Fishburn Rich Parties Example

[Mike Ossipoff]

Rob Lanphier writes:
> 


[Mike says: I replied to this letter yesterday, but sometimes
this listserver only sends the reply to 1 person instead of to
the list, & that's what happened, & so this time I'm sending
it by "group reply"]

> 
> On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Mike Ossipoff wrote:
> > Another thing: Bruce, is it true that you're employed by
> > the Institute for Defense Analysis, and that the Institute
> > for Defense Analysis is associated with the Defense Department?
> > 
> > No doubt we've all heard about the ways in which the Pentagon
> > has made a reputation as a defender of democracy around the
> > world  :-)
> 
> Please avoid the attacks and insinuations.

First, it's your list, of course, & so I'll be nice.
I've already made my point, & there's no need to say more
about it, except in answer to your letter.

There's no reason to regard my letter as an attack. It was
a discussion of the relevant question of the reason why 
certain things were being said. Not an attack--a search
for explanations.

As for insinuation, if there's anything necessary that I left
unsaid, let me know. Insinuation & inuendo are used by people
who can't back up what they say, and so they don't say it, and
instead they just imply it. If I implied anything instead of
saying it, it was only for brevity. I welcome anyone to question
any fact that I said or implied, & I'd be glad to answer questions.

> 
> I want to introduce the caveat that I may be totally misrepresenting what
> Bruce said.  Furthermore, it was an idea that Bruce and I came up with
> that we didn't have time to fully explore.  That is why I bring it up now.
> This isn't some diabolical plot to misdirect this list.

I too wouldn't have used the phrase "diabolical plot". Technically
any intention that is intended to not be well-known is a "plot",
according to one dictionary, at least, but I certainly wouldn't
use that word, because it has acquired a hyberbolic, exaggerating
connotation.

So, instead of "diabolical plot", I'd settle for the milder
"an intention to misdirect the list". You can't say for sure
that there isn't an intention to misdirect the list. 
(I emphasize that I'm only discussing this in reply)

If we were to discuss the question of that individual's honesty,
I think you'd be taking a difficult-to-defend position if you
took the position of defending his honesty. I've named a number
of instances where he didn't answer an argument relating to
something he'd said, and waited for a while, and then repeated
the same thing. As I said, that's easier to explain when it's
someone like Don or Demorep. How do you explain it when it's
a mathematician? I believe I'd win that debate, because I
doubt that there's an honest explanation for the things I've
mentioned.

And why did he compare Fishburn//Copeland//Condorcet to
plain Condorcet, instead of to Smith//Condorcet? Smith//Condorcet
is EM's main recommendation. The obvious reason is that, comparing
it to plain Condorcet, he could say that F//Copeland//Condorcet
meets criteria that plain Condorcret doesn't.  Was that
comparison made with an honest motive, or was it intended to
make something look good by bypassing the more meaningful
comparison?

Additonally, when Bruce first criticized plain Condorcet, 
by his candidate-counting criteria, I carefully replied,
in regards to each of the criteria. In true typical form,
Bruce again merely repeated his original statement,
without any mention of my reply to it, just like Don
or Demorep.

Anyway, sorry to be saying the kind of things that you don't
like to e said here, but I'm only saying it in reply to
your claim that there has been no intention to misdirect the
list. Surely it's ok to reply to a claim. As I said, I
won't bring the issue up again, having already made my
point.

> 
> It is *entirely* inappropriate in any case to assume the worst about
> someone just because they don't hold the same view as you. 

I agree 100%. I wouldn't do that. Don, Demorep, Tobin, Richie,
& lots of other people don't agre with me on everything. I haven't
said about any of them what I've said about Bruce. I said it about
Bruce not because he disagrees with me, but because it seems
to me that there's no honest explanation for things that Bruce
has said (and consistently avoided answering).

> 
> ---
> Rob Lanphier
> robla at eskimo.com
> http://www.eskimo.com/~robla
> 
> 
> .-
> 


--