[EM] 2nd Matt reply--12/20/03

Rob Brown rob at hypermatch.com
Sun Dec 21 14:37:03 PST 2003

I figured I'd pop out of lurk mode to mention that I, like Diana, have 
questioned whether some of the participants of this discussion are computer 
rather than human.....Craig's mangled vitriol in particular reads like its 
been round-tripped through the babelfish translator.

In any case this ridiculous flamefest has provided me some amusement, but 
not done a lot toward my taking this list seriously.  Maybe everybody could 
agree that if Craig and Mike would just kindly drop off the list for a 
month, everyone will just pretend this never happened when they come back?


At 10:51 AM 12/21/2003, Diana Galletly wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Craig Carey wrote:
> > It won't be OK in politics. But this is just list for untrue statements
> > that have no place in the design of quality preferential voting methods
> > (particularly when Diana speaks. As for myself, shall be withdrawing
> > from this deep dark hole without much delay).
>Er, show me where I have said something that is untrue?
>It happens to be the case that if I post something that I later come
>to realise is mistaken, I am *very* ready to apologise.
>It may be that I have misinterpreted your messages, although since
>your sentences often seem to be at best incomplete this might not
>be surprising.
>My understanding is that you are a supporter of STV (maybe even of IRV)?
>Is this correct?
> > The poor members here do not like algebra, so they aggregate and don't
> > know what fairness is.
>What proof have you that any of us dislike algebra?
> > They maybe really are not so stupid that they can't create truly better
> > method, but all are out for lunch if the topic of defining what better
> > means shows up.
>It seems to me that there are some people who want to a believe in a
>one-size-fits-all system, for single winner elections, multi-winner
>elections, referenda etc.
>Personally, my interest is in referenda and, in particular, in determining
>a system which doesn't cause widely varying results if just a few votes
>change hands.
>Calling me stupid will not get you far.  I am far from stupid, and
>asserting that I am just because I happen to disagree with you, or
>because you don't like the content of my messages, will not get me
>to consider anything you have to say more carefully than I would were
>you to be polite.
> > How arbitrary: some privately belief on conduct with not even a single
> > radiating Argon gas atom illuminating the statement with the right stuff:
>This is an example of why I find your English hard to comprehend.  I
>cannot even tell whether you are insulting or praising me -- I can read
>it in both ways.  However, given your previous comment, I guess I should
>take it as an insult.
> > Rather than reject bits of Diana's advice, it might be fairer to find out
> > more of her beliefs in the aim of estimating a date when Diana is likely
> > to drop out or quit.
>At the rate academic politics moves, some time in 2005 or 2006 I should
>imagine.  I'm here for a reason, not for an argument.
>Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list