[EM] election-methods-digest Digest V102 #11

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Steve Barney wrote (offlist):

Mike & Markus: Enough already.

I reply:

No Steve, not Markus & Mike. Markus. Markus, not Mike, posted
the spam copied below, the one that finally made you run out of
patience.

And only Markus continues to pursue that asinine non-issue about
some brief & unimportant line written by another list-member.

It must be obvious who's pursuing the non-issue and on the offensive.
Sorry Steve, but I reserve the right to reply to anything that's
about me. For instance I've copied Markus's latest blather, and
replied to it.

Due to the length of that blather, I've moved the final (I hope!)
part of it up to the top:

I'd said:

>As before, I direct your attention to the message to which you
>are replying. Right after the paragraph that you quoted, I said
>that someone could say that it's pointless to say that I don't agree
>with you because I don't have your definition, but that I said it
>to avoid any misleading implication that I agree with something
>whose accuracy I haven't checked.

Markus replied:

What I criticize is that you spend significantly more time
writing that you haven't checked the definitions than it would take
to check the definitions.

I reply:

Incorrect. When I sent that reply that you keep objecting to,
it took many times less time to disclaim agreement with you than
it would have taken to return to the archives and check your
definition.

Markus continues (and continues, and continues...):

Please check the definitions and stop
spaming the EM archives with lengthly mails in which you only write
that you haven't checked the definitions!

I reply:

Actually I said that in the original posting that you keep objecting
to, but I haven't kept saying it, unless it was one of the things
that you kept missing and which it was therefore necessary to repeat
for you.

Markus continues:


Does it really take so
long to check the definitions?

I reply:

As I just finished saying in the message that you're replying to:
How long is "so long". It was much quicker to disclaim agreement
with you than to return to the archives to check your definition.

Markus continues:

Do you need additional help? Do you
have problems understanding Random Candidate?

I reply:

I made it clear that the reason why I didn't want to imply that
I agreed with you was that I didn't have your IIAC definition
conveniently available, at the time that I wrote. So why are you
asking me about Random Candidate? You see, Markus, this is an
example of why I used to call you an ass.

Markus continued:

Do you have problems
understanding Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives?

I reply:

I thought that I'd made it clear to you that, at the time of
writing, I didn't have your IIAC definition conveniently available.
It shouldn't be necessary to repeat that, but apparently, for you
it is necessary.

But I'll tell you what I _don't_ understand: Why do you keep posting
that idiotic crap to this mailing list. And how long will you be
allowed to?

Mike Ossipoff






Markus spammed:

You wrote (16 Jan 2002):
>Markus wrote (16 Jan 2002)
> > Mike wrote (16 Jan 2002):
> > > Markus wrote (16 Jan 2002):
> > > > Mike (15 Jan 2002):
> > > > > I'm not agreeing yet that RC passes IIAC, because I haven't
> > > > > rechecked and printed-out the definition yet, but maybe it
> > > > > does.
> > > >
> > > > When Mike cannot see that under "Random Candidate" the
> > > > probability that a given candidate X is elected can only
> > > > decrease when additional candidates are nominated, then
> > > > I cannot help him.
> > >
> > > Take a look at my paragraph that you quoted above. It was
> > > right in front of your face. I'd said I wasn't agreeing with
> > > you _because I hadn't rechecked & printed-out the definition._
> > > Whether the probability that a given candidate X is elected can
> > > only decrease when additional candidates are nominated doesn't
> > > mean anything with respect to compliance with IIAC unless
> > > that's what IIAC is about.
> >
> > Then instead of writing that you haven't checked the definition,
> > why don't you check the definition? Or do you believe that already
> > the fact that you haven't checked the definition has such an
> > importance that you should tell it to everyone? Does it really
> > take so long for you to check the definition?

[the remainder of the message, with my reply, was moved to the
the top this latest of Markus's messages]

Mike Ossipoff




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com