YOU: No you didn't. Not when I first brought it up to you in Post #193. In your post #195 reply, you said quote "Well, I’m not Gabriel and couldn’t pick him out of a crowd of two, but it is a pretty good analogy." You were clearly trying claim you knew nothing about it, that you didn't even know what he looked like, and that it was just a coincidence of two great minds thinking alike. ALL proven wrong at this point.
Here is where I posted about the analogy (post 188): I heard someone use this analogy. To do something like that, it would have had to be an "Ocean's 11" kind of expert deception which would have included in a very many counties very red counters and elections supervisors in all 152 counties "fix up" the ballot pool.
OK, so we are up to two apologies now.
ME: You attributed it to Sterling and assumed I heard it on CNN.
YOU: This is also incorrect. I've never assumed where you actually heard it, which is still unknown. As I've already stated, my link to CNN was simply proof that YOU were using Gabriel Sterling's talking point as YOUR own, despite your denials to that point.
Check your own posts. You told me how odd and strange that I would use the same exact analogy that Sterling used. Then you posted some big link from CNN with all kinds of "gotcha" language. Sheesh, you are beyond help I think.
Anyway, we are up to three apologies now.
ME: I still like the analogy
YOU: I'm sure you do. It came from Gabriel Sterling, and you tried to pass it off as your own, which I proved was false. Unless you ARE Gabriel Sterling of course. We just don't know at this point, just that you and him are using the same talking points, which is certainly worthy of note, if not further analysis. Lucky for you I've got better things to do right now, but I'm sure you'll be back with more of your/Gabe's talking points soon.
I thought you were going to get by without yet another apology owed, but alas you had to stumble yet again (see the above bolded portion).
Here is the post where I referred to "the analogy". (Please reference point number 1 again at the top of this post.
Let's just do it this way: Apologies Owed = Apologies Owed +1.
That changes nothing really.
The discussion has already moved on, to why are you using Gabriel Sterling’s specific talking points?
And why did you claim to not know what he looks like, only to admit that you did in your next post? That is quite relevant since you are using his exact talking points.