[EM] Markus reply, 12/20/03

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

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".

******

You wrote (20 Dec 2003):
> I was only criticising you for continuing to repeat that I was
> continuing to claim that our implementation is the Floyd algorithm.
>
> (...)
>
> The debate was about whether I still claim that Steve's algorithm is
> the Floyd algorithm. It was a really silly debate, because I'd repeatedly
> said that I no longer claim that Steve's algorithm is the Floyd algorithm.
>
> I'm the first to admit that it was a silly issue that Markus insisted on
> pursuing.

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.

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. 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."

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.

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

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.

******

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.

By the way: Your recent mail exemplifies my observation that you are
unable to admit that you have made a mistake without bombarding with
insults that person who pointed you to this mistake. In the same mail
you admit that you have mistakenly believed Eppley's algorithm to be
Floyd's algorithm and you bombard me with insults.

Markus Schulze