[EM] Reply to Ernie

Rob Speer rspeer at MIT.EDU
Fri Dec 19 07:27:02 PST 2003

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:08:45AM +0000, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> But that isn't anything different from what I'd already been saying.
> Early in this discussion, I said that I'm not longer saying that anything 
> is the Floyd algorithm.
> I'd assumed that Markus had miscopied an algorithm that made as many 
> permutations passes as necessary. Markus says that he'd written it right, 
> because it only needs one pass. Markus says that he really meant to write 
> the algorithm as he did, and that that is the Floyd algorithm. I said "Ok".
> So why is Markus still having such a problem about it? I have no idea, but 
> that's how he always is.

If you said "Ok", it would have been a great place to end the thread.
But it got lost in the mass of insults and flames being thrown back and

Markus is just doing what he does: he makes sure that voting terminology
used on this list is consistent, when so much of the available
information about voting terminology is inconsistent. Perhaps he's being
too harsh here or is even wrong about what you're referring to. People
make mistakes.

Terminology is a very important thing for people to agree on. It was
because of a conflict in terminology that I ended up in that stupid
flamewar with Eric.

It seems that the fiercest arguments can break out when the positions of
the arguers are closest. People like Donald Davidson and Craig Carey say
things that are much more inflammatory than any of this, but nobody
usually bothers to flame them.

Rob Speer

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list