Agreed, absolutely. Hence, #8 and #14, in this very thread. ;)
I'm being perfectly straightforward, as always. Can I be convinced that I'm in error, re: my increasingly concrete suspicion that -- after all the chest-puffing and arm-waving and hopping about like a bunch of hyper-caffeinated howler monkeys -- this whole "stolen election" business is nothing more substantial or actionable than a peculiarly virulent online pathogen, wafted from hysteric to well-meaning hysteric? Absolutely, and without question.
The burden of proof, however, certainly isn't on me, to (somehow) "prove" a negative. "Extraordinary claims," to quote a scientific truism, "require extraordinary evidence."
I've detailed the absolute barest minimum I'd be willing to accept, as "evidence" that Mitt Romney was (as baldly stated by the claimant) "an innocent who was blindsided" -- specifically, handing over said evidence to any one of several highly influential conservative-leaning news sources, and allow them to break said story... something anyone claiming to be in open sympathy with Mitt Romney should be absolutely overjoyed to be able to do, wouldn't you think?
This is both practicable and reasonable, by any sane and rational measure. I now patiently await the grand unveiling. ;)
Correct. I'm suggesting that you stop trying. It accomplishes nothing. Even if someone's theory is off, and he is reasonably sincere, he can help by raising doubts about Zippy's credibility. Anything negative is damaging. And however unwashed the theorist may be, he could surprise us and be right.
It's not enough to prove our case to each other with parsimonious perfection. We have to win the war with the DNCPUSA, who care nothing for logic.