[EM] Markus's debate about what I allegedly said (Who but Markus cares?)

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 19 01:38:02 PST 2003

I'd said:

>You posted a little fragment of a Python program. And, in that fragment,
>some of the lines weren't even complete. You said I called that the Floyd
>algorithm. I replied that I have never called that line-truncated fragment
>anything. Did i call the Python program from which you got that fragment
>the Floyd algorithm? That's another matter. I didnt call your poorly-copied
>fragment anything, including the Floyd algorithm.

Markus's latest claims about that message:

You are the idiot because you see no contradiction between the fact that
you call your implementation "Floyd algorithm"

I reply:

Wrong. I don't call my implementation the Floyd algorithm. I made it as 
clear as possible for you that
I no longer call it that. I said that I'm going to ask Russ to delete that 
name from the website. Markus, does it occur to you that most of what you 
say isn't true?  Doesn't that bother you at all?

Yes, I had previously called my implementation the Floyd algorithm. I 
carefully explained to you how that came about, and I'm not going to repeat 
it again for  you. But I made it clear that I no longer call it the Floyd 

List members: In case you're new to this list, this is what Markus does. 
He'll latch on to some false claim about what someone said, and then he'll 
keep on re-asserting it, with more false statements in each new posting. If 
I keep replying to him, he'll go on like this for months. February will 
arrive and Markus will still be trying to argue that I claim that my 
implementation is the Floyd algorithm. Does that sound silly? Does it sound 
like a reallly stupidly trivial thing to be wasting people's time, and our 
archive space about? Sure, but apparently Markus really has nothing else to 
do. Evidently Markus is completely without a life.

List members are probably already getting tired of this stupid debate, which 
will go on for as long as I reply to Markus. He isn't really saying anything 
that deserves a reply, and so you'll be glad to hear that this will be my 
last reply to his sily debate in this thread. Typically Markus will then 
send a few more messages, but when he doesn't get a reply he'll quit. When I 
don't reply, that doesn't mean that Markus has said something irrefutable. 
It merely means that I'm no longer wasting my time on Markus.

Markus continued:

...and the fact that you have
to admit that your Python program nowhere uses the Floyd algorithm.

I reply:

Markus, you see, apparently doesn't read the messages that he replies to. 
I've been repeating (but to no avail) that now I don't  claim to know what 
the Floyd algorithm is, and nor do I care.


Markus continued:

You wrote (18 Dec 2003):
>You claim that  the  1-pass procedure that you posted finds the strongest
>beatpaths. Let's check it out and find out if it does.  What was the year,
>month, and day of  your posting in which you posted what you called the
>Floyd algorithm?

The Floyd algorithm has been proposed by Floyd (Robert W. Floyd, "Algorithm 
(Shortest Path)," Communications of the ACM, vol. 5, p. 345, 1962).

I reply:

Excuse me, but did I ask who proposed the Floyd algorithm? I was referring 
to the one that you posted here some time ago. I was suggesting that we find 
it in the archives and find out if, without making more than one pass 
through the permutations, it finds the strongest beatpaths between each pair 
of candidates. So I repeat: What was the year, month and day that you posted 
that algorithm that you called the Floyd algorithm and claimed would find 
the strongest beatpaths with one pass through the permutations?

By the way, if, as you seem to be suggesting, the Floyd algorithm (the real 
one, I mean) finds the strongest paths between pairs of graph-nodes, even 
though the web articles say that it's intended to find the _shortest_ path, 
then, if that's so, ways of finding strongest paths were being discussed as 
early as 1962. If that's true, do you really believe that it never occurred 
to anyone to compare path strengths between two candidates, until you 
"invented" that idea in 1996?

Mike Ossipoff

Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work —  and 
yourself.   http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list