[EM] Richard's diagram

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
>> Subject: [EM] Replying to Anthony

>> 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.

No, actually, you copied some of the sentence structure.  It
was clever.

Here is the actual matter at hand
:
Richard used a diagram.  About the diagram you said this:

   >> Richard has written about how one thing he likes about
   >> margins is that it looks nice on a certain diagram.

That was not correct.  I read Richard's post, and in fact he
used the diagram the same way one might use graphs in a
statement like "the common solution to the equations is the
the point(s) where they cross".  That is common usage, and
has nothing whatever to do with how nice it looks on the
diagram.

>> 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?

Oh, that was understood from the beginning.  You don't agree
with Richard.  I was simply pointing out that you did not get
Richard's point, hence your remark about his thinking that it
was important that something looked nice on a certain
diagram.

>> 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.

I see.  So when you discuss WDSC and FBC, etc., you consider
them relevant because they are at the forefront of the
voters' minds?

>> 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?

Absolutely.  You have made up a new name to call someone who
has discovered one of your mistakes.  You're welcome.

>> 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 know what a Margie is.  I will, however, point out
that your comment about Richard's argument being based on
something looking good on a diagram was mistaken.  I can
explain further if you like.

>> 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.

I take it a Margie is the Election Theory equivalent of a
Communist child molester?  But no matter.  I was simply
pointing out that you were mistaken about Richard thinking
that what mattered was the way something looked on a diagram.

>> Mike Ossipoff