[EM] Actual quotes for Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

you wrote (20 Dec 2003):
>False statements, statements that he can't justify,  have always been
>Markus's stock-in-trade. But this time he's doing the disservice of
>misinforming people about a practical matter. But Markus doesn't care,
>he just enjoys being on the attack.

When someone proposes a faster algorithm for a given problem then
you shouldn't consider this to be an "attack".

I reply:

Excuse me, but did I ever object to your proposing a faster algorithm? It 
was abundantly clear from what I said that I was objecting to your ongoing 
claim that I claim that Steve's algorithm is the Floyd algorithm.

Diana's right: It's as if you don't read what you're replying to. I'm not so 
sure that you pass the Turing test.

Markus continued:

I don't claim that you are continuing to claim that your implementation
is the Floyd algorithm. However, you started this discussion with the
following statement (18 Dec 2003): ...

>Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd algorithm.

Wrong. That posting is dated 17 December in the archives, not 18 December.

Immediately after that senbence, I said:

"I don't use that piece of code. It looks like it might be a tiny piece of a 
Pyhon strongest-beatpaths program, with at least one of its lines partly 
erased."

So it would be obvious to anyone but you that, at that time, I wasn't saying 
that I don't call the strongest-beatpaths algorithm the Floyd algorithm, but 
was only saying that I don't call your poorly-copied program-fragment the 
Floyd algorith.

A few paragraphs down in that same message, I said,

"I do call a certain strongest-beatpaths algorithm the Floyd algorithm, only 
because someone on this list told us that that's what the algorithm is 
called."

So, on the 17th, I was still calling our strongest-beatpaths algorithm the 
Floyd algorithm, and still believed that it was what you'd intended to write 
when you posted your Floyd algorilthm.

But on the 18th, I said that it semed to me that you had meant to say that 
our algorithm was the Floyd algoithm, but maybe not.

I then explained that it had seemed to me earlier that our algorithm was the 
same as what you'd
meant to write when you posted your Floyd algorithm, and that that was why I 
believed that our algorithm was the Floyd algorithm.

In that message, it's clear that I was no longer calling our algorithm the 
Floyd algorithm.

But, if that wasn't clear enough, on the same day, the 18th, I also posted:

"[Something to the effect of 'I'd thought that you'd meant our algorithm as 
the Floyd algorithm'] But if you say it isn't, fine. I'll tell Russ to 
delete that name from the website."

That makes it even more clear that, as of the 18th, I was no longer calling 
our algorithm the Floyd algorilthm.

Markus continued:

It is obvious that when I made my statement that you call your 
implementation
"Floyd algorithm" there was no reason for me to believe that you have 
changed
your opinion recently.

I reply:

No reason at all...except for what I said  :-)

(on the 18th, and on numerous subsequent posts).

Masrkus continued:

Therefore, your insulting replies are inappropriate.
Instead of saying "Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd algorithm." it would
have been better if you had said: "I don't call that the Floyd algorithm
anymore."

I reply:

In English, "I don't call it that anymore" means "Though I called it that 
formerly, I no longer do."

So "anymore" merely emphasizes that what is not now true used to be true. It 
emphasizes the changing of a previously true fact. But in no way can 
"anymore" be said to be a necessary part of the grammatical construction for 
indicating the present tense.

You continued:

In so far as you only said without any explanations "I don't call that the
Floyd algorithm." and not "I don't call that the Floyd algorithm anymore."
it was clear that I would point you to a document where you call that the
Floyd algorithm.

I reply:

Correction: You pointed to a document in which I _called_ it the Floyd 
algorithm. You used the present tense. The document proves only that I 
called it the Floyd algorithm in 2001.

(though I said on the 17th December, 2003, that I still called it that as of 
that day)

That's why we have verb-tenses. So that people will know whether we're 
speaking of the present, the past, or the future. I spoke in the present 
tense. The present can refer to this moment, as when someone says, "I'm not 
smoking a cigarette". Or it can refer to something currently ongoing, as 
when someone says "I don't smoke". Then he's saying that not only is he not 
smoking at this moment, but he's also saying that this moment isn't part of 
an ongoing period during which smoking by him sometimes takes place. That's 
a well-established meaning of the present tense, and it was in that way that 
I meant the present tense. When he says "I don't smoke", in no way can you 
be justified in claiming that he's saying that he has never smoked.

If he says "I haven't smoked", then that's different.

I reply:

So when I said that I don't call it the Floyd algorithm, that doesn't mean 
that I've never called it the Floyd algorithm. It merely means that I 
currently don't call it that. When somone says "I don't call it that", does 
mean to you that  mean that he's saying that he has never called it that?

Now, on the 17th I was only saying that I don't call that program _fragment_ 
the Floyd algorilthm. But on subsequent days when I said that,  I made it 
clear that I don't call our strongest beatpaths algorithm the Floyd 
algorithm. My statements posted here on 18 December 2003 demonstrate that, 
from that time on, I haven't been calling it the Floyd algorithm.

By the way, you wrote (18 Dec 2003):

>I re-emphasize that I didn't get our strongest beatpaths algorithm from
>you or Floyd, or anyone but Steve Eppley, who suggested it.

Could you please forward that mail where Steve proposes his strongest path
algorithm?

I reply:

It turns out that that message is no longer in my mailbox. That message was 
sent years ago, and my mailbox doesn't go back that far. I suggest that you 
write to Steve. He may still have a copy of the message. Or, if not, he may 
be able to tell you about the algorithm that he proposed.

******

I wrote (20 Dec 2003):
>Then, of course, it would have been sufficient for you to say that you 
>don't
>call your implementation "Floyd algorithm" anymore.

As I said, the word "anymore" is _not_ a necessary part of the grammatical 
construction for the present tense.

I said that I don't call it the Floyd algorithm. That means that now isn't 
part of an ongoing period during which I sometimes call it that. It doesn't 
mean that I've never called it that.

>There was no need for you
>to spam this mailing list with tons of insulting mails.

Do you really believe that I had no reason to get tired of repeatedly 
explaining the same things to you again and again, as you kept on repeating 
a false claim, as if you weren't reading the e-mail that you were "replying" 
to?

Markus continued:

You wrote (20 Dec 2003):
>Hello-o-o-o! That's what I've been repeating for you over and over again, 
>to
>no avail. I won't debate whether there was a need to insult you. But can 
>you
>look at your ridiculous statement that I quoted directly above, and say 
>that
>there wasn't a reason to call you an idiot?

When I say that "it would have been sufficient for you to say that you don't
call your implementation 'Floyd algorithm' anymore" then this doesn't mean
that I claim that you still call your implementation "Floyd algorithm".
It only means that this would have been sufficient and that there was no
need for you e.g. to spam this mailing list with tons of insulting mails.

I reply:

But the problem was that it _wasn't_ sufficient, because you were spamming 
this mailing list with repetion of a refuted claim, in direct violation of 
the rules of conduct posted at the list's homepage.

Markus continued:

You wrote (20 Dec 2003):
>You see, Markus, this is why I refer to you as an idiot. Did I deny that,
>in Feb 2001, I was calling Steve's algorithm the Floyd algorithm.? No. I
>agreed that I'd formerly called that algorithm the Floyd algorithm, but
>that I no longer do. But you kept repeating that I continue to claim that
>my implementation is the Floyd algorilthm, though I kept trying to tell
>you that I no longer make any such claim.
>
>And now you post a quote from 2001, apparently believing that it shows
>that you're right to say that, during this current discussion, I claim
>that Steve's algorithm is the Floyd algorithm.
>
>Seriously, Markus, all namecalling aside,there really is something wrong
>with you.

Obviously, you are unable to see that when I ask you for an explanation why
you have used the term "Floyd algorithm" in the past in a given manner then
this doesn't include that I claim that you continue to use this term in this
manner.

I reply:

No. You didn't just ask for an explanation for why I previously used the 
term. You kept saying that I do use the term in that way. Check the 
archives.

And, as for why I previously used the term in that way, I answered that 
question on the 18th. If yoiu read what yoiu're replying to, you wouldn't 
have asked that question after that day.

Markus continued:

By the way: Your recent mail exemplifies my observation that you are
unable to admit that you have made a mistake

I reply:

Starting on the 18th, and then on every subsequent day, I clarified that I 
previously called it the Floyd algorithm, and that I (as of the 18th and 
after) took your word for it that it was not the Floyd algorilth, and said 
that I was going to ask Russ to delete that name from the website. Agan, 
Diana's rilght: What you say is completely unrelated to what you claim to be 
replying to.

Markus continued:

without bombarding with
insults that person who pointed you to this mistake.

I reply:

I never criticized you for pointing out that Steve's algorithm isn't the 
Floyd algorithm. More fiction on your part.

Markus continued:

In the same mail
you admit that you have mistakenly believed Eppley's algorithm to be
Floyd's algorithm

I reply:

You catch on fast :-)  At least now you've finally found out that I've been 
saying that all along.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Grab our best dial-up Internet access offer: 6 months @$9.95/month.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup