[EM] Actual quotes for Markus

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

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.
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". Therefore, my criticism was feasible and you
admitted this. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification
for your insulting mails.

******

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.

******

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.
>
> 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"

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

******

You wrote (22 Dec 2003):
> 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.

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

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

******

I wrote (21 Dec 2003):
> 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.

You wrote (22 Dec 2003):
> 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.

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

******

You wrote (22 Dec 2003):
> I immediately said that I took Markus's word for it that our algotithm
> isn't the Floyd algorithm. No fit. Did I eventually become exasperated
> with Markus's repetition that I call Steve's algorithm the Floyd algorithm?
> Yes.

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

******

You wrote (22 Dec 2003):
> I haven't specifically said that anything was an attack. I said that you
> like to go on the attrack, and that's a good description of what you do. I
> also said that you must have nothing else to do, and that you evidently are
> completely without a life, and I stand by that statement.

Concerning the time you spend to spam mailing lists with insulting and
completely superfluous mails, I conclude that you are completely without
a life.

Markus Schulze