[EM] Explanation to Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

List members--

Markus said (again and again):

again: Instead of saying "Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd algorithm."
and bombarding those with insults who mentioned that you mistakenly
called your implementation "Floyd algorithm", it would have been better
if you had said "I don't call that the Floyd algorithm anymore." to stress
that you had corrected your terms.

I reply:

No, not reallly. That's because I made that amply clear a long time ago, 
immediately after you clarified that the Floyd algorithm reverses that index 
order.

Perhaps Markus is unaware that he's repeating, almost word for word, what he 
said in his previous message, which has already been answered. That kind of 
endless repetition is the reason why I suggest that there's something 
seriously wrong with Markus.

I once suggested that Markus is failing the Turing test.  A common fault of 
"conversing" programs is that their replies are strangely unrelated to what 
they're replying to. Is Markus the work of some malicious and tasteless or 
incompetent hacker, or is he just a "do" loop to which someone has forgotten 
to include an exit test? The bots are among us :-)

Aside from that, apparently Markus hasn't read the part of this list's rules 
of conduct that requests that participants not keep repeating statements 
that have already been replied to.

Apparently there's no way to help Markus to understand that he isn't an 
authority on English grammar. I asked him to cite a grammatical source that 
says that "anymore" is necessary to indicate the present tense.


******
You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
>I suggest that you keep to yourself your suggestions about how I should
>word things.

When I said that your use of the term "Floyd algorithm" was incorrect,
then this wasn't a suggestion about how you should word things.

I reply:

But when you suggested that I inclulde "anymore", that was a suggestion 
about how I should word things.

When, in my most recent message about this,  I referred to your suggestion 
about how I should word things, did you believe that  I referring to your 
long-ago statement that the Floyd algorithm alters the index order? Actually 
I made it clear what wording suggestion I was referrnig to. It was clear 
that I was referring to your suggestion that I should use "anymore".

List members--In an earlier message I asked if Markus is going to keep 
repeating that reply to a never-made criticism. I was curioius about whether 
Markus would still keep repeating it even after attention had been called to 
the repetition in that way.

Markus continued:

This was
a warning to the members of the Election Methods mailing list that your
use of this term was incorrect. Or do you want to say that when you use a
term in an incorrect or misleading manner then everybody has to use this
term in this manner?

I reply:

Yes. That's what I mean, if that's what I said.  :-)

Markus, perhaps I forgot to mention this :-)  At no time have I criticized 
you for stating that the Floyd algorithm alters the index order. Can you 
post a quote in which I criticized you for stating that the Floyd algorithm 
alters the index order?


Markus continued:

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
>The word "anymore" can optionally be used to make a double statement, a
>statement about the present, and a statement about the past. I was making
>a statement about the present. Can you refer us to a grammatical source
>that says that "anymore" is needed in order for a sentence to indicate
>the present tense? If not, then I suggest that you quit the assertion.

On the other side,
when you say "Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd
algorithm." then you make me believe that you claim that I have made
a mistake.

I reply:

You catch on fast.

Markus continued:

However, I haven't made a mistake since when I wrote on
15 Dec 2003 that you called your implementation "Floyd algorithm"
my observation was correct.

I reply:

Can you post a quote in which I said that your first statement that I'd 
called our implementation the Floyd algorithm was incorrect?

"I don't call that the Floyd algorithm" doesn't mean that you were incorrect 
a long time ago when you first said that I'd previously called it the Floyd 
algorithm.

Now, before anyone criticizes me for replying to this, I point out that it 
isn't inappropriate to reply to postings of which I'm the topic. But I'm not 
the one who is pursuing these stupid, confused claims about what another 
list member has said a long time ago, or endlessly repating replies to 
never-made statements.

Markus continued:

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
>If I say "I don't smoke", that doesn't mean "I have never smoked".

On the other side, when I see you smoking and I ask you for a cigarette and
you then stub out your cigarette and scream "Wrong. I don't smoke."

I reply:

No, I spoke politely at first.

You continued:

...and call
me an "idiot" and a "confused wording-Nazi" for saying that I have just seen
you smoking, then, of course, you make me believe that you claim that I 
erred
when I thought that I saw you smoking.

I reply:

But long after you first pointed out that the genuine Floyd algorithm alters 
the index order, and long after I'd acknolwdged that the genuine Floyd 
algorithm alters the index order, and that the genuine Floyd algorithm is 
therefore different from our implementation, you continued to say that I 
call our implementation the Floyd algorithm. That's why it's true that 
you're an idiot and a confused wording-Nazi.

Markus repeated yet again:

On the other side, when I wrote on 15 Dec 2003 that you called your
implementation "Floyd algorithm" my observation was correct.

I reply:

Excuse me for not having mentioned this yet :-)  At no time did I say that 
your first statement that I'd called it the Floyd algorithm was incorrect. 
Can you post a quote in which I said that your first statement that I'd 
called it the Floyd algorithm was incorrect?

Markus continued:

******
You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
>Look, this mailing list is about voting sytems, and it just isn't the place
>for you to find out about verb grammar. There must be grammatical 
>discussion
>mailing lists. Couldn't you take your questions there instsead of here?
>you're off topic, and people don't appreciate your off-topic spamming about
>your grammatical misundestandings.

Actually, it is you who spams this mailing list with lessons in English
grammar.

I reply:

But you're showing that you need the lessons. But I ask you to go somewhere 
else for them, because here the subject is off-topic.

You continued:

I agree with David Gamble: "One of your rhetorical techniques
is to mock and highlight unintentional errors of grammar and spelling."

I reply:

In this case, your errors of grammar lead you to endlessly spam the list 
with incorrect statements about another list-member.

You're not posting about voting systems. You're off-topic. Aside from that, 
you're incorrect too.

And unless you're really a bot, you must be aware that, in parts of all 
these messages which you've been posting, you're replying to statements that 
were never made.  It's certainly obvious to everyone else.


Markus repeated:

When I wrote that your use of the term "Floyd algorithm" was incorrect, then
I didn't point to a _grammatical_ error, I pointed to a _mathematical_ 
error.

I reply:

No one said that that statement pointed to a grammatical error. But in other 
statements, when you're telling me that "anymore" is needed in order to 
indicate the present tense, you're making an incorrect grammatical claim

You'd said:

>
>The problem is:

I'd replied:

No, _your_ problem is: ....

You'd continued:

>When you refuse to say that you don't call your implementation
>"Floyd algorithm" _anymore_ and when you insult those people who mention 
>that
>you had called your implementation "Floyd algorithm", then you make the 
>readers
>mistakenly believe that you claim that you had never called it "Floyd 
>algorithm".
>
>I reply:
>
>Markus the confused wording-Nazi. I've told you that "anymore" is optional.

I guess with your statement you want to say that you prefer terms like
"confused wording-Nazi" to terms like "anymore".

I reply:

"Anymore" was unnecessary in the sentence in which the confused wording-Nazi 
insisted that I should include "anymore".


You continued:

>You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
>Since I never criticized you for giving information about the Floyd 
>algorithm,
>I don't know to whom you're replying. Do you hear voices? Is that it? Is
>it that you're continually posting to tell us about your hallucinations?

On the other side, I don't know why you are so upset.

I reply:

Though I didn't say I was upset, let me explain why I criticize your 
postings: Several members of the lst have indicated that they aren't 
interested in this topic that you inisist on pursuing, spamming the list 
with endless repetition of statements that have been answered and replies to 
statements that were never made.

You continued:

You admitted that you
mistakenly believed Eppley's algorithm to be Floyd's algorithm and you 
admitted
that you mistakenly called Eppley's algorithm "Floyd's algorithm".

I reply:

...and yet, after that acknowledgement that the Floyd algorithm is differnt 
from Eppley's algorithm you continued to say that I call Eppley's algorithm 
the Floyd algorithm.

That's one reason why I suggest that there must be something seriously wrong 
with you.

Instead of saying that I call Epplely's algorithm the Floyd algorithm, it 
would be correct to say that I called Eppley's algorithm the Floyd algorithm 
before I acknowledged that the Floyd algorithm alters the index-order and 
therefore is different from Eppley's algorithm. Do you notice the difference 
in the verb tenses? When you first made the statement, before I'd 
acknowledged that the Floyd algorithm was different--no one has said that 
that statement made at that time was incorrect. But it was incorrect when 
you've continued to make it after I acknowledged that the Floyd algorithm is 
different from our implementaton because the Floyd algorithm alters the 
index-order.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! 
http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418