[EM] Apology over duplicated messages; Wiki_Censoring_Sleaze_Watch

Craig Carey research at ijs.co.nz
Sun Jul 13 02:44:02 PDT 2003

I apologize for sending the message in twice. I had made so many
botched attempts to get different version of the message into the
mailing list that I continued to not check before sending, and I had
forgotten that I had sent in the confirm response.

Do please delete the 1st message of the two (unless considering the

I am sure Keshet wants to have a public dispute since not replying
to my requests for the exact reasoning in private. That would probably
happen for 100% of EMers that don't follow the almost-Green party-line
of a very distant of USA.

I ask people to write up some criticisms of Dan Keshet's personal
website. I will put them online. If you want to send it to me in
2004 then that is good enough.


Don't forget that Hong Kong just had a protest and got some human
rights. I assume that Dan Keshet aims to censor the whole public.
Those Han are smarter than US university students ?.

There was some talk about opposing IRV in the past.
Here is an easy way. All those EM research groups were hoaxes weren't
they?. Why not some edit up the page that I wrote[?]:


;and have it hosted under the name "Monotonicity_rule".

I sent out to Keshet a well reasoned argument that the word "criterion"
should be altered to "rule". No reply came back. by that method the
obviously corrupted wikipedia.org has made a decision to allow two
pages on monotonicity. I suggest that the page be copied verbatim.


Why not actually do something?. I have argued that I am out through
unfairness done by Dan.

You should have more bodies over there to put against the man
of principle. : http://www.wikipedia.org/

What is an "X" in the criterion Blake ?: a candidate?, an alternative?,
or a preference?. Your monotonicity rule can't fail the Alternative Vote. 

Craig Carey
Auckland, New Zealand

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list