Mikeo, man of many typos. List expulsion poll.

Sun Dec 22 06:29:13 PST 2002

At 02\12\22 00:20 -0800 Sunday, Alex Small wrote:
 >MIKE OSSIPOFF said:
 >> Don didn't read the message that he was replying to. My posting
 >> was about CS, a method in whichk, unlike in Approval, the Democrats
 >> could sometimes gain by voting for the progressive candidate as well as
 >> the Democrat.
 >
 >More fool me:  I took Donald's characterization at face value and defended
 >your message in the context of Approval.  I was in a hurry when replying.
 >
 >> 1. Yes or No on declaring a members' request that Craig Carey no longer
 >>    be allowed to post to EM
 >
 >I vote no.
 >
 >As incoherent as he is, there have been other list members whose messages
 >contained fairly extreme statements.  Demorep is an obvious example.  I
 >agreed with Demorep more than I agreed with Craig, but I also clashed with
 >Demorep at times.  Overall, though, I thought that Demorep had interesting
 >things to say.  Likewise, although Craig is almost completely incoherent,
 >removing him would set a bad precedent.
 >
 >Note:  A short time ago Craig and I had a rather sharp personal exchange.
 >Without divulging details of any messages that I agreed to keep private,
 >he was quite over the top in some of his assertions about me and other
 >list members.  He uses standard tricks of psychological manipulation and
 >control, but he needs more practice (the best places to practice are
 >jails, college dorms, 12 Step meetings, and small towns).  So while I
 >understand Mike's reasons for this poll, in the end I think Craig should
 >remain until he decides to unsubscribe.
 >

Mr Small's has ceased communicating to me.

Normally I never wrote to Mr Small until made a mistake in a message
sent to the Election Methods list the I chose to correct. I do recall
asking Mr Small if he wanted me to stop writing but there was no
"yes" in the reply.  He has the word manipulation but it is totally
the case that Mr Small never had any argument referring to what I
wrote that showed that he believed he got to the conclusion using
reasoning.

I certainly do not want to do anything at all to encourage Alex Small
to give his personal views.

Anyway, Mr Alex Small summarises his position in a curiously nilpotent
indescribeable way that would lead to a absolutely no understanding:
SMALL wrote:

            " So while I understand Mike's reasons ..."

Alex perhaps should be voted on (like MIKE, see below) since MIKE did
not give reasons (material findings of facts, weights and reasoning
or deduction).

I can't recall seem to recall any mathematical formula that Mr Small
had, that really needed to be memorised. If there was an equation of
perfect preciseness (i.e. a definition that is not BATHYCLESIAN) then
Alex can send to me a private reminder.

I have no idea what the "rather sharp personal exchange is". A date could
have been provided to clue me into the topic while keeping every other
members unaware of the facts.

We just saw a message from Mike Ossipoff who falsely claimed I expected
him to have some consideration towards voters that differed from he had.

Like Mr Small, the time will not appear when Mr Ossipoff will quote the
text that permits the comment to be known as roughly or soundly true.

Certainly Mr Small can produce documents to show he could not understand
me.

The comment about "standard techniques of psychological manipulation" is
emptily written. I have stated that it does not seem to be easy to get
lied at privately, but there is no problem at all getting it aired in
public. I had a solution which was from time to time, to quite this
quagmire of the undefined.

 >> 2. Yes or No on declaring a members' request that Don Davison no
 >>    longer be allowed to post to EM.
 >
 >I vote no.
 >
 >Donald's posts are generally far less bitter than Craig's, and far more
 >coherent.  It would set a bad precedent to remove people for anything but
 >the most outrageous misbehavior.
 >

The message of Mike Ossipoff did not comment on or around bitterness at
all. Alex is producing comments that are completely irrelevant to the
allegations.

At 02\12\22 06:01 +0000 Sunday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
...
| Don didn't read the message that he was replying to.
...
| Mikeo and his cohorts refuse to accept the fact that many voters refuse
| to make lower choices.

Mr Davison said he understood what Mike was thinking (the "refuse to
accept"). A few paragraphs OSSIPOFF erred and wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >Craig objects that I didn't consider situations in which a voter prefers 2
 >candidates to the others, but doesn't have a preference between those two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Readers may be aware that I regard elections to be points. I don't expect
to ever find voters inside of triangles.

You see that MIKE of HOTMAIL.COM has failed to absorb a prominent theme
in most of my messages since 2000. I have been saying that it is false
that simplex polytopes contain voters. Even if they are somewhere there,
and having properties, none of that information is used.

In 2000 AD OSSIPOFF had put into the archives a message saying that he
had decided he would not read my messages.

Also he wrote that Davison had to be voted on since Davison was not
reading the messages. Therefore OSSIPOFF should be voted over, and maybe
expelled. However

I don't know what is to be made of the words

   "in which a voter prefers 2 candidates"

Perhaps the word "voter" means ballot paper. If it doesn't then MIKE
really has been totally ignoring a consistently unchanging eternal
and true theme in messages since 2000AD, and also similar in
private messages of 2000AD.

-----------------

This next probably implies that MIKE actually read a comment where I
proved that it took me about 12 to 14 lines to expose all the errors in
each single line he wrote. It was only a paragraph or 2, in a message
sent to the list. The man in Canada (Mr R) got a copy of the message I
refer to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 >By the way, Craig is still saying that "favorite" is still undefined.

 >I could say that a candidate is the "favorite" of a voter if that
 >voter prefers that candidate to every other candidate. But then
 >Craig would ask the meanings of the words "candidate", "is" "the"
 >"of" "a" "voter", "if" "that", "prefers" and "other".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

With MIKE it does seem quite the case that he can make a strange
blunder every 1-4 words.

Mr Ossipoff can't redefine his "favorite". Nevertheless that occurred
just above.
No one knows when Ossipoff created beliefs resulting in the previous
archived document becoming inconsistent. Mike did not refer to the
old document where OSSIPOFF transferred to me the right to say whether
his definition of the "favorite" is wrong.

As the lies keep shifting it can be difficult to stay up to date
(notwithstanding that in each year and despite all the messages,
the Election Methods List's long lasting US members (not all) are no
more able to name a rule of real use in solving 3 candidate 3 paper
elections than they were in the previous year.

OSSIPOFF is always imposing upon himself a requirement to not admit
to the existence of ballot papers since it competes with the idea of
voters. Members would have unobservant to have missed that as each
year passed, providing they were reading the messages. An example of
a type of ballot paper that is not named is the Condorcet-Variant
ballot paper.

The sentence:  "I could say that a candidate ..." ; contains about no
use of the idea of a ballot paper, at all.

ALEX confided to the list that he understood the reasoning of MIKE.

I postulate that Mr Alex Small should know the answer to this question:

------------------------------------------------------
Q: to what extent is the following true, and for what purpose is
  it done ?:

     Paragraphs of Mr Ossipoff don't just true to make the idea of
     voters be prominent, but the sentences are designed to delete
     out ballot papers.
------------------------------------------------------

Just to restate that:

** When reading the messages of the Ossipoffian philosophers,
   consider doing this:

(1) ignore how concentrating on voters makes the text be nonsense or
    false,
   AND

(2) start giving consideration to how the the text under-emphasizes
   the idea that elections have ballot papers (the uninterpreted results).

The word uninterpreted is a bit suggestive. Small can finish of the
argument if he wants.

I spent the day browsing for research documents on the Versinia Spp.

__________________________

I might have been able to write a better message at another time.

Craig Carey
The Crystal Heaven: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/single-transferable-vote

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em