[EM] Markus: Take it to individual e-mail or drop it. Don't post about it.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

If you have anything further to say about what I believed or claimed about 
what was the Floyd algorithm at some previous time, summarize it in 
_individual_ e-mail (one message only). No more list e-mail. The members of 
this list aren't interested in what I believed about the Floyd algorithm in 
2001, etc. Some of them have said so. I've been telling you that from the 
start.

There won't be a reply unless one is requested. But of course in that case 
you wouldn't get the last word, because I'm only willing to get one more 
message about that.

So, for the last time, I will comment on what you've said:

I don't want any more messages from you about this via the mailing list.

You wrote:

when I wrote that your implementation is not the Floyd algorithm,
then this was an observation and not an "attack". If you hadn't
mistakenly written (e.g. in the source code of your Python
program http://electionmethods.org/CondorcetSSD.py) that your
implementation is the Floyd algorithm, then I wouldn't have
stressed that your implementation is not the Floyd algorithm.

I reply:

Are you aware that you said exactly that same thing in a previous message, 
and that I replied to it? Probably not.

At no time did I object or criticize when you stated that Steve's algorithm 
isn't the Floyd algorithm. All I said was that I'd take your word for that. 
"If you say it isn't, then fine. I'll tell Russ to delete that name from the 
website." Posted 18 December.

Markus continued:

In one of your recent mails, you admitted that you mistakenly
believed Eppley's algorithm to be Floyd's algorithm and you
admitted that you mistakenly called Eppley's algorithm "Floyd's
algorithm".

I reply:

I've been asserting those things ever since I stated them in postings of 18 
Decemeber.

You continued:

Therefore, my criticism was feasible and you
admitted this.

I reply:

What criticism? I wasn't aware that your information that that wasn't the 
Floyd algorilthm was criticism. But whatever it was, I never said it wasn't 
feasible. I did object to other behaviors and mis-statements of yours.

Markus continued:

You wrote (22 Dec 2003):
>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.

I don't claim that you are continuing to claim that Eppley's
algorithm is Floyd's algorithm.

I reply:

Good. I'm glad you're finally finished with that.

******

You'd said:

You wrote (22 Dec 2003):
>Markus wrote (21 Dec 2003):
> > 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.
>

I replied:

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

My mailbox says: "Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:57:59 +0000"

I reply:

I don't care what your mailbox says. The message's date in the archives is 
17 December.
Shoiuld we refer to message dates by what your mailbox says instead of what 
the archive says?

You continued:

It seems that your mail server uses UK time and not
California time.

I reply:

I was referring to the date listed in the archives.

If you're in the +1 timezone, then maybe it was past midnight for you, but 
not for the UK. That would explain why your mailbox's dating of the message 
is incorrect with respect to the archive's dating of it. In any case, the 
archives recorded dates are a better standard than your mailbox is.

You continued:

Why is it so important for you to stress that since 18 Dec 2003
you are not longer calling Eppley's algorithm "Floyd's algorithm"?
When I wrote on 15 Dec 2003 that Eppley's algorithm is mistakenly
called "Floyd's algorithm" in the source code of your Phython
program this was a correct observation.

I reply:

I never disagreed with your 15 December statrement on that.

Why do I say that I wasn't calling it that since 18 December? Because you 
were continuing to assert that I call it that. But now you're backed down 
from that assertion and admitted that I don't call it that.

Markus said:

I don't claim that you are continuing to claim that Eppley's
algorithm is Floyd's algorithm.

I reply:

Good. That's an improvement. Previously you'd posted something I said in 
2001 as proof that I call Eppley's algorithm the Floyd algorithm, even 
thoiugh I'd clearly retracted that statement on 18 December, and every day 
thereafter.

******
You repeated:

I don't claim that you are continuing to claim that Eppley's
algorithm is Floyd's algorithm.

I reply:

Wonderful. Better late than never.

You repeated again:

I don't claim that you are continuing to claim that Eppley's
algorithm is Floyd's algorithm.

I reply:

Yes, we all get the idea.

Now, as I said, if you have anything further to say about that, send it as 
individual e-mail. Summarize it in one message only. But further postings 
from you here about that are unwelcome, to me, and to the other list 
members.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home.  
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx