[EM] Another false quote made by Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>you wrote (19 June 2000):
> > Markus said here that on May 13, on this list, I said that my
> > "Tideman bad-example" was possible, as written. That seemed
> > quite unlikely at the time, because it was long before May 13
> > that someone pointed out to me that Bruce Anderson hadn't
> > said that every pairwise vote table corresponds to some set
> > of rankings, as I'd till then believed that he'd said.
>
>But in a private mail you wrote (13 May 2000):
> > I don't remember any details about the "Tideman fails GMC"
> > example. I posted one, but I don't remember what the
> > defeat magnitudes were, or have a copy of it.
> >
> > But if some voters were indifferent between the 2 methods' winners,
> > then method M1's winner could beat method M2's winner, with no
> > one preferring M2's winner to M1's winner, without there having
> > to be a violation of Pareto. A few people rank M1's winner over
> > M2's winner, and the rest don't express a preference between the
> > two.

>As far as I interpret you correctly, M1 = Tideman and M2 = Schulze.

You don't interpret me correctly very far. You interpret me
incorrectly. I said M1 & M2 because I intended there to not
name particular methods. That's a good example of you making
up an interpretation that doesn't resemble what the person said,
to justify a false quote. I was talking about what it takes to
violate Pareto.

>
>You wrote (13 May 2000):
> > Steve didn't say that Beatpath Winner chose a Pareto inferior
> > candidate or violated Pareto. He merely said that it chose
> > a candidate whom no voter preferred to the Tideman winner, and
> > which was pairwise-beaten by the Tideman winner.
> >
> > That doesn't require a Pareto violation. For instance, say
> > that a few voters rank the Tideman winner over Beatpath Winner's
> > winner, and that the rest of the voters are indifferent between
> > those two. The situation that Steve described exists, without
> > a violation of Pareto.

>If you didn't want to say that Steve's example "showing the Schulze
>method preferred a candidate even though no voter preferred it to
>the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise" was possible, then why
>did you write that "the situation that Steve described exists"?

Hello-o-o; is anyone home? What if I'd said "It isn't true that
the situation that Steve described exists."? No doubt, then too,
you'd quote me as saying that the situation that Steve described
exists, because that clause is indeed present in the sentence.

It's difficult to believe, but I guess it's true, that you
don't understand that you've quoted the last sentence as if it
were a declarative sentence by itself, when actually it followed
a conditional which began "Say that...". That has the same meaning
as if the conditional were an "if" clause. That should be
obvious.

Maybe I should spell it out for you:

Here's what I said:

> >That doesn't require a Pareto violation. For instance, say
> > that a few voters rank the Tideman winner over Beatpath Winner's
> > winner, and that the rest of the voters are indifferent between
> > those two. The situation that Steve described exists, without
> > a violation of Pareto.

Note that that sentence began "Say that a few voters reank the
Tideman winner over Beatpath Winner's winner, and that the rest of
the voters are indifferent between those two."

Saying that the situation that Steve described exists if those
conditions are met isn't the same as saying that I have an
example in which that's the case. It certainly isn't saying
that my Tideman bad-example is possible, with its pairwise
vote-totals as written.

>Even in your 19 May 2000 mail, you wrote that you don't know
>whether it is possible or impossible to create an example "showing
>the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no voter
>preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise":

Here you're being asinine in 2 ways:

1. Even if I'd said that it's possible to create such an example
   , that wouldn't mean that I'd said that my Tideman bad-example,
   itself, with its vote totals as written, is possible with some
   set of rankings.

2. Since when is saying "I don't know" if such an example is
   possible the same as stating that such an example is possible.

So, I said that I don't know if such an example is possible, and
you interpret that as meaning that not only is such an example
possible, but also, in particular, my Tideman bad-example is
possible.


> > Is that situation impossible because it isn't possible to supply
> > a set of rankings for it? Of course, aside from that, of itself,
> > it the fact that no one ranks A over B doesn't meant that A can't
> > have a strong beatpath to B. And the fact that someone ranks B over
> > A doesn't mean that B has a strong beatpath to A. But maybe it's
> > that that situation can't be created by a set of rankings. I don't
> > know.

Must I read it to you, Markus? I said "I don't know".

>
>Therefore I don't see any justification for your claim that I
>misquoted you.

Then I suggest that you compare what I said to what you quoted
me as saying. In particular, in none of the quotes above did
I say that my Tideman bad-example is possible, with the pairwise
defeats as written. If you didn't understand that before, then
I hope that I've led you through it so that you understand it now.

>
>By the way: Steve wrote twice (23 Feb 2000; 11 May 2000) that you
>claimed that it was possible to create an example "showing the
>Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no voter preferred
>it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise." So why don't you
>accuse Steve for misquoting you?

Of course; Steve was referring to my Tideman bad-example.
Did Steve say that I said that as late as May 13? Indeed, I
used to believe that my Tideman bad-example was possible, but,
contrary to your false quote, I didn't say that on May 13.


Mike Ossipoff

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com