We will deliver no mail before its time

[Mike Ossipoff]

donald at mich.com writes:

[Mike writes: Because I slipped & commented on this letter
in a reply to Demorep, I might as well reply to the rest of
it here. As I said, I'm re-interpreting my announcement to
mean that I won't reply to letters from Don that are received
after I wrote the announement. I'm already getting advice on
how to configure my mailer to not receive list postings written
by Don. It's just as well that I'm replying to this message,
anyway, since it contains such a classic example of hippo logic.]

> 
> Donald wrote: >>
> >> Run-off's answer: We will use no preference before its time.
> 
> Mike wrote:>
> >And who decides when it's time to count a preference that someonee
> >expresses? Right away is the time. By what right do you decide to
> >wait before counting a preference, when doing so changes the
> >election result by eliminating the compromise that someone hoped
> >would beat a last choice?
> >
> >No, Don, you're still being funny with us. You've arbitrarily chosen
> >a slogan from a tv commercial, something that is completely
> >irrelevant to this topic. To relate that slogan to this topic
> >you'd have to show that the counting of some preferences should
> >be delayed. You can't do that, and you were joking again. I have
> >to admit that I don't understand why you haven't been dropped
> >from this list, so that you can take your comedy act somewhere
> >else where it will be more in keeping with some group's purpose.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Donald writes:
> 
> Dear Method List,
> 
> First let me say about Mike: "Me thinks he protests too much". I compose
> one line about preferences and Mike goes ballistic. Preferences must be a
> chink in Condorcet's armor.

No, actuallly, preferences are a gaping hole in IRO. The right to
have preferences reliably & fully counted is really synonymous
with the desire to avoid the LO2E problem. Anyway, I'd have
thought that any ass would understand that ignoring preferences
isn't the same thing as democratic decisionmaking, but apparently
I was over-optimistic.

> 
> Second: Mike must realize that I am not a member of The House of Condorcet
> - I cannot be expected to ape the Condorcet party line. I did qualify the

And you can't be expected to make any sense either. I realize that
, and that's why I won't be replying to anything received from you
after I posted my announcement about not replying to you--even if,
due to technical delays, I receive anything else from you. If you'll
review the message you were replying to, I didn't criticize you
for not aping a party line (though I could criticize you for aping
one).

> one line as being from Run-off. In Run-off we will use no preference before
> its time - this is not a joke - it is reality.
> 
> The pairwise people seem to be addicted to preferences. They must have them

Democracy is about complying with the expressed wishes of the people.
Literally-expressed wishes. Counting up who has the most 1st
choice votes just isn't relevant to that. I don't expect you
to undetrstand that. I've explained it in the past, and I'm sorry,
but I'm not going to repeat it.

> right away - they must have them all - and when they do get them they do

Right away, like before you eliminate someone whom they prefer
to their last choice? :-)

As I said, it's mighty bizarre for you to set yourself up as the
arbiter of when people's preferences can be counted.


> weird things with them that abuse the candidates and in turn the people who
> voted for the candidates.

Note that Don doesn't specify what he's talking about here, because
he doesn't know.

> 
> Preferences are a sore spot with pairwise people. When it is claimed that
> they are doing something improper with the preferences that is the same as

Doing something improper with people's expressed wishes? Like
ignoring them? :-)

> sticking them with a ice pick - Mike is squealing like a stuck pig.

In which utterance of mine, in particular, was I "squealing lke a
stuck pig"? Was it when I asked who should be the one to decide
when a preference should be counted? Or was it when I pointed out
that you were merely quoting a tv commercial slogan that you
can't relate to the topic at hand? Or was it when I calmly
admitted that I didn't understand why a clown is still on this
list? (If that comment was improper, I emphasize that I'm not
making the comment again here, but merely referring to it, as
part of asking Don what he's talking about).

No, this another example of Don's habit of posting his fantasy
imagery as if it were fact, when he doesn't have anything
rational to say. It's a combination of name-calling and
the verbal "acting-out" of violent feelings. Someone could
say that I engaged in namecalling when I referred to Don as
a "fruitcake", & an "ass", but there's a difference. Whether
or not you like my manners when I said that, the fact remains
that I told specifically in what behaviors were "fruitcake"
or "asinine". Rude? Maybe, but not wholely irrational &
unexplained, in regards to factual basis.

And I've been taking the trouble to reply literally to
someone who never really knows what he means, much less
is able to justify it in terms of any reality that people
have in common. It's like trying to argue with someone
who isn't really there. No-one's home. In this concluding
reply to Don, I commented on his simile about me because
it shows why rational discussion with Don just ain't a
happnin' thing. Don will probably say I'm "defensive"
for replying to a name-calling, but once I (questionably)
decided to reply to that letter, I might as well systematically
reply to each assertion in it. Especially when an assertion
is especially revealing about what one is up against when
trying to talk to that person--an issue relating to why this
is my last reply to Don.


> 
> We run-off people go by a rule. You could call it The Abused Contender
> Rule. Which states that votes are not to be taken away from a candidate
> while that candidate is still a contender - the votes are not even to be
> taken away temporality. A candidate is no longer a contender when he

Presumably Don is implying that Condorcet's method takes votes
away from Candidates. I have no idea what he means.

> becomes last in the vote tally - but if he is not last he is still a
> contender. When a candidate is no longer a contender he is dropped and his
> votes go to the next preference of the voters but not before - we use no

The Abused Contender rule sounds remarkably like the definition
of lRO. That wouldn't be Hippo logic would it? :-)  For more
about that, refer to my recent letter entitled 
"Robert's Rules?? Hippo Logic."

> preference until its time. Condorcet violates this rule.

I fully admit, quite shamelessly, that Condorcet's method
violates that rule which is IRO's definiltion.

> 
> My vision of future single seat elections contains no primary. Which would
> mean that there could be eight candidates running for governor of a state.
> Think of the abuse this is going to expose with the pairings. In most if
> not all the pairs the six candidates dropped will have together a majority
> of the votes. This majority bloc of votes will be taken away from
> contending candidates and given to two candidates that only have a small
> minority of the votes to start with - this will take place with most of the
> pairs - this is improper use of preferences - the voters deserve better.

It isn't at all clear what Don means by pairs being dropped, and
what "votes" he's talking about when he refers to a "majority of
the votes", or "majority bloc of votes", and the giving of those
votes to someone.

I don't know what Don is talking about, and neither does Don.
I hope that the above-quoted paragraph will make it easier
to forgive me for having referred to Don with words
like "ass", "fruitcake", & "twit".

> 
> Again with his talk about dropping me from this list. This must be the
> fourth time (five - but who's counting). Mike's in rare form today.
>        "You'll miss me when I'm gone" (from a song)
>        "..you won't have me to kick around anymore" (famous farewell quote)
> 
> I am going on record with the following statement:
> "In spite of Mike's rudness, he should NOT be dropped from this list" (He
> is our big frog in our small pond).
> 
> Mike does not like my joking around - that is too bad. A joke is like a

Excuse me, but it isn't just me who is tired of your wasting 
everyone's time with joking.


> "grain of salt" we need to take in order to digest life - Condorcet - and
> people like Mike.
> 
> Donald,
> 
> 
> .-
> 


--