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

[Rob Lanphier]

Craig,

I have a very strong anti-censorship bias on this list, so no, I won't 
be kicking Mike off of this list.  If I were to kick anyone off of this 
list, Craig, it would be you.  Quite frankly, you are the archetypal 
"net.kook", as defined here:
http://dict.die.net/kook/

So, should I make it a policy to ban net.kooks Craig?  If so, can I take 
you off now, or will you just unsubscribe on your own?

Rob

Craig Carey wrote:

>
>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
>
>----
>Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>  
>