You didn't read them. They never made it to the list. If you had, you would have been offended, despite your disclaimer. I won't repeat them because I was relieved when I realized they hadn't gone up. When I insult people they feel it. My Mayan horoscope says, "This is one who knows how to hurt with words." It is a vice I struggle to control.

I once saw Bob Dylan ream out Phil Ochs in six or seven choice (and rotten) words raising welts the size of quarters that left Ochs scratching like a dog. I thoughtlessly used the incident in my Saturday Evening Post story, and felt very bad about it when Ochs committed suicide. Why did I have to contribute to this really good guy's misery for the sake of a great anecdote?

The single line "There but for fortune go you or I," was worth all of Dylan's songs together. Maybe that's why he hated Ochs so much.

The presumption that those in Mexico who travel outside their towns are only the comfortable can be disproved by a walk through any city every day:

That's the straw man. Kick him around. I never said anything like that. I said that a portion of the people who were denied the vote were business travelers and vacationers. To be fair, you have to include them in your analysis. You don't want to be fair. You want to prove your point by any means possible.

Perhaps some who were denied their vote in Cancun or Veracruz or Acapulco were vacationers. But the great majority of special polling places were not in those kinds of places.

People also vacation in non-vacation spots because they want to spend time with their families. People vacation in Tijuana. Did you know that? See my comments to Justin. If you have concrete figures, show them. Other than that, the issue is 100% speculation. It's significant only because the election is so close, and that is the fault of no one except Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who started out with an 80% favorability rating, a million people marching for him in Mexico City, and somehow wound up in a nose to nose with a pompous petty bureacrat who is a testimonial to the power of television over reality.

But, sheesh, you are still smarting over private comments six years ago!

I'm not smarting over them. I am pointing out that your style has not changed. You're addicted to the personal insult, especially attributing motives where they don't exist. Accusing me of cowardice or somehow being on the take is downright slimey. Actually, it's worthy of Karl Rove, who is famous for attacking his enemies for their strengths.

One of my greatest strengths as a commentator is that I do not allow any considerations other than my perception of truth to influence my work. I was the first liberal writer to call the Rather memos fake. I didn't want them to be fake, but they were. I knew that because I am a typographer and rather an expert one. I'm a beta tester for the Adobe OpenType font development program.

When Thomas Phinney, one of the world's leading typography experts showed me his findings, I had no choice but to agree, even though I had argued very convincingly earlier that memos could have been genuine. When the Washington Post asked me to explain his analysis to them, I did so. I also helped him put them in a form that was easier to understand at first glance. If I were a political operative rather than a journalist, I might have found a way to avoid that. I'm not saying this to show you how important I am, but to demontsrate my dedication to truth rather than political convenience.

The left and the right coincide in their rejection and suppression of scientific analysis and evidence that they find inconvenient. When it comes to voter fraud, you can't do that. You have to examine the actual votes, not preliminary reports and partisan speculation before you come to any conclusions. Your mind is made up. A major fraud took place. I say, could be.

Fortunately, the ballots and the actas are there and Mexico has a structural method for examining them and determining their validity in which all parties will participate. I'm waiting to see how that unfolds. Some people are already claiming that the process itself will be a fraud because the IFE is just a tool of the Fox administration.

Will they feel the same way if the results show López Obrador to have won? Calderón's margin is now down to 0.6%. There are 2.5 million votes yet to be counted. Meanwhile, I find it amusing that people who reject voting and disdain the democratic process are so concerned about the results. I won't speculate on your motives -- because I don't want you to flip out and hurt yourself.

Have a nice day, Internet viewers. What the hell, let's have a dreaded smiley here. :)