[EM] Actual quotes for Markus

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (23 Dec 2003):
> 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.

Then why did you start this thread at all? I don't care what you believed
when about the Floyd algorithm. But it is clear that when you mistakenly
called a different algorithm "Floyd algorithm" and when implementations to
calculate the strongest paths were discussed at this mailing list, then
it was necessary to stress that your use of the term "Floyd algorithm" was
incorrect.

******

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.

I wrote (22 Dec 2003):
> 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 (23 Dec 2003):
> 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?
>
> 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.

The reason why my mailbox says "Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:57:59 +0000"
is that your mail server uses UK time. I have received your mail at
18 Dec 2003 08:59:50 Central European Time.

Of most subscribers I don't know in which time zone they live. Therefore,
the only information that I have is the time zone used by their mail
servers.

You wrote (23 Dec 2003):
> In any case, the archives recorded dates are a better standard than your
> mailbox is.

As I am subscribed to this mailing list, I usually don't use the archives
to read current mails. By the way: This mailing list has 4 archives.

At Electorama, your mail is dated: "Wed Dec 17 23:58:01 2003"
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2003-December/011394.html

At eGroups, your mail is dated: "Thu Dec 18, 2003  7:57 am"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/election-methods-list/message/12845

At Mail Archive, your mail is dated: "Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:00:57 -0800"
http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods-electorama.com%40electorama.com/msg01461.html

At Gmane, your mail is dated: "Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:57:59 +0000"
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.politics.election-methods/3133

******

You wrote (23 Dec 2003):
> 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.

Further postings from you here about that are not welcome, either.

Markus Schulze