's broadcast and in his blog. Many of these claims are made by one organzation - hers.

Olbermann has admitted all of this on Bloggerman.

This week Olbermann admitted "each and every day since our coverage of all this began on November 8, I have received a set of emails, some times a few, some times many, asking Why dont you have Bev Harris on Countdown,? Why don't you run the Bev Harris videotapes,? Why don't you show the voting tapes Bev Harris found discarded in the trash in Florida?

He also admitted that his producers began dealing with Bev Harris since BEFORE they ever aired a single story on VoteFraud2004, "Bev Harris was scheduled to be on Countdown back on November 8" and continued dealing with her right up until this week "we have asked her on a regular basis to let us show these tapes on national television"

Since you apparently know so little about Countdown and Olbermann let me explain that it is an established format of the show to run anti-conservative stories with a strong narrative thread and cover them obsessively over a period of days or (hopefully for them) weeks (e.g., Cheney-Halliburton, Michele Malkin fight with Chris Matthews, Zell Miller "duel" threat during the RNC, Bill O'Reilly sex tapes). In his blog Olbermann acknowledges that VoteFraud2004 was such a story, "we wanted, on that first night raising this touchy subject nobody else had previously covered, to have more mainstream guests. And we wanted her back another night. And since then we've wanted her to come back with her video." In that time Olbermann developed threads of the story line that came directly from Bev Harris and her minions posting on BlackBoxVoting.org, on the DU forum and elsewhere. - claims of "unusual" voting patterns in Cuyahoga county in Ohio, claims that 5 counties in Florida had gone for Bush even though the counties' registered voters were mostly Democrats, allusions to ballots being destroyed, etc. Olbermann specifically stated "we hoped to provide a platform to publicize and illuminate [Bev Harris's] efforts."

Since you claim not to have followed this and since you apparently don't watch Countdown on a nighly basis you would have no way of knowing that, in fact, it is obvious to any INFORMED person that Olbermann has been sourcing his material for his stories from far left political groups like BlackBoxVoting.com, BlackBoxVoting.org, Democrats.com, VerifedVoting.org, Americans for Democracy, the Green party and members of the Democratic Underground, Air America Forums/Blogs and so on. It is the primary reason the people associated with these groups/sites LOVE Keith Olbermann. He is the only person on TV who takes them seriously.

In fact, it is his unsourced reliance on these sources, and putting on air claims made by members of these radical fringe groups that led me to create the site in the first place. To treat people like Bev Harris and Cliff Arnebeck as if they were credible news sources is a low point for journalistic integrity, as Keith has begun to realize in the case of Bev Harris. Keith wrote "Ms. Harris has also left herself - and by extension anybody who is advocating investigation, or merely covering the story - open to,is the charge of grandstanding, of tin-foil hatting, of being somebody who bursts in to a room and screams at public officials, videotape running all the time, artificially creating news. Yesterday he wrote "[Bev Harris] was so belligerent, threatening, and demanding, that we have chosen to withdraw our invitation to her to appear, or to have videotape of her efforts played, on Countdown.

It's nice that Keith has FINALLY come to see that Bev Harris is an unstable, unreliable woman. If he had done even the most basic fact-checking he would have learned that Harris has a history of precisely the kind of behavior he NOW finds so appalling and would have steered clear of her from the get-go. Instead he pinned whatever is left of his reputation as an NBC News anchor on serving as a journalistic jihadist on behalf of the BlackBoxers and is only now starting to realize that they have been fitting him for his own tin foil hat all along.

Bob 7, Marrisa 0

You say "Making claims about the things you think go on in secret over at MSNBC, while offering zero proof, is exactly what you're accusing Olbermann of. You're a hypocrite

I have offered proof throughout this site. Have you read all of my previous posts or are you just talking out of your tin foil hat. With regard to MSNBC, you seem to be projecting your lack of knowledge about what goes on at MSNBC to me. If you ever took the time to read my main site, The National Debate, you would know that I have many contacts within the NBC news organization - NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC. I know quite a bit about what is going on over there and my comments about MSNBC are spot on. That is about all I can say without damaging access to my sources and I am not interested in prooving anything to you in this regard. Keith is well aware of this site and is welcome to rebut me at any time. Since he has no problem responding to the loons at Democratic Underground and is a blogger himself I am sure he knows how to post a comment or send an email.

To review, the entire premise of your argument here has been that,

(a) you did not post anonymously and that therefore you were unfairly maligned for posting anonymously

(b) that Bev Harris was never associated with BlackBoxVoting.com

(c) that I did not have "my facts straight" with regard to BlackBoxVoting.com and BlackBoxVoting.org

You now admit,

(a) you did post anonymously

(b) that Bev Harris was associated with BlackBoxVoting.

(c) that it is you not me who knew next to nothing about the dispute between the two organizations

I think that is pretty much game, set and match!

In closing, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether I have made a few unsubstantiated statements or took a few liberties with Keith Olbermann's journalistic reputation -- I did. But you can't hold a whole blog responsible for the actions of one sick, perverted individual. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole Blogosphere? And if the whole Blogosphere is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of the internet in general? I put it to you; isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to me, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!

Okay, now I've indicted the entire American Society? That's ridiculous and I know you know better than that. I've seen your bio, you've got an education. Start using it. By the way, now you're immitating Bloggerman with the "round by round scoring?"

You can't be a player in the game and the umpire at the same time.

my version of the final score coming soon...

"You can't be a player in the game and the umpire at the same time."

I can when it's MY site!

"I am not here to defend Bev Harris or Black Box Voting"

And then you proceed to do precisely that.

"I am also not here to defend Mr. Olbermann"

And then you proceed to do precisely that too.

"Who attacks the professionalism and integrity of another journalist as a joke?"

Setting aside that I am not a journalist and neither is Keith, the numerous examples I have cited clearly demonstrate that Keith puts a good deal of bogus information on the air dressed up as "news" and relies on sources that NO ONE else is relying upon. This is partly because Keith is sloppy about sourcing information and partly because, in case you can't tell, Keith doesn't really give a damn. The entire premise of his show is to not only mock the subjects of his stories but the entire concept of taking news seriously. Countdown is 90% satirical, the other half is a send up of news reporting.

I found it very intersting that you wrote "I have not ever championed the claims of voter fraud or the efforts of Bev Harris in any of my comments on this site. Nothing I have said here indicates that I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. To the contrary, I think most people would find my comments quite grounded in reality."

You say this and yet you keep spending an inordinate amount of time debating me about something that you say you don't really care about. Now, I can't prevent you from wasting more time attempting to make a case for something when I have already determined that I have won the debate and mine is the only vote that matters. In fact, your determination to keep flogging the same dead horse is a prerequisite for membership in the Tin Foil Hat Society.

What I really don't get is when you write "If you're really interested in having a spirited debate over our differing points of view then let�s get on with it."

I don't really want to have a spirited debate over "our differing points of view" but if you really want a debate then you are going to have to first drop all this other nonsense because that debate is OVER as far as I am concerned (and my POV is the final say here).

Before debating anything I would like to hear your answer to a few questions starting with this one:

Did George W. Bush win the 2004 election?

.

Bob, you are the king of circular logic (and, no, that's not a compliment). I am surprised that you can count to seven, but, since your scoring favors you, I guess it should be expected.

Your childishness is beyond belief. "Nyaah, nyaah, it's my site, I can do anything I want--but don't be MEAN to MEEEEE (runs off with keyboard, sobbing)!" If you want this site to be taken seriously, act like an adult (and an educated one at that). Or do you just attack people in cyberspace because you don't have the balls or spine to do it in real life?

If you are married or have a partner, I pity them. Putting up with a person who stays in the "terrible twos" for life must be a living hell.

Bob,
As per your last set of comments: You've proved my point exactly. You have zero intention of approaching this endeavor of yours with any kind of fairness or accountability whatsoever. Initially, I was under the impression that you were at least attempting to maintain some kind of integrity. I realize now I was wrong. You're right, it's your site and you can do whatever you want. Make up the rules, distort information and attempt to damage other people's reputations. It's clear that you don't care, so long as you make the rules and use them to your advantage.

I never defended Bev Harris or Keith Olbermann. I simply took issue with your unfair tactics. And for the record, yes, Bush won the election. I know you would love it if you could put me in the "tin foil hat" category because in your mind it would justify your bad behavior. It just isn't the case however. I thought the reason you started this blog was to encourage discussion about these issues, I was wrong, you really just wanted a forum for your egomaniacal and infantile ranting.

For what it's worth, I'm not a supporter of the "this election was stolen crowd." I do however think there are voters in Ohio that were disenfranchised; which is why I support Olbermann and his coverage of the issues. I don't believe there was some grand conspiracy to steal the election for George Bush. I do think our voting system has some serious issues that effect certain groups of people disproportionately( and, no, I'm not saying the Republicans planned this.) If you care at all about serving the public interest you should at least be big enough to admit that there are some legitimate questions about what happened in Ohio.

...taking my ball and going home

As an average viewer what I dislike about Countdown is that Keith will air any sort of anti-Bush charge no matter the source. He covers himself by issuing some sort of caveat that the charge might just be paranoid rumor. Well...duh... But what good does that sort of caution matter when you've already tossed a rumor out there for public consumption? It's hard to see how there could be any other motivation for this behavior other than the dissemination of a negative rumor.

I started to notice the partisan nature of this behavior after Keith talked about the rumor that the investigation into Sandy Berger's alleged mishandling of classified documents might have been leaked by Karl Rove. This was business as usual for the show. Again, what caught my attention was later after the Wednesday version of Sixty Minutes' National Guard document controversy where the source of the documents was actually in contact with Joe Lockhart, Keith said something about not jumping to conclusions about Lockhart and keeping Lockhart's name out of the scandal.

What a contrast!

During the Berger thing a guest mentioned to CNN's Aaron Brown that Rove might have been the source of the Berger investigation leak and Brown very strongly replied that there was no evidence of it and until there was evidence the speculation was not fit for a news show.

Again..what a contrast!...

And this is why there is no point debating someone like you.

If you were REALLY interested in "accountability and fairness" you would concede you were dead wrong on the points you originally raised (you said you did not post anonymously and that therefore you were unfairly maligned for posting anonymously, you said that Bev Harris was never associated with BlackBoxVoting.com, you said that I did not have "my facts straight" with regard to BlackBoxVoting.com and BlackBoxVoting.org) instead of constantly trying to shift the argument to my integrity and your supposed concerns about MY integrity.

I, on the other hand, am willing to take on each issue directly and back it up. Every charge I have made against Keith Olbermann on OlbermannWatch.com is backed up by links, transcripts, etc. That you don't want to face facts is not the same thing as "distorting information."

So long as you continue to defend Bev Harris and/or Olbermann and CLAIMING that you are not, you are not going to be taken seriously by me because your own words contradict you:

"As for Keith�s use of Bev Harris, unless you can prove it, shut up about it. Your best evidence that he�s been relying on Bev Harris is some Cincinnati reporter who came on his show and talked about not Bev Harris but some other BBV affiliate? Are you kidding me? Making claims about the things you think go on �in secret� over at MSNBC, while offering zero proof, is exactly what you�re accusing Olbermann of. You�re a hypocrite."

"I was annoyed at your suggestion that BBV.com was �running away from� Bev Harris because it isn�t true. From what I can tell, based mostly on information provided by you, they�ve had some kind of a fight and you should probably just stay out of it instead of using one to discredit the other. If you�re going to discredit Bev Harris, do it with credible journalism not by using the ad hominem attacks from some personal dispute. It makes you as silly as they are.

Real questions are raised about your seriousness when you either don't want to admit or don't understand that your comments ARE offering up a defense of Harris and/or Olbermann and your CLAIMS to the contrary don't make it less true. That you keep repeating this falsehood when it is (a) already obvious that your claims are untrue; (b) when your own words contradict you; and (c) when you have no say on who gets the last word on someone else's web site suggests that you are not interested in "fairness or accountability" because you don't want to be accoutable for your own contradictory statements.

You wrote: "I thought the reason you started this blog was to encourage discussion about these issues"

Really?

Why would that be?

This is yet another example of why it is not worth taking you seriously.

If you had bothered to read the first post I put up on this site "Contributors Wanted" (there are older posts on the site which were Olby-related posts from TND that I copied over here for continuity sake) you would have seen this...

"We intend to watch Keith Olbermann for examples of the usual liberal bias stuff but will be particularly interested in example of Keith lifting questionable, erroneous or false information off of the internet without fact-checking and passing it off as his own reporting as well as booking guests making unsupported, erroenous or irrational statements"

...and this...

"Contributors are being offered nothing more than a chance to tweak Olbermann, get a prominent link back to their own blogs for some greater exposure and earn the enmity of the tin-foil hat crowd."

...and this...

"If you are part of the loony left and really angry about the creation of this site go panhandle an extra quarter in Times Square and call someone who cares."

Yet for some strange reason YOU think you have cause to be upset with me beacuse I am not fulfilling YOUR idea about what MY site should be all about.

EG wrote "If you are married or have a partner, I pity them. Putting up with a person who stays in the "terrible twos" for life must be a living hell."

I love that you loons decry the use of ad hominem attacks and then "attack" me by making gratuitous references to my family.

I already conceded that my comments about Bev Harris not being affiliated with BBV.com were unclear. I then provided a clear explanation of what I meant and also admitted a mistake in being so ambiguous. As for the "anonymous argumen," still don't agree with you. I used the words "anonymous" and "anonymity" because it was the language you had used. Both of these issues are parts of my original argument that I HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED NEEDED CLARIFICATION. So, yes, I am interested in fairness and integrity. And there's no point in "debating someone like me?" Oh, do tell Bob, what do you really know about me?

See, that's my point. You attack people without a single shred of evidence. Forget about Olbermann, what about all the various attacks on me that you've posted in the last week? I'm a dopey coward, spineless fool, tin foil hat queen and left wing loon? You've claimed I frequent the black box voting sites. That I'm a regualar visitor on all kinds of left wing blogs. You also accused me of not having ever watched Countdown. Where's all your evidence for this stuff? If you don't have evidence and the charges don't have anything to due with the argument, it's just an ad hominem attack.

I think maybe you're just bitter because you got an MBA from a second rate school instead of an MPP (hell, even an MBA/MPP) from a top ranked University.

...still taking my ball and going home.

Your comments were not "unclear." They were WRONG.

Bob Cox,
I ask you again. What do you contribute? Who do you help?
Are you telling us that you're a self-avowed and proud parasite on Keith Olbermann, and nothing else?
If so, you should change the tagline on the site to read, "I'm Bob Cox. Welcome to my nonsensical, depressing, useless site. I know I'm a jerk, and I don't care, so don't even bother bringing it up."
-q

I help all those who care about journalistic integrity, about truth, justice and the American Way.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that since KO first became aware of OlbermannWatch.com, KO has publicly distanced himself from Bev Harris?

Yes. I don't think you affect KO even as much as a fly would, sitting on his windowsill.
I can tell that you do wish you could catch his attention. You pay homage to him, in so many ways, including attempting to emulate his style. The thing is, it's so much easier to be appreciated for your witty humor, your allusions to Animal House, your careful blow-by-blow analysis of arguments, IF you respect your audience. KO adores his audience, and puts no one above them. EVEN when we don't deserve it.
And can you please elaborate on how you are promoting Superman's values? Because I'm squinting really hard, but I still can't see it.
-q

I promote Superman's values in many, many ways. First off, I believe in truth something you know little about. Second, I believe in justice which is what Keith Olbermann will get when he is taken off the air once and for all. Third, I am the strongest possible supporter of the American Way. Notice I did not say the Russian Way or the Cuban Way or the North Korean Way something that you may be more familiar with. I don't like to brag but I am also able to bend steel with my bare hands and have X-Ray vision.

You think Keith "adores" his audience? Ha! Why don't you pop by his office next week and see if he has you in for a cup of tea. I have the address if you need it.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that since KO first became aware of OlbermannWatch.com, KO has publicly distanced himself from Bev Harris?

Well, yes. Are you really that ridiculous that you believe you and this blog are responsible for Keith calling out Bev Harris for what she is? Don't you think it is more likely that Bev Harris pulled an idiotic stunt in Florida and has refused to show a shred of evidence for any of the claims she's made about Florida? Call me crazy, but I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that Olbermann distanced himself from Bev Harris because of her actions and behavior towards his staff.

If you really believe it is because of this stupid site, well then, you must really believe you're Superman too.

It is just a fact that Keith was supporting Bev Harris right up until I launched OlbermannWatch. As soon as he became aware I was watching his every move he backtracked and dumper her. I ask you, what is more likely?

In case you did not know, Keith is CONSTANTLY on this site, taking notes and learning the error of his ways. I can see quote clearly that I have someone from New Jersey connecting to my web server all the time. And do you know where MSNBC broadcast from? New Jersey. I rest my case.

And by the way, check your records. I never said I WAS Superman. I said I promote his values - and have some similar physical skills. I can't fly...yet.

So that fly on the windowsill can happily feel superior to you!
Having hundreds of thousands in for tea is not indicative of his respect for his audience so much as putting together an effective and thought-provoking newscast is, and that's what he excels at. But you already knew that.
You say ridiculous things just to hear yourself talk. "Blah, blah, blah, I'm Box Cox, and this is my site! Hear me roar! I'm most important, powerful man in my whole living room!"
-q

You keep mentioning flies on the windowsill. Where do you live, in a barn?

That newscast last night sure was thought provoking. He lifted material from yet another blog (this one) without attribution, did an effective report on the rat Olympics (he sure knows his audience!), and worked in yet another plug for a communist lawyer with a scintillating report that said lawyer had still not filed a lawsuit.

Personally, Bob, I think the subtlety of the concept of an election being "over" and the winner chosen after all the "legal votes" have been counted and certified by the properly appointed governmental body performs that task is totally lost on the likes of "EliteGrammarian", "Quanlin", "m" and "-q" (Hmmm! "M & Q" - "Bond, James Bond.") This is tragic because the future of our representative republic depends on the acceptance, by all those participating, of the certified results the election process. Apparently these folks concur with "Bluto" when he opined: "Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!" Besides the the Presidential election of 2000, I believe the last time the Democrats decided that an election was not "over" was the Presidential election of 1860 - and that one took a Civil War and over 500,000 dead to settle the issue. Take heart, you must be making an impression - how else can one account for the shrillness of their attacks.

Movwater,

I agree with everything you said.

It is sad to see these lost souls, so desperate to get their way, that they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge a simple truth - their point of view is being soundly rejected in election after election.

Mr. Cox,

Keeping score with Marissa? Is this your idea of mature, reasoned discourse? YIKES!

Paul,

I am sure it is confusing that I skillfully dissected every evasion put forward my Marisa and refuted her utterly and completely.

If you came to this site to interfer with our vital efforts to monitor Olbermann's every move then the best I can tell you is to take your loony left clap trap and go on back to Democratic Underground or whatever hole you crawled out of.

Mr. Cox,

Thanks again for your inciteful criticism. I assure you that I'm not here to "interfer (sic)," unless "interfere" means letting your name-calling and personal attacks go unchallenged.

I like your site. I'd love to see you host a similar site for Hannity, O'Reilly or Limbaugh, but understand that would prove fruitless, due to their collective penchant for objective journalism.

Perhaps you'll consider an homage site for them, eh?

Paul,

Well you got me! I misspelled a word so YOU must be right. What a genius you are!

I have addressed both your points before if you would care to actually read the site before shooting your mouth off.

1) I don't care about spelling/typos. I am very busy and write fast. You should just be grateful that I take the time to respond to your inane posts.

2) As I told Oliver Willis the other day, What is it about the lefty bomb-throwers that causes them to think because you criticize on of their heroes there is some obligation to point out every instances where someone they don't like did something similar? As I told Oliver - go to state HannityWatch or O'ReillyWatch or LimbaughWatch. Or better you go read Oliver's favorite site, Media Matters for America where they cover that side of the dial every day.

Thanks for your amazing reply. I'm forever in your debt.