[EM] Another false quote made by Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

>the intention of your recent mails isn't clear to me. I want you
>to remember that it is Steve who started claiming that you had
>an example "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate
>even though no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which
>beat it pairwise." Therefore you should attack Steve and not me.

Steve was correct. I had indeed posted that example, some time
previous. You, not Steve, claim that I said on May 13 that
my Tideman bad-example is possible, with the pairwise defeats
as written. It's just you who are the liar.

>
>Even on 11 May 2000, Steve claimed that you have an example
>"showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no
>voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise."

So what? Apparently Steve didn't know, as I didn't know, whether
or not the Tideman bad-example was possible with rankings.
But that isn't the same as saying that I claimed that my
Tideman bad-example was possible, on May 13, or that Steve said
that I made such a claim.

>Therefore when you pretend that Steve quoted you correctly and
>that I quoted you incorrectly, then you have to explain why that
>claim that you claim that you have such an example was still true
>on 11 May 2000 and was false on 13 May 2000.

Steve said that I'd written an example which showed a certain
thing happening. No one denies that. Steve didn't say that I
was currently claiming that the example was possible with rankings,
with its pair-defeats as written. Is that distinction really
so difficult for you to understand? You're the only one who
lied about that.

>>>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.
>
>But why did you write that paragraph when you now pretend that this
>paragraph had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion whether it
>is 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"?

I don't pretend that that paragraph had absolutely nothing to do
with that discussion of whether that's possible. That paragraph
says nothing about the question of whether or not it is possible
to create a rankings-consistent example in which the Schulze method
chooses a candidate even though no voter preferred him to the
Tideman winner who beat him pairwise. When I say that I didn't'
address that question in that paragraph I'm not pretending, I'm
stating an accurate fact. The sentence that contains the clause
that you refer to begins:

"For instance, say that..."

Markus, in English that means that I'm introducing a conditional
qualilfier. The sentence that begins that way states a condition,
an assumption under which what follows would be true. Maybe you
didn't know that. But I'm curious, then, what you think that
"Say that..." means in English, and why you think I included
that phrase.

>******
>
>You wrote (20 June 2000):
> > Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > > 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.
>
>You are misquoting me. "Or whould we use the impolite word?"

So now you're saying that you weren't attempting to use the
May 19 quote to somehow justify your claim that I claimed on
May 13 that the Tideman bad-example is possible. Well certainly
no rational person would try to use that May 19 quote for that
purpose. But if that wasn't why you included that quote, then
one can only wonder what was your point in including that quote,
when I myself have been asserting that I didn't know whether or
not the situation in question was possible.

>
>I wrote that you wrote in your 19 May 2000 mail 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."

I've been telling you that I didn't know about that. So what's
your point telling me that?

>
>I didn't write that you said in your 19 May 2000 mail that your
>"Tideman bad-example, itself, with its vote totals as written, is
>possible with some set of rankings."

You included that May 19 quote as if it somehow supported your
claim that you aren't a liar. As if it somehow supported your
claim about what I said on May 13. I'm the first to agree that
that May 19 quote, where I said I didn't know one way or the
other, doesn't support your position at all. But it was reasonable
for me to infer that you were attempting to use it for that
purpose. Since you included it in your argument that you didn't
lie, it's reasonable to infer that you were trying to say that
that quote supported your position. But let's just agree that
your use of that quote, where I said I didn't know, didn't make
any sense.

>
>You wrote (20 June 2000):
> > Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > > Mike wrote (19 May 2000):
> > > > 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".
>
>I never claimed that you wrote something different in your 19 May 2000
>mail.

Why you posted
2 quotes in which I said I didn't know, when I myself have been
asserting that I didn't know, isn't at all clear. Where you're
a liar is where you said that I claimed on May 13 that my
Tideman bad-example is possible. All of your quotes of where
I said that I didn't know--I don't disagree with those quotes,
though one can only wonder what could be your point in quoting
those statements that I didn't know--when I myself have been
asserting that I didn't know.

>
>Again: I wrote that 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."

And only you know what your point could have been in quoting
a statement that in no way supports your claim that you aren't
a liar in regards to what I said on May 13.

> > I didn't say that the qualifying condition can be true--in
> > fact I said several times that day that I didn't know if it could.
> > I certainly didn't say that my Tideman bad-example is possible.
> > I just finished explaining that to you an hour ago, but it
> > apparently didn't sink in. Are you out to lunch?
>
>You wrote that Steve wrote that the Schulze method "chose a
>candidate whom no voter preferred to the Tideman winner, and which
>was pairwise-beaten by the Tideman winner." And you wrote that "the
>situation that Steve described exists." The statements in your
>13 May 2000 mail are clear. Every other participant of this
>mailing list would interpret your 13 May 2000 mail in the same
>manner.

I'm going to have to repeat this for you for the 3rd or 4th
time: The sentence that said that "the situation that Steve described
exists" was immediately preceded by a sentence that said:
"For instance, say...", and which then contained a clause
about a certain condition. As I told you, when a sentence begins
with "Say that...", that is a conditional qualifier for what
follows. That conditional qualifier immediately preceded the
sentence in that said that the situation that Steve described
exists. No situation exists all the time. I'd just finished
stating, in the previous sentence, the conditions under which
that situation exists.

Mike Ossipoff

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