[EM] This list

[David Catchpole]

Errrm... No comment.

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Craig Carey wrote:

> 
> I sent a message to Mr Ossipoff by accident. Please disregard
>   the wording in it, Mr Ossipoff. This mailing list is a vehicle
>   for informing others of what seems to be completely false
>   information but ill defined to a degree that is sufficient
>   to quite obscure that and make the comment untrue if made.
> 
> I ask all those that want to quit to write in and ask "how
>   do I unsubscribe?".
> 
> 
> At 21:15 02.04.00 +0000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> ...
>  >
>  >But I hope someone can tell me that there's an error in
>  >this posting.
> 
> The functions defining the probability distributions are
>   not precisely defined. I request that you define them.
> 
> Are data collecting procedures described?. Apparently not.
> 
> How can there be talk of probabilities but no knowledge of
>   variances of moments or distributions or [Bayesian] distribution
>   presumptions?. What is the variance?. Who may set the tolerances
>   for the accuracy of whatever estimated data there is?. Who
>   funds the councils that hold a single extra election that may
>   be done just to get better data on probabilities?. I ask for the
>   probability distributions. That is a request for a function
>   whose integral equals the number one. Recalling that
>   Mr Catchpole did do that, I request the derivation of the
>   probability distributions of every single probability formula
>   you've referred to and about which you still have an interest.
> 
> The Ossipoff utility theory needs data. Mr Ossipoff keeps
>   writing saying what voters ought do. It is not something that
>   I am following there.
> 
> I didn't understand the theory on telling voters how they should
>   vote, 'utility' theory. How do they get told?. If utility theory
>   is probabilistic, then are they being sampled for [opinions, or
>   votes?] at the very same time they are being regarded as making
>   the right or wrong vote. Do spirit observers decide when voters
>   are wrong under utility theory?. Utility theory is unfixable
>   just like Borda since it is linear but not piecewise linear.
> 
> The list has a problem with people leaving.
> 
> I would hint to the owner that the guidelines are not shaped to
>   stamp out a problem occurring: postings that do not contain ideas
>   that are real enough mathematically to allow them to be separated
>   from the person stating the ideas, are being posted. I would
>   say that false and/or badly defined information is being posted.
> 
> I sent a message to Mr Ossipoff accidentally. I was going to send
>   no message, but I sent this instead.
> 
> Does anybody want another mailing list on preferential voting?.
> This list may not get better (a hunch). A list I run would
>   be concerned with polytopes and faces of boundaries, and prefer
>   factual perfect accuracy to explained thinking. The last is
>   best done without, but maybe this list's subscribers prefer to
>   have matters explained....
> 
> 
> G. A. Craig Carey    http://www.ijs.co.nz/ifppvote.htm 
> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Politeness be sugared, politeness be hanged,
Politeness be jumbled and tumbled and banged.
It's simply a matter of putting on pace,
Politeness has nothing to do with the case.
						Norman Lindsay
						"The Magic Pudding"