Notice of Unsubscribing

[Mike Ossipoff]

Don's recent relapse to his former bahavior is my reason for choosing
this time to unsubscribe from EM & ER.

I'd said that I'd just delete his messages, and it's true
that that's all they're good for, but, as a solution, it
begs the question & evades the issue.

Because the thing is, messages like Don's don't belong on
the list. Not acceptable.

Certainly the list should be open to anyone who wants
to join, but there need to be certain minimal behavioral
standards, regarding offenseive behaviors. Some of us
have talked about Don't disorderly discussion, and the
fact that it's just as counter-productive as flaming
behavior. But Don goes beyond that level of disorderly
discussion, to a greater level of arrogance & offensiveness,
which includes, as I said, repeated violent metaphor. Any
list that respects even minimal behavioral standards wouldn't
continue to allow Don as a member.

***

But, as much of a nuisance as Don is, and an offensive nuisance,
I can't really say that's my _only_ reason for unsubscribing.

It has beem my opinion, and this is only my opinion, that
there seems to be a lack of sincerity on the part of
another member, Bruce. My purpose here isn't to repeaat the
accusations; it's just that I find this to be discouraging,
& a reminder of the fact that there will be much paid
opposition in the way of any genuine electoral reform. 
Discouraging, & a little scary, to tell the truth. If
the changing-hands of money can induce someone to lie, and
if one observes that phenomenon, that serves to demonstrate
what reformers are up-against. All the money is on the other
side. I find dishonesty to be scary, especially if money
is involved in inducing that dishonesty.

I took up electoral reform because it's important (single-winner
reform in particular, because it wasn't getting any attention).

The trouble with important things is that they attract people
whose motives aren't so good. Let's make an analogy with garbage.
There's garbage, and then there's the kind of garbage that
can become awful garbage, because it contains valuable nutrients
that decay bacteria, maggots, etc. like. It will putrify, 
smell like shit, & be crawling with maggots if it's protein-rich.

Same problem with areas of debate. The important areas of debate
attract unsavory people with putrifactive motives. Well 
that nauseates as does the ranker form of garbage allluded to above.
Bruce has, in that way, reminded me that I'm somewhere where
I shouldn't be when I'm involved in something important like
electoral reform, something that has big consequences riding
on it, something that affects money.

Anyone for calendar reform? :-) Much less important, and therefore
free of rotten motives. Fascinating subject. Elizabeth Achellis,
maybe in the '30s, proposed the  most nearly-successful calendar
reform, the World Calendar. It divided the year into 4 equal
quarters, each with months of 31, 30, 30 days. That only adds
up to 364 days. The extra day(s) could easily be tacked onto the
last month. But no, Achellis insisted on making them "blank days"
or "intercalary days", days that aren't any day of the week.
In that way she could achieve the ambitious goal of a "fixed
calendar" in which every year would be identical to every
other year. You could re-use your calendar every year.
(Maybe calendar publishers would hire someone to try to
subvert e-mail discussions about it :-)   ).

The problem was that the intercalary days were entirely unacceptable
to some big & influential religious groups, who were offended by
something that would take away the unbroken sequence of days of
the week, and who understandably didn't want to have to go to
work or school on their Sabbath. In my opinion, the World
Calendar would have been adopted had it not been for that
problem. That was sthe only sticking point. The League of Nations
took the proposal seriously & was considering it. So that's
that story's sad ending.

Of course there are fancier improvements in the months too.
Our Roman months are quite idiosyncratic & irregular. Some
people want to keep them for tradition, but the fact is
that, for the Romans, change _was_ the tradition when
it came to the months. So why enshrine their last version
as tradition? The months should be "rationalized".

I mentioned other month-rationalizations. For instance,
instead of the 31,31,30 quarter, I prefer 35,28,28. That
way, not only would every quarter begin with the same  day
of the week, but every month would begin with the same day
of the week. I'd add the extra day(s) at the end of
the last month. Of course 31,30,30 is the most modest
change in the months, producing months closelly resembling
out current ones. The old issue of modesty vs merit.

But they get more ambitious than that. Some have proposed
30 day months, with a 10-day week. Changing the week is
a radical change. Advantage: The last digit in the date
always tells you what day of the week it is: What day
of the week is the 28th? It's an Eight.

This too has been proposed in fixed & non-fixed versions.
The French, after their 18th century revolution, used it
in a fixed version, and it seems to me that I read that
the ancient Egyptians used it also, also in a fixed
version. 

Interestsing subject.

Another issue: Map projections. A number of organizations,
non govt, & perhaps some U.N. branches, have adopted
the singularly ugly Peters projection. Peters seems to believe
that he has invented the equal-area projection, since equal
area is always given as the justification for his projecdtion.
Nonsense. Ptolemy devised an equal area projection, and
so did Mercator & his (approximate) contemporary Werner,
in the 15th or 16th century. In fact, the very projection
named after Peters was described by Lambert in the 18th
century.

Ptolemy's was the one now known as the Bonne projection, formerly
much used in atlases for continents, in pre-computer days.
Mercators was the one now known as the Sinusoidal, an equal
area world map. Maybe you've seen Werner's; it's shaped lke
a valentine, and may be the origin of that motif.

Anyway, sukpposedly "Peters'" projection is more fair to
the tropics, because it shows them in the correct size,
unlike the familiar Mercator projection (not to be confused
with the sinusoidal). But the Mercator was never intended as
anything but a navigational map, and it's ridiculous to 
compare Peters' to it as a world map. Lots of world maps
are equal-area & therefore "fair to the tropics". For
instnce, atlases used to widely use the Molweide, an
elliptical shaped map which you've probably seen. Now
there are _lots_ of equal area world maps, a fact apparently
unknown to Peters & those who choose his projection.

Fair to the tropics? Peters' map hideously distorts the
tropics. As one cartographer pointed out, Peters' makes
Africa & South America look like ragged long underwear
hung out to dry. It lengthens them north-south, bizarrely
disrorting their shape, unlike other equal area world
maps. 

The Arctic, in Peters' is correspondingly flattened, and
(guess what?) Europe & the U.S. are just right. :-) So
much for fairness.

***

Anyway, I'm through with reform, because it brings out 
people with ugly motives, and that casts an ugly aspect on
the whole endevor. Issues like these other ones are less
important, & therefore not ugly or discouraging.

No more political reform for me. In fact what I'd really like
to do is leave the U.S. & never have any more concern for
the U.S.'s problems, its backwardness, or the subject of
politics or political reform.

***

best wishes,
Mike




--