Reply #13: Boredtodeath, I was willing to "hear you out," as you ask--but your OP [View All]

tells me nothing. "Along comes Bev Harris with another entirely unsubstantiated claim." Please explain what you are talking about. What is the "unsubstantiated claim"?

Also, on what do you base your sweeping statement that the press doesn't cover Diebold stories "thanks once again to Bev Harris." I think that "the press"--that is, the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who doctored their own exit polls and put false numbers on everybody's TV screens on election night, to hide evidence of a Kerry win--have their own reasons for suppressing stories about Diebold, election fraud and associated issues; their own collusion in election fraud, for one thing.

So, I think you are blowing Bev Harris' influence (whatever it may be) way, way out of proportion. And, you know, Harris brought more attention to Diebold than any other activist, for a long period of time. To say that, "I am convinced now that Bev Harris is working against us" is a very definitive and damning position, and requires evidence to back it up. You might better have said, "I suspect...," or "I strongly suspect...". But "convinced"? You don't have to repeat old history. I'm familiar with the Countdown story. And I think that that incident could as well be explained as P.R. mistakes (by a techie caught in a media hurricane)--or exhaustion, or instability, or quite understandable fear--as by "Bev Harris is working against us." You don't have to like Harris, or approve of everything she's done, to hesitate over "I'm convinced she's working against us."

But first, what are you talking about? What is the "unsubstantiated claim" that you say she has made?