Rob Lanphier's control letter

[Rob Lanphier]

On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, New Democracy wrote:
>      There is no need for you to control the discussions on this list -
> that would be a form of censorship.

Donald, please explain to me why I'm obligated to provide you or anyone
else with an unmoderated soapbox. 

There are many reasons not to like Condorcet's method, and I'm
perfectly willing to allow people the opportunity to express their
problems with it and advocate methods other than Condorcet's.

However, healthy debate is based on facts, and there have been a number of
*factual* errors that you have posted about Condorcet's method.  The most
aggregious of those you have repeatedly posted in the face of continual
rebuttals is the notion that truncation is strategically advantageous
within Condorcet's method.  Please show a *single* example where either a
single voter or a block of like-minded voters gain a strategic advantage
by truncating their ballots, *all other votes unchanged*.

The only reason why I haven't engaged you in this debate sooner is that I
haven't had time, and I probably won't have the time for a tit-for-tat
debate with you.  However, if I find that this list is basically serving
as a place for prolific propogandists with the greatest endurance to
spread disinformation, I will shut it down.

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