[EM] Antisocial behavior of Steve and Mike:

[I Like IRVing]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05/06/01
Steve Eppley Wrote via FWD by Mike Ossipoff,

   "I have confidence in the ability of EM subscribers to recognize the
antisocial quality of his tactics.  However, in case I've misunderstood
what Markus has been saying, or in case I've made errors in my arguments, I
hope some subscribers (other than Markus, of course) will take the time let
me know."  ---Steve     (Steve Eppley    seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)

Dear Eppley and Ossipoff,

     I am a subscriber to this EM list and I am more than willing to take
the time to let both of you know the errors of your ways and to let you
both have it.
     (Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.)

     You two have no business talking about antisocial behavior.  From year
one of this list you `two peas in a pod' have been more than willing to be
rude, insulting, and generally antisocial to any and all who do not agree
with you two.  It is your way of cleansing the list of nonbelievers, which
has worked with a number of persons over the years, only because they were
gentlemen, I'm no gentleman.

     You, Steve, had the additional antisocial behavior of sending posts to
other lists bad-mouthing persons of this list and telling the other list
that it should not accept any posts from these persons that you were down
on.
     Fool that you are, you most likely did not think that these lists
would pass your posts on to those of us who you were bad-mouthing.  I was
amused.
     Yes Steve, we, who were subjects of your rath were aware to what you
were doing.  I wish I could find those post, they would make good reading
for the current members of this list.  As I remember, one of the list
managers knew you and remarked that you "..usually fell short."   What did
he mean by saying you fell short?  Ha Ha

     But, I was able to find some old posts about Mike's antisocial
behavior, which I repost below.  Mike has this habit of placing a series of
insulting remarks throughout a single letter to some poor soul.
     In order to point up Mike's antisocial behavior, I extracted all the
insulting remarks from only one of his letters and posted them so everyone
would know the real Mike Ossipoff.  The balance of the text of Mike's
letter was not important, the usual crap-O that Mike writes.
     I stress the point that these remarks all came from only one of Mike's
letters.  There were many other letters like it by Mike.

Donald,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03/26/01
To Ossipoff - the forgetful one,

     No, I do not consider the name "IRVies" to be an insult.  I wear the
name as a badge of honor.
     And, it is true that you do call me a twit and/or fruitcake, four
times each in this recent letter from you, more often in the past, but
who's counting.

     Twice this month alone, you have also called me an `Ass', so the
punishment you would dish out to another for calling you an `Ass' should
also be applied to you, but then you are not yet accountable.

     There have been a number of other names you have laid on me, which I
choose not to remember nor repeat.
     All in all, I feel I have come off easy compared to the degree you
have flamed others on this list.  Over the years I have seen a number of
these poor souls leave the list.

     I would say that you hit your peak in a letter to Albert in December
of 1998.  Yes, that was your best, your finest hour, you showed him, how
dare he disagree with you.  `It was a very good year for..' you.  I don't
think Albert has posted to this list since then.

     Do you remember?  Of course not, no one should expect you to remember
words you have said `in passing'.  Your words in passing are no more
memorable than your farts in passing.  Please don't pass by me.

     Anyway, I have good news for you. I have been able to find a copy of
your letter to Albert.  I re-post the good parts below, so you can relive
your glory of yesteryear.
     The rest of that letter was your usual gobbledygook, so I snipped
those parts, small loss.

Don,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  ----------- Reposted Letter -----------
From: Donald Davison <donald at mich.com>
Subject: Request permission to cut text
To: elections-reform at igc.apc.org
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998

Dear Mike Ossipoff,

     I have read your most interesting letter to Albert about "Valuation of
Outcomes", dated 12/07/98.

     I want to forward the letter to others for study and review, but first
I would like to make some cuts in your text.

     I request permission to cut the following eight lines:

1) "I won't try to understand Albert's psychology,  but maybe he's gotten
it into his pointy little head that I'm the person he needs to go after in
order to satisfy whatever ambitions are important to Albert."

2) "Unconvince yourself. In this letter to which I'm not replying, you
express some remarkably asinine misunderstandings."

3) "Like the twit that you are, you indeed have misunderstood me again."

4) "And I talk about candidate elecdtions because that's what we now have,
stupid."

5) "What you really ought to do is not be such an ass."

6) "Another one of your idiot misunderstandings."

7) "I admit that you can spout ignorance as fast as I can correct your
mis-statements."

8) "Where you're a drooling, blathering cretin, however, is where you seem
to believe that that means that there aren't the defensive strategy
situations I spoke of, even where offensive strategy isn't used."


Thanking you in advance,
Yours,
Donald

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:44:29 -0800
From: Mike Ositoff <ntk at netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [ER] Request permission to cut text (fwd)
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 18:44:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Resent-From: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Reply-To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
X-Mailing-List: <election-methods-list at eskimo.com> archive/latest/2460
X-Loop: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: election-methods-list-request at eskimo.com

This  is a reply to a message that Don sent to ER & EM. I replied to the
ER copy, but forgot to send a copy of my reply to EM. That's why
what I say here has a ">" character at the beginning of each line,
and each line of what I'm replying to has 2 such characters at the
beginning of each line.

> > Dear Mike Ossipoff,
> >
> >      I have read your most interesting letter to Albert about
> > "Valuation of Outcomes", dated 12/07/98.
> >
> >      I want to forward the letter to others for study and review,
> > but first I would like to make some cuts in your text.
> >
> >      I request permission to cut the following lines:
>
[Mike now speaks:]
> 1. First of all, I don't understand why you're posting this to ER.
>    What does this have to do with that list? Neither that letter, nor
>    what I was replying to had been sent to ER.
>
> 2. What you've done is the opposite of what you're proposing to do;
>    You're posting unflattering comments by me, without any of the
>    context.
>
> 3. Most of the sentences that you're proposing to leave out contain
>    more than personal criticisms; they also contain substantive replies.
>    I'd suggest that you leave out only the specific criticism words, and
>    leave the rest of those sentences, except that--due to the fact that
>    you were going to leave out the entire sentences, and due to
>    the things that you've already done, as described in points 1 & 2
>    above--I don't have any confidence that you'd do a good job of
>    leaving the substantive parts in.
>
> 4. Therefore, I don't grant permission to post or send the message in
>    altered form, with anything removed.
>
> 5. I don't know if I have a right to tell you not to re-send my letter
>    at all, but, as you know, I've signed-off from that discussion, and
>    to give you permission to re-send that message would be contrary to
>    what I said when I said that I'm not going to reply to Albert anymore.
>    Therefore, I deny permission to re-send that message or any of my
>    replies to Albert, in any form, complete or otherwise. Again, I don't
>    know to what extent I have the right to tell you not to do that.
>    Howabout because the messages weren't to you? Even if postings are
>    in the public domain, it's still unethical to re-send messages that
>    weren't to you, when the poster of the messages tells you not to.
>
> Mike Ossipoff
>
> Again I apologize to ER for an inappropriate posting here by Don.
> Don't blame me, Bob Winters.
>
>



  Regards, Donald Davison - Host of New Democracy,  www.mich.com/~donald

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+