Fwd: [EM] Catchy goes Taxi Driver (watch my slow descent into frustration and brutality, prompted by the madness of another!)

[Rob Lanphier]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, David Catchpole wrote:
> For feck's sake people, can we stop bagging voting theorists who get paid
> for what they do, and start reading their work? They may be part of the
> dreaded orthodoxy, but their ideas have more validity than the bullshit we
> usually chug out and this is indicated by their recognition by academic
> circles. As someone whose desire is to join their ranks sometime over the
> next 20 years, I feel that they're not getting a fair run from this
> list. Take things on their merits. Not on prejudices. If you're going to
> bag someone, read their work and attempt to understand what they're
> saying. When I say "Steven Brams and Donald Saari are wrong" I feel
> confident that I've taken steps to find out _how_ they're
> wrong. Pant. Pant. Huff. Pant. Wheeze.

David,

What part of Mike's comment are you replying to specifically?  Also, who's
work do you recommend we read?  Since many of us aren't professional
voting theorists, we don't have the time to read everything.  Moreover, I
think Mike has done a pretty good job of understanding whatever position
he criticises.  So, especially after your reply to Craig, I'm a little
confused as to what position you are advocating.  Are you advocating that
we pay more attention to Craig, to Brams, to Saari, or to some other
theorist?

Rob
----
Rob Lanphier
robla at eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla