List Expulsion Poll

[Craig Carey]

At 02\12\27 07:08 +0000 Friday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
...
 >have more to complain about. I understand that a mailing list
 >isn't a journal, but that doesn't mean that its charter topic shouldn't
 >be respected.
 >

We seem to have passed through events showing that existing online
principles of the owner of the list are best ignored since there is
was seemingly about no intent of the owner to get Mr OSSIPOFF to
actually respect them by switching from a style of pretending to have
read what was written, over to a style of grasping that arguments so
well that opinions might be altered.

I presume it is misinformation to suggest any sort of backbone of
principles of the owner setting out limitations for members acts
against me more than against Mr OSSIPOFF. I am saying that referring
to an online statement may an incorrect way to proceed when developing
an argument where there is a modelling of the considerations of the
owner of the list.


 >Some subscribers might be asking "Is this a voting system mailing
 >list or a hatemail mailing list?"
 >
 >Maybe in this case the gain in popularity from being free of Don's
 >and Craig's trash postings seems greater than the loss of popularity

MIKE THE VOTER'S FRIEND OSSIPOFF: still can't clearly say whether the
"favorite" is the 1st preference or whether it isn't.

OSSIPOFF has less than nothing when writing on voting. It is obviously
supposed to be a function that returns a candidate when there is a
consideration of only one single ballot paper.

It too stupid to for perhaps 100% of the readers to even make the
first steps towards understanding: how MIKE can maintain the
falsehood about him implying he sucessfully shifted the emphasis from
paper to vote, by being incoherent and meaningless.

Also there is a trail of inconsistent statements behind OSSIPOFF.

IT beyond imagination on how to get OSSIPOFF to look again at one of
his old messages.

As Mr Shulze found out in 2000AD, it was amazingly difficult to get
OSSIPOFF to admit to having made a mistake and once the admission
occurs then the online definition is not altered. Even if the
de facto EM website were made less meaningless, it certainly would
not automatically lead to an improvement for members of the EM mailing
list since MIKE seems to pull definitions from his 'thinking of the
moment', which is a technique that permits OSSIPOFF to produce
many thousands of errors instead of maybe less.

MIKE is the antediluvian sea-bottom fish that isn't having a lot of
success getting other people to understand. [Antediluvian means,
before the Flood of Genesis 7,8].

It is like the difficulty of the task before MIKE was no worse than
the difficulty of rolling an egg four inches by pushing it with a
fork. MIKE would stop saying that voters have opinions in the
apparently stupid context of MIKE never say what exactly is done with
the information that is never actually accessed ever.

That is a big part of the OSSIPOFF option: "explaining that data can
be collected when it is plain that it is isn't and then failing to
use the data that was never collected".

Why doesn't MIKE apolgise for weeks on end about the idiocy of MIKE's
comments hinting voters are important. This is not a mailing list for
persons that can use a charcoal rod to colour in varying tones of
darkness. Instead the methods return a set and thus are Boolean
functions. I have not seen OSSIPOFF say that they he understoood that
these perfectly defined function totally lack a probabilistic aspect.

In 2000 AD I asked for the probability function and surprising OSSIPOFF
didn't try to cover up the non-existence of the function, but said that
real data would be collected.

That is dumber than dumb: most people can look at an equation and
identify rapidly whether it does, or does not, make use of an idea
of random variables.


 >if anyone believes that Don or Craig were removed because of their
 >beliefs--anyone receiving a message from them would get a pretty good
 >idea of why they were removed.
 >
 >Booting Don & Craig would be a matter of good housekeeping. Messages
 >that are about namecalling and alleged faults of other people instead
 >of being about voting systems just don't belong on a voting system
 >mailing list.
 >

I criticise OSSIPOFF for writing in a way that betrays him as, about
always having no precise algebraic consideration of a ballot paper
that simultaneously recognises both its weight/count, and also the
ordering of the preferences of its preference lists.

'It just does not get dumber than that';
   such a phrase appeared at the website of the Daily Howler
   http://www.dailyhowler.com/ [a website commenting on the lack of
   quality and accuracy (maybe honesty), of US journalists, that write
   to, e.g. the Washington Post (or Reverend Moon?)],

Members are going to mvoe around my message. That very technique
itself could disastrous in this topic, where members seem to have
bypassed ideas like truncation resistance. Possibly members would
have nothing worthing worth knowing for quite a while. I recall
that Demorep quit before getting around to answering clear questions
on that. If the list finally gets over to the idea (2007?) then they
might want to add an unnecessary 1-winner-only restriction.



Snuffles




----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em