[EM] Criteria reply

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'm going to reply to a few postings that I hadn't previously had an 
opportunity to reply to.
Don't blame me for Russ's abusive language--I didn't write that.

Russ said:

Mike, your looniness is absolutely unbounded. Just when I think I've
reached the end of it, it unravels for another five miles.

Yes, I admitted a long time ago that I had your wacky CC definition at
my website for quite a while. It is now mercifully gone.

I reply:

It's gone because I told you you didn't have permission to have it there. 
You discovered that it was "wacky" right about the time when I withdrew that 
permission.

Russ continued:

We've been over
this several times, but it never seems to get through your solid granite
skull.

I reply:

What never gets through? Russ isn't too clear about that.

Russ continued:

By the way, we had absolutely no agreement, either written or implied in
any way whatsoever, that you owned or had exclusive rights to any of the
content on the site. Any such agreement is in your deluded imagination
only.

I reply:

But Russ is the only one who keeps bringing up the question of whether I had 
exclusive rights to that material. At no time did I say that I did.

Russ continued:

I didn't need your permission and still don't need your permission to
use any of the material at the site

I reply:

I didn't say that Russ needed my permission for the material. I merely 
stated that he suddenly discovered that it was "wacky" or "crap" immediately 
after I told him that he no longer had permission to have it at his website. 
After having had it there for years, having asked me for permission to put 
it up.

Russ continued:

that I essentially created and that
we worked on together.

I reply:

No, we didn't work on it together. I sent the material, and then answered 
your many silly questions about it. You put it up, and then sloppified it so 
that people on EM began pointing out ambiguity in your wordings. Yes, you 
sometimes changed it back when I asked you to, but I didn't have time to 
watch the website closely enough to the definitions correct.

Russ continued:

I have since cut most of your material because it
was crap. Call a lawyer and find out for yourself.

I reply:

Call a lawyer to find out if it was crap? If it was crap, that must be why 
you asked to put it at your website, and kept it there for years till I 
withdrew the permission.

I'd said:

>What does it mean for a criterion to say that ranking is allowed? Maybe 
>Russ is trying to say that the criterion stipulates in its premise that it 
>only applies to rank methods. Or maybe he means that its requirement 
>requires that the method be a rank method, otherwise the method fails. Who 
>knows which he means? Who cares?

You're brilliant, Mike. Now you want to get into legalistic quibbling
about what it means to say that "ranking is allowed"? Unbelievable!

I reply:

No, believable. You were completely unclear about what you meant.

Russ continued:

I
also said "ordinal methods," Mike. Do you know what that means, genius?

I reply:

Did I question the meaning of "ordinal methods"?

Russ continued:


I'd said:

>And, when a "reasonable" criterion doesn't say that, it "assumes" it, Russ 
>tells us. What does it mean for a criterion to assume something that it 
>doesn't say?? People assume things, but I've never heard of a criterion 
>assuming something unsaid. But maybe Russ does. And if Russ thinks that 
>people assume that reasonable CC definitions mean something that they don't 
>say, presumably Russ knows that by using ESP.

Russ said:

Take a look at Blake Cretney's web page, Mike, and try to learn
something. Here is what you will find:

Name: Condorcet Criterion
Application: Ranked Ballots
Definition:
If an alternative pairwise beats every other alternative, this
alternative must win the election.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I reply:

The definition is straightforward, but your reason for posting it is far 
from clear. I was commenting on what you'd said about criterion definitions 
not saying anything about how or if they apply to nonrank methods. Blake's 
criterion definition specifically says that it doesn't apply to nonrank 
methods. It's anyone's guess what you were trying to show by posting that 
defilnition. Do you have any idea what you're saying?

Russ continued:

Mike, I actually have some sympathy for your mental disorder, but not
enough to put up with your garbage. James and Markus can reply politely
to your insults all they want, and I respect them for what they are
willing to endure and yet maintain civility, but I don't have the
tempermant for it. Sorry, I'm not a saint.

You're an asshole to the core, Mike, and you don't have a clue about
what is really needed for a good public election method.

I reply:

Well, I told you about Approval, and you still advocate it :-)  I introduced 
wv, and it's still featured at yoiur website. :-) I introduced SSD to EM, 
and you feature SSD at your website.

(Yes, Markus can point out that CSSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. But 
SSD isn't CSSD. SSD is more publicly proposable. Markus said that he posted 
a definition of SSD, but his link to it showed a definition that could be a 
definition of pretty much anything. That's why I say that I introduced SSD 
to EM. Anyeay, Markus has agreed that "Schulze's method" doesn't mean 
BeatpathWinner. Markus, if you want to challenge any of these statements, 
change the thread subject line. I emphasize that Steve Eppley and I devised 
SSD, and that SSD wasn't my proposal alone).

The point of all that: SSD is an Ossipoff method, and Russ features it at 
his website.

Russ, for someone so critical of me, you still advocate my proposals and 
have them at your website.

Aside from that, you additionally are still using my definitions of the 
Schwartz set and BeatpathWinner, word for word, at your website.

No, you legally may not need my permission to have my materials at your 
website. But, when I've withdrawn that permission, it becomes a question of 
whether you have any pride or self-respect. Your website still depends on my 
method proposals, and on literal use of my definitions. That answers the 
question of whether you have any pride or self-respect.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/