Mike's criticism of Bruce

[Steve Eppley]

Mike O. accused Bruce A. of dishonesty.  I don't recall Bruce 
making any serious factual errors, other than broken promises. 
(In particular, the promise that he would defend Regular-Champion's
result in any scenario... he has been silent on its "rich party" 
failure and its "truncation" failure scenarios).

To the best of my recollection, Bruce hasn't engaged in Disorderly
Discussion; he simply ceased claiming (in EM, at least) that
Regular-Champion is a better method than Smith//Condorcet.  
If Mike is aware, however, that Bruce has continued to advocate
Regular-Champion in other forums without addressing the criticisms 
posted in EM, I'd consider that a more significant allegation of 
Disorderly Discussion, and with someone of Bruce's intellect
an indication of possible intellectual dishonesty.

I appreciate a number of the things Bruce has contributed.  My
favorite:  With a small modification of Arrow's "Independence
from Irrelevant Alternatives" axiom (i.e., the members of the Smith
set shall all be considered relevant), it's not impossible for
voting methods to satisfy all the modified-Arrow criteria. 

---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)