11/08/02 - RE: [EM] Need IRV examples - Voting Show:

[Blake Cretney]

On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 02:03, Donald E Davison wrote:
> 11/08/02 - RE: [EM] Need IRV examples - Voting Show:
> 
> Greetings List members,

Good day to you too Donald.  BTW, please don't put dates in the subject
headings, it messes up the threads.

> James of course is correct, but why isn't that obvious to anyone else?
> James is like a breath of fresh air.  (this list needs a breath of fresh air).

The list always benefits from new ideas.

> These Condorcet and Approval Voting members of `The Cult' pretend to be
> educated and so intelligent, so it is good to see behind the mask and know
> they have Shine-Ola for brains (so would that make them only so-so
> intelligent).  All this talk about Consistency and Monotonicity violations
> is nothing more than gobbledegook to hid the fact that they are trying to
> decive the public into rejecting Irving and accepting some deceptive method
> like Condorcet or Approval Voting (or one of their many variants).

Isn't it just possible that the people on this list actually believe
what they're saying.  I mean, it's one thing to claim that people are
mistaken, and try to point out why.  And its quite another to claim that
all their arguments are just a trick.  Do you really believe the latter,
or is that just rhetoric?

> Anyway, what needs to be said is that Forest's letter has been on this list
> for one whole week and not one member of `The Cult' said that there was
> anything wrong with it.  That means that they are either `circling the
> wagons' or else, they too think it is a good example to use to bad mouth
> Irving (either way that proves they are all so-so intelligent).  The policy
> seems to be that any member of `The Cult' is free to say anything, no
> matter how outlandish, and the fellow travelers of `The Cult' will not
> object, they may even defend.

Well, list members do in fact disagree on occasion.  This may be hard to
detect, as often people make posts criticizing positions without ever
speculating on what their opponents have instead of brains.  For
example, on Monday, I actually wrote criticizing the consistency
criterion and by implication Forest's use of that criterion.  But I
forgot to point out that everyone who disagreed with me must be part of
a Cult.  You've all been brainwashed by Forest!

> No one should light a lantern to look for an honest man in `The Cult', one
> cannot be found in there.

Seriously, I hope people respond to Donald's letter politely, if at
all.  It would be pointless to flame him.  It makes more sense to be a
little indulgent toward Donald.

---
Blake Cretney (http://concdorcet.org)


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