I really have to agree with Al. I got what the asterisk and footnote meant. Why is it so hard for you to grasp, Scott? For someone like you to complain about someone elses posts being biased really is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Why not just refute everything in the letter and prove the writer wrong?

An Obama supporter agreeing with Al?  I'm shocked I tell you.

My point was he could have left off the entire footnote and not used the word unbiased.  The only reason not to do so was because of personal bias.

Scott, I think Al already covered this, everyone in here has personal bias of some sort. Take off the rose colored glasses.

I ran across this, AND ( here's where everyone notices I'm asking, as I'm not sure) it was said Obama was in office (as a senator) for a total of 143 working days when he announced he was putting together a Presidential exploratory committee? Is this true?

McCain's history of hot temper raises concerns

I think Scott should see this Al, and since he has you on ignore, allow me....

That's hilarlious. If that had really been Scott's intent, he would have just
come out and said it.

(And his "An Obama supporter agreeing with Al? I'm shocked I tell you."
response to William is even funnier. Scott's bias doesn't show at all, does
it? Hoo-boy!)

Besides, my point, always, was not that I was not biased, but that
there was no apparent political bias in Anne Kilkenny's piece.

Scott just didn't like the piece and what it had to say, but because he
could not dispute or disprove the points it made, he attacked me
repeatedly (and nonsensically) to try to discredit the validity of the piece.

It's an approach we have seen many times from Scott in this thread, and I
find it a little sad that he has so little to constructively contribute.

When I stand up to it and he sees that his approach is having no success,
he runs away and puts me on ignore again.

I have absolutely no regrets about having called him dumb and childish
now.