[EM] Butt off OSSIPOFF: can't Lanphier expell him ?

[Craig Carey]

Mr OSSIPOFF of Hotmail.com says that he replied to me which I assume
is untrue. Currently I get an e-mail message every 5 to 6 minutes and
most are from mailing list servers that will e-mail me when they
can't send an e-mail message. Typically for month after month no
mailing list server complains except the server of
 rtems-users*@*rtems.com, which appears to be overly sensitive.

I count that I have sent exactly 47 e-mail messages privately to
MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> and all happen to be after
3 April 2000, which was when MIKE OSSIPOFF reappeared, throwing
the mailing list back into contact with the moronic that MIKE
has striven to leave unimproved.

In contrast the best Mr OSSIPOFF was able to do was to send only
2 e-mails, and both were aiming to advance a basic theme of lying
about having a probability distribution. I assume the mailing
list still won't have a single probability distribution function
from the liar of Hotmail.com even if it has 40,000 e-mails. Yet
my requests for that function seem to be the only indication in
my private e-mail from Mike that led him to make no reply forever
afterwards.

The purpose of my writing to Mike Ossipoff was mainly to comment
on new lies sent to the Election Methods List.

It is impossible to criticise what seems to be the world's *least*
competent (most verbose) theorist on preferential voting in secret
using private. It could not ever be that case that he wants to
avoid getting accused of being a liar in this mailing list.

Did Mike reply and fail. He certainly says so, but he did not say
that he sent an e-mail to my address (or any address that I have) when
making his attempt to send an e-mail to me. My suggestion here is
that he is seeking to mislead. A usual aim of Mike is to not state
that he knows that he holds that purpose.

Note that below Mike says that he got a request for a number of
proofs from me(*1). I did not send a request privately and I did not
send a request publicly. I recall my thinking, which is that this
mailing list saw me ask MIKE OSSIPOFF for evidence that he can
solve a 2 candidate election, and he failed to reply.

In (*2) I am referred to something. Again I complain about MIKE
OSSIPOFF's trick of trying to defend himself by commanding others
to turn their attention that does not exist and/or is not
described.

Now that Mr OSSIPOFF has identified me asking a request that I
never did address to him or that would be transferred to him,
I request a reason for the withholding.
In (*4) Mr OSSIPOFF claims he wuill not be believed that he
proved something. That is a natural result of making false
claims that he used reasoning. Is there any other subscriber
who does not use reasoning, or who seeks to produce nothing for
the Election the theme of being able to lie endlessly over
eventually thousands of e-mail messages, while at no time is it
correctly alleged that that would be deliberately done.




http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-January/011977.html

>[EM] I did reply to Craig's e-mail 
>MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com 
>Sat Jan 31 23:29:01 2004 
>
>I replied to the e-mail that Craig sent, but received a message saying
>that the domain couldn't be found.
>
>I'd replied to suggest that Craig send the document in the form of
>ordinary e-mail, instead of as an attachment.
>
>In his posting, Craig has asked me for a number of proofs. But Craig
(*1)
>doesn't even believe that I've defined FBC. So it's unliikely that
>Craig will believed that I've proved anything. So it wouldn't make much
>sense to take time to write proofs for Craig. (*3)
>
>However I refer Craig to some demonstrations that I posted early in
>2000, showing that the best wv methods pass SFC, GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC. (*2)
>
>I haven't tested every possible rank method by SFC, but I've tested all
>the widely-proposed ones.

You aim to write only no-hopers since forgiving yourself over having
lied about having used your rules at www.electionmethods.org .

MIKE would would be imaging that there is no inteligent and truthful
upper 34/34 ths of the mailing list's audience. Every document that
MIKE OSSIPOFF writes is fashioned according to these twin purposes:
 * Most of the statements are false.
 * Mone of that is deliberate. Despite how he puts over 10 unthinkably
   untrue statements into many of his paragraphs in each message.

Who creates rights for man except committees and so on that fashion
the wording of them ?. We don't hear about Mr Lanphier and I
confidently assume a large number of posting members didn't make powerful
well designed pushy statements, etc., but confined themselves making a
correct and reasonable case and then lost. To cut the rule to be very
narrow, it could be this:
  * total blocking (or moderating by a competent or truthful person
    who can read all that is written) of: (a) liars, who (b) are
    effectively anonymous, and who (c) will make every message be a
    vehicle for the purpose that lying with the purpose being partly
    that of blinding readers to the fact that the trick keep up a
    poker straight face over whether or not the liar has figured out
    that lying is occurring.

    When I peek behind the scenes I see some pro-Approval bias and
    then the fact that if Mr OSSIPOFF looks at an IRV ballot paper
    he detects a compelling desire to explain how "she" or "he" would
    want to pay closer attention to his words. What never seems to
    get properly presented or acknowledged by OSSIPOFF is that
    deemphasizing a ballot paper does not change anything.

    A problem very similar to this could occur if the member or the
    list owner were low IQ jellyfish. Contact with the owner can
    be so disappointing that is may be best to find fault with the
    American students who seem to leave and quite typically without
    leaving clear analyses behind.

What is the list owner actually aiming for: as far as I know he says
something like this: he is not going to change OSSIPOFF's diapers
and start moderating. I think we are close total blocking of OSSIPOFF
since that is almost what would be obtained using a truth-only rule.
I would myself prefer moderating. It is a nice list for it proves
that USA could hold a last position (no data on Turkey) for 80 years
or more. 

Anyway, to sharpen the rule against OSSIPOFF so that it is scientific
enough to hit a bolt on a satellite, might result an almost identical
defence from the owner: diaper changing thoughts. How that would be
precisely criticising a laser sharp rule is unknown.

>
>It's obvious that Craig is the teacher from whom Markus has been taking
>lessons on grammar, and  standards for accuracy of statements and
>relevance of replies.

I wish to reply privately and he blocked my e-mail from me to him.
Also he does not write privately. Also Mr Schulze is basically not
replying to most of my messages. Mr Schulze is not learning, as far
as I can sense, and since I am short of ideas then I would need to
see a list of new ideas. Mr Schulze is student of the ideal of
keeping 5 (rarely, if ever, disclosed) Real numbers, constant, which
guarantees an elimination of the principle of fairness that descended
from the Roman Empire into modern German case law. Some mathematicians
can have true ideas switched-in, in minutes. With MIKE overseeing his
learning speed so that it takes 50 decades or whatever to learn
what others can absorb in minutes if true, I am suspicious of his
theme that he drops out teachings (garbage evasions) and others
then transmute that into understandings. To a mathematician,
understanding has a feature of greatly lowering the chance of
discovering unintentionally that a viewpoint is wrong. To cut
the crap (like in the new Star Trek movie) I stopped at alleging
he's a liar instead of saying that he uses understandings.

I thought that Bill Gates of MS. can patent important ideas of MIKE
OSSIPOFF that pass through Hotmail. If so (I have not checked) then
MIKE might not be after fame.

MIKE is a person who can't ever lie in private e-mail and keep that
going for more than 2 e-mails. MIKE OSSIPOFF is the number one
person emitting the idea that every single argued correct claims that
proves he is lying yet again, can only be put on the public record.

It is apparently impossible to get a private message to MIKE correctly
saying that yet again he is lying. Unquestionably he trust that
the anonymous is the entirety of the defence of his personal reputation.
Everything is strongly suggestion of the name MIKE OSSIPOFF not being
his real name.

I just unsubscribed but I joined again since it was amazing to see
MIKE state in public he had sent an e-mail. We had a fallout because
(it seems) I requested a probability distribution function.

How could Mr Shulze be learning from me when in a very recent message
he implied that other theorists had probability distribution functions.


>
>Mike Ossipoff

If you got the responses then I think all readers would find that the
range of responses from Mr Lanphier does not do justice to the diversity
of different arguments for reform that were made. Americnas would be 
concealing their failures with Mr Lanphier. Mr Lanphier does not
actually seem to read the complaints. I stopped complaining years ago.

This cess pool of Robert Lanphier is not even an experiment.

E-mail Mr Lanphier if wishing access to the results. He writes as
if a Republican party top official and I expect all such requests
to fail. I think he "desires" to have a mailing list. "It is as
simple as that". Then a liar turns up: one who has just about no
noticeable serious interest in producing a defence whenever that is
alleged. It is one of the names that Mr Schulze put in his recent
PDF article for Voting Matters (appearing in Issue 17). I concluded
that the journal is not edited well enough for me.

He wrote on how reading MIKE's e-mail would involve an act against
MIKE similar to that of changing a baby's nappies. Mr Lanphier didn't
seem to contemplate the possibility of having and following rules,
or protocols carefully designed for the need. Even extremely narrow
weak rules mindful of MIKE's purpose (which have not got much choice
except to take an interest in) are readily going to total blocking
of MIKE, making the nappy changing focus of our list owner, seem to
have missed the topic.

Suppose we consider emotions only: there is no desire to know.
Mr Schulze can write on that.

Mike has about 0 true followers since they find too many problems
in each of his rules to be able to fix them. That is after making
a serious attempt to fix them. Once starting it seems likely they
would all be trapped in failure (with their satisfaction saying
when to stop).

I ask everyone to list the names of those who have a trusting
sympathy that MIKE should be allowed what he feels. After the
3.5 years of about zero intent to be truthful, it seems like it
should be stopped. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was
made by man for man. It is a statement of desire. 

What USA does not need is persons to wrongly lose and then have
a belief that they can't know that, offered silently to them.
It is that same ancient past that could result if there was years
of hoax teaching and hoax research, directed by Mike.

He just lied about writing to me and directed me out to non-existing
documents. Lanphier believed in Condorcet which guarantees a dead
end and an absence of fairness for all. Maybe he lost interest now
that he is becoming more convinced that Condorcet is a dead end.
Of course it is a dead end: there would never be a lot of progress
in science when trying to optimize something that is extremely
complex, while publicly and privately believing that the object
(polytopes) definitely approximately actually maybe really do not
exist. That is the view of Mr Schulze, Forest Simmons, Ossipoff.

Is the list to run like this because Mr Lanphier has no interest.
We are blocked by Lanphier history deliberate refusals and so there
could be a desire to maintain one of the least intelligent mailing
lists that a tiny number of American students and Joe W can produce.

How dull and hopeless some of mathematician Joe Wein-whathisname's
messages are (the teacher of Long Beach). Maybe Mike would comment
on some of his writings.

The basic idea I have is that certainly no improvement is to
be hoped for. We already have replacement lists. I might complain
a little extra since I alone seem to do the good research into
fairer voting methods. Meanwhile here, there is no use of the word
fair. Perhaps false claims of fairness would occur, but MIKE has
not formed a belief that fairness (e.g. from Rob Lanphier) is
desirable. Perhaps Mr Lanphier also does not harbour a desire to
be fair to subscribers (he did contemplate have votes over the
posters).

Nothing improves here, after all, I am writing on the intellctual
interests of US students and so on. I just want to unsubscribe
now. Before I quit, I see a swelling case that Americans do not
avoid algebra because they dislike. That motive is not getting
that realistic on taking steps resulting in new knowledge.


Craig Carey