Condorcet Hell comment

[Bart Ingles]

I realize that comment was probably out of line, and apologize if it
was.  I didn't intend to insult everyone who happens to be interested in
Condorcet -- except for Mike Ositoff, maybe, but only in keeping with
the general tone of this thread.

--------------------------------------------------------

Mike Ositoff wrote:
> 
> I should comment on Bart Ingles's statement that he associates
> this list's discussion with "endless variations on the same theme".
> 
> Same theme:
> 
> We've discussed all sorts of different kinds of methods, and
> different standards. A number of us have established that we
> agree on the main properties that we want from a voting system,
> and so we've narrowed down the range of different methods that
> we consider. Is that what you mean by "same theme"?
> 
> But as you know, there are postings & discussion, still, about
> quite different kinds of methods & standards, and so your
> use of "same" is inaccurate, in addition to not having any
> meaning as a criticism, for the reasons stated in the previous
> paragraph.
> 
> Endless variations:
> 
> Actually there are only so many variations on these Condorcdet
> related methods. The set of variations we've discussed isn't
> endless, and I doubt that the set of practical, desirable
> variations is endless either. And even among the few variations
> that we've discussed, some have turned out to be equivalent.
> 
> Maybe "endless variations" means more variations than you'd like.
> No problem; to each their own. And, again, you have a problem with
> detail, and the study of what the proposals will do. Some of us
> believe that these things matter, in regards to public proposals.
> 
> I shouldn't even be answering off-the-wall comments,
> newsgroup-noise; as opposed to serious argument from
> conscientious, interested people, or as opposed to serious
> questions. Arrogance & presumption are marks of newsgroup-noise.
> 
> Mike Ossipoff