[EM] James, 4/22/'05, 0220 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

James--

You said:

There are plenty of valid reasons to repeat a statement on EM more than
once...

I reply:

Yes, that would be different.

But, without those special reasons, repetition of already-answered 
statements wasn't serving a purpose. If you felt that my answer was 
incorrect, or needed criticism, then you should have addressed that answer, 
rather than merely repeating the statements.

You continued:

to
communicate them to someone who doesn't seem to be aware of them or
understand them yet

I replyP

But what about to someone who has already agreed to them several times?

You continued:

, to rephrase or modify them as a response to an
argument, to rephrase them in an attempt to clarify, etc.

I reply:

But you weren't really rephrasing them.

But you're right, that I should just not even comment on things that have 
already been answered, and should only reply to new statements, or to 
comments that speak to things that I've said.

You continued:

For
example, in my last strategy message to you, I replied directly to your
argument that the burying strategy is not a "new problem" in
Condorcet-efficient because it only causes the same "undesirable results"
that exist in non-Condorcet-efficient methods without the use of strategy.

I reply:

But I'd said that you can define "new problem" how you want to, and that for 
that reason I'd rather avoid that term. So I only wanted to talk of certain 
undesirable results that are the same whether caused by "burying" or by IRV 
on its own.

You continue:

It is a multi-part counterargument that focuses on differing kinds of
undesirable results

I reply:

Yes, and there's an answer to that. I wasn't going to start it now, but let 
me just say that you can't elect a Condorcet loser unless you fail to elect 
a CW, and you can't violate preference Pareto unless you violate majority 
wishes. Your worse results tend to be things that can only happen when my 
undesirable results happen.

Your goals are just a lot more modest than mine. Where I want to elect the 
CW, you want to elect anyone but the Condorcet loser. Where I want to avoid 
violation of majority wishes, you will settle for only not violating Pareto. 
There's nothing wrong with being willing to settle for less. You probably 
voted for Kerry, didn't you.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963