[EM] Craig's posts

[Richard Moore]

Roy One wrote:
 > I'm finding it a bit hard to get the gist of what points 
Craig is
 > trying to make in his recent posts. Maybe it's because 
they refer to
 > private conversations that preceded them.

Or maybe it's because Craig is simply trolling this list.
That's right: He's been deliberately wasting our time. None 
of his requests seem sincere. How else do you explain
the reference in one of his messages to "this list's typing
monkeys" (or "a community of monkeys in a zoo")? There are
lots of other cryptic ramblings such as "pairwise 
comparing's ability to properly implement vote bartering and 
perhaps bribing", or "Usage of it [FBC] could involve a 
tariff before the far side of a better method could arrived 
at." What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Craig states "Condorcet finds the wrong number of winners 
sometimes". I'm not sure what the wrong number of winners 
for a single winner method is. Something other than one? 
Then in a later message he requests "Mr Ketchum: to state a 
position you can post up the equations that define when this 
Condorcet method you like, will find the wrong number of 
winners." So Craig is asking Dave Ketchum to defend his 
(Craig's) own statement!

Or how about when , in response to Dave Ketchum's "As to 
hundreds of candidates - how can any voter be expected to 
pick intelligently among such a crowd, regardless of method 
of counting votes?", he writes: "Post up the equations and I 
will have a look at them. Unless there is some problem with 
that (nonexistence?)"? Does Craig think that the way to 
understand human behavior is by means of equations? I 
presume he is a big fan of Dr. Asimov's psychohistory 
novels, but that math just doesn't exist.

Richard