[EM] I'm not going to waste more time replying to Russ

Russ Paielli 6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Sun Apr 10 22:47:03 PDT 2005


MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> 
> As I said in the subject line, I'm not going to waste any more time 
> replying to Russ.

Oh, I can't wait for Mike's "non-reply"! Here it goes:

> For one thing, I've already answered all of his recycled and re-used 
> objections to wv, and to whatever else I propose.

<one paragraph of non-reply cut>

> But I will briefly comment on Russ's advocacy of methods that combine 
> ranking with ratings. Kevin had proposed such a method, and later Russ 
> announced his invention of that method on EM. Later it was pointed out 
> to Russ that that method had been proposed on EM before Russ mentioned 
> it. But even after that, Russ continues calling it by his own name for it.

That is a despicable lie by a despicable loser. First of all, I *did* 
come up with RAV independently. I then searched the EM archives and 
discovered that it had already been suggested by Kevin back in 2003, 
which I stated plainly in my first message on the topic. Note, however, 
that Kevin apparently did not push it much at all (and still doesn't). 
As far as I know, he never gave it a name. Here's the relevant message:

http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-March/014955.html

Frankly, I think it's a shame that this forum must be fouled by the 
likes of Mike Ossipoff. I still remember his pathetic lies about why he 
dissociated himself from ElectionMethods.org. He claimed that I had 
modified his definitions without his approval, which was a flat-out lie. 
This is no different, but this time the proof that he is lying is right 
in the archives. You can't hide from this one, Mike. Your slimy 
character-assassination tactics are clear for all to see.

> I'm not saying that methods that use rankings and Approval votes can't 
> be good, but they're likely to run into the 1-person-1-vote objection 
> that causes so many people to object to Approval. As I said, though the 
> objection is fallacious, a large percentage of people express opposition 
> to Approval because of it.

Stop the presses! The sage of election methods says that DMC/RAV may 
have some benefits!

Mike, you are absolutely and completely irrelevant to any advances in 
election methods. You're an amateur pedant who can't see the forest for 
the trees.



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list