[EM] Replying to Anthony

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Anthony said:

>>You're not telling me that people routinely object to any
>>post not explicitly justified by direct reference to concerns
>>actually stated by large numbers of voters, are you?

Then I said:

>>Are you telling me that people think that any post that
>>points out the irrelevance of an argument is objecting to
>>the post that contains the argument?

Fortunately, I don't need to decode this because I wasn't
talking about semantic problems.  I was talking abou this:

I thought you'd be able to decode it, because I merely copied your
own usage.

But I'll decode it for you: If someone makes an argument that
I don't consider valid, and I tell why the argument isn't valid,
that is not the same as objecting to that person's posting. Is that
clear enough for you?

Anthony quoted me:

  >> You seem to regard this as some sort of mathematical
  >> game or art form that should be above such mundane
  >> considerations as the concerns of voters and the
  >> political and material consequences of the voting
  >> system.

Anthony replied:

And I replied that whether it is mathematical has nothing to
do with whether it is mundane or above the concerns of voters
or pertinent to political considerations.  Which is clearly
correct.

I reply:

Quite clearly correct. But also irrelevant. Being mathematical doesn't
mean that an argument is mundane or above the concerns of voters.
But an argument, whether or not it's mathematical can certainly
be irrelevant to voters' concerns.

And even though not all mathematical arguments are irrelevant to
voters' concerns, it seems that you & a few others here think that
their arguments are important whether or not they're relevant to
the concerns of voters or the practical needs of society.

And so I meant that you Margies seem to feel that any mathematical
argument will do, and that in that way, they're above the need to
relate to voters' concerns or the political system's obvious needs.

Is that clear now?

As I said, mathematics can surely be very useful. And it can also
be a game, for entertainment, and that's fine too. It seems to me
that the Margies are playing a game to entertain themselves,
and their game hasn't the slightest relevance to voters' expressed
concerns.

I don't criticise entertainment. But if you or other Margies makes
an argument that doesn't speak to what voters consider important, then
I hope it's ok with you if I point that out. Enjoy your games, but
excuse me if I mention when they aren't relevant to voters' concerns.

Mike Ossipoff



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com