[EM] Response from a pit bull to a junk post

[Richard Moore]

Donald Davison wrote:
> 05/13/02 - The Education of Poor Richard:
> 
> Greetings list members,
> 
> Richard Moore's rantings in his letter of 5/5 are not understandable.  The
> best I can say for him is that he is clueless as to what is being said
> and/or implied by the `code words' used on this list, or maybe he has
> volunteered to act as a Pit Bull for Alex (without Alex asking).  Poor
> Richard should pay more attention to code words before going ballistic.
> For his information and education, the words `Condorcet candidate' or
> `Condorcet winner' are code words which mean or imply that Condorcet is the
> standard for all single-seat election methods including Condorcet itself.

Donald's post is both unresponsive and uncalled for.

To recap, Alex merely made a factual statement that Donald claimed was
dishonest. Alex asked Donald to clarify his claim. Donald took Alex's
question out of context, and invented this claim that Alex was using
Condorcet as a standard by which to judge other methods. That is not a
position taken by Alex, AFAIK.

Is it wrong of me or anyone on this list to object when someone uses
a straw-man argument as a smoke screen to avoid accounting for his
statements? Is critical thinking not appropriate to this list?

> Whenever anyone uses the code words `Condorcet Winner' they are attempting
> to establish Condorcet to this high position as the standard of all
> single-seat election methods including Condorcet itself.  I do not accept
> Condorcet as the standard, but of more importance I say it is dishonest to
> regard any method to be a standard of all methods including itself.  This
> dishonesty will create junk mathematics and I said as much in my reply to
> Alex's use of the code words.
> 
> It is not proper to use any of the considered methods as a standard, not
> Plurality nor Irving nor any of variants of the junk methods, Approval and
> Condorcet.  It would be as if in the American Beauty Constest Miss
> California (or Miss Condorcet) was regarded to be the standard by which all
> the contestants are to be judged including Miss California - and the winner
> is Miss California - of course, who else - more deceit of the Condorcet
> people.
> 
> In my letter of 5/05/02 titled: `Condorcet just does not make the cut', I
> felt I finally made "..the point that no method should be regarded as the
> standard for all the methods including itself..."

Or, as I put it in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/6530,
"Using one method's results to judge another method has the effect of 
elevating
the first method to a standard." It might be well if Donald read that 
post, since
he ostensibly agrees with my thinking on using methods as standards. 
Seems an IRV
supporter was using lots and lots of "code words" and I called him on 
it. Among the
many code words and phrases used by that person: lower candidate, back 
door, extra
undue help, subsidize, leverage, and salvage.

I don't have any recollection of that IRV supporter ever responding to 
that post.

> There was nothing taken
> out of context, there were no errors by me, there was no misdirection by
> me.

No doubt Donald did not take Alex's question out of context when he 
*read* it. I'm
sure Donald knew exactly what Alex meant, and why he asked it. But to 
remove that
context when replying -- was that done because including the comment in 
its full
context would disable his smoke screen defense?

> It is not clear as to what Poor Richard is talking about, as to what
> he is ranting about?
> 
>     Alex understands what Alex is saying.
>         I understand what Alex is saying.
>              Poor Richard is the problem.
> 
> Regards, Donald

And so it degenerates into insults and name-calling. Fine.

  -- Richard

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