The only one I see panicking is you, Bob. Please. If this is the only sort of thing you have to post, pack it in (preferably to your rectum, from whence it emanated).

Does it shock you that Keith reads blogs? And that he reads one of the most popular right-blogs. And a right-wing web site that has named Keith's Bloggerman blog as a finalist for a 2004 Weblog Award - Best Media/Journalist Blog.

The depths of your ignorance are quite profound.

Right. Making assumptions with no evidence again. Is it really that he reads WizBang, or do you think maybe they contacted him to tell him he was one of the finalists and that's why it was on his mind? I actually don't have any idea, but you don't either. You've continued to make claims that you present hard proof for everything. Your evidence that Keith reads WizBang is that he blurted out the name while doing the weekly quiz? Please. You're a hack that makes claims based on illogical deductive reasoning.

Wizbang did not contact the finalists but I notice that you are once again defending Olbermann.

Don't you get tired of contradicting yourself?

I was not defending Olbermann, I was criticizing you. There's a difference.

Don't you ever get tired of making illogical arguments? my comments on this site are not about defending anyone, they are about being critical of your actions and comments on this site.

And again, you're making claims without evidence.: "Wizbang did not contact the finalists..."

And we know this how?

It's not complex but you seem intent on imagining that it is; criticizing me on the basis of making what you perceive (incorrectly as has been established) to be unfair criticisms of Bev Harris or Keith Olbermann IS defending them.

Wizbang did NOT contact the finalists. I know this because, unlike you, I speak with ACTUAL knowledge. You should try it some time. Although it might be tough for you since it would leave you with little to say.

actually, there is a difference. Speaking in defense of someone would include attempting to justify their actions in some way. I haven't done that. I happen to have an interest because I do watch Olbermann. But contrary to your ridiculous logic I can criticize you without defending Olbermann, or Bev Harris. I never said your criticisms of Bev Harris were unfair. I said your criticisms of Olbermann were misleading and unfair.

Claiming to speak with actual knowledge does not make it true that you speak with actual knowledge. Do you have sources for your knowledge, or are you just spreading rumor from unsubstantiated sources again?

I will just have to assume you have no experience in forensics or the study of logic. Fortunately for you I happen to be an expert in both so have a seat while I explain a few things.

A logical argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises.

There are various type of logical fallacies. An ad hominem argument is a type of logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

A fallacious ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.

In this case...

- Bob Cox makes the claim that Keith Olbermann is a biased, unprofessional broadcaster who relies on left-wing loons for the erroneous information he puts on the air without fact-checking first

- Bob Cox doesn't have his facts straight with regard to BlackBoxVoting.com and BlackBoxVoting.org (false), his claim that Bev Harris was never associated with BlackBoxVoting.com is wrong (false), you did not post anonymously and that therefore Bob Cox unfairly maligns commenters on his web site (false)

- Therefore, Keith Olbermann is not a biased, unprofessional broadcaster who relies on left-wing loons for the erroneous information he puts on the air without fact-checking first

OR

- Bob Cox makes the claim that her supporters are distancing themselves from Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org

- Bob Cox doesn't have his facts straight with regard to BlackBoxVoting.com and BlackBoxVoting.org (false), his claim that Bev Harris was never associated with BlackBoxVoting.com is wrong (false), you did not post anonymously and that therefore Bob Cox unfairly maligns commenters on his web site (false)

- Therefore, her supporters are not distancing themselves from Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org

In this case you are using a false premise to arrive at a fallacious conclusion (that MY premise is wrong).

As you may not be aware of what a LOGICAL argument looks like let me give you an example:

- Bob Cox has written posts on OlbermannWatch.com critical of Keith Olbermann and Bev Harris

- Marisa has written comments attached to these posts making making fallacious ad hominem arguments against Bob Cox

- Therefore, Marisa is defending Keith Olbermann and Bev Harris

...as for the difference between actual knowledge and the non-sensical ravings of a lunatic mind (all of the loons abusing the commenting privlege on my site)

I stated that the finalists were not notified of their selection for the 2004 Weblog Awards.

I know this because I am one of the finalists.