[EM] Mike: Proof using GSFC & SDSC re-requested, new false claim occurred

[Craig Carey]

THE SAME QUESTIONS ASKED AGAIN TO MIKE OSSIPOFF

Has anybody got a proof that Mike Ossipoff is not lying when he says
that GSFC and SDSC pass the Tideman(wv) method?.

Mike is giving dud references out to nowhere since he wrote this as if
he were a girl in a classroom looking out the window.

         "Tideman(wv) & SSD have the big advantage over ...
          [since] they've been shown to meet GSFC & SDSC."

Here are the definitions of GSFC and SDSC (and I ask Mr Ossipoff to note
that or say that is strictly untrue):

http://RussP.org/ElectionMethods.org/criteria.htm

As I said before, Mike seems to have no proofs. It is not good enough
to me to think about why Mike won't retracting his wrong statements
and then decide to post again to all the list, references into
nowhere. Mr Cretney and Mr Ingles welcome being lied at. Mr Catchpole
and Mr Layton are silent. The list has rules adverse to this and I
presume his disrespect matches Mike Ossipoff's.



At 04:28 10.10.00 +0000 Tuesday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

>I want to admit that I don't know whether or not Smith//PC fails
>GSFC & SDSC. Since no one's proposing Smith//PC, it doesn't seem
>important. But, aside from Tideman's other advantages, described by
>Steve & Blake, Tideman(wv) & SSD have the big advantage over Smith//PC
>that they've been shown to meet GSFC & SDSC. I don't want to discourage
>Markus, or anyone, from proposing Smith//PC if they like it. I can't
>guarantee its GSFC & SDSC compliance though.


Can't you stop making whoppers of false claims during my questioning of
the truth of those claims. What the list is seeing is that Mike Ossipoff's
policy of turning people into non-persons is not productive of an
increasing truthfulness. Schulze seems to be a long way from becoming
a nobody, and what of the rest?. Why not produce a joint statement:
joy through being lied at.

Mike has created some of the world's most stupid rules for preferential
voting methods. A first time poster is getting lectured at about these
rules as if they were good. They are not even defined. One would have to
be an idiot of some sort and certainly an incompetent to study the page
and not know that. It is impolite and especially, it would tend to create
a bad future for the mailing list. Members have been soaking up error for
as long as I can remember, but now we have a claim to have a probably
intricate proof that probably never was even written down anywhere.

It is an error for Mike to assume that people trust what he writes.

Demorep is sending in bad methods but who cares.

This may be a major issue since it can affects the composition of
subscribers. I have no good reason on why Mike should even present his
dumb useless unusable definitions to even Mr Paielli in private, let
alone this mailing list for most of 2000. I call for Mike's interests
to be banned topics and I hope for Mike Ossipoff himself to be close to
being expelled (Rob Lanphier had some rules and they hint he might
want to hold such an intent).