[EM] Re: MIKE OSSIPOFF's Paul Kislanko reply

[Paul Kislanko]

Paul said:
>>, and what most people on this list do is switch criteria
>>from a post to a reply to an objection to their post.

Mike replied:

>The meaning of that sentence isn't quite clear. But it suggests that people 
>switch criteria. I don't know about that. People seem quite consistent about 
>what criteria they prefer. Some like LNH, and they seem to not switch to 
>saying they like something else better. I've consistenly expressed 
>preference for methods that meet the defensive strategy criteria, FBC, SFC, 
>GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC.

Well, I meant it to be clear. The most recent exchanges I've had on this list were when I replied to something specific related to one specific criteria, and was dragged into a long (and tiresome) debate by someone who replied "but that doesn't apply to" (pick any of the things it wasn't meant to apply to nor was ever claimed to apply to).

Just from reading threads and trying to keep threads straight, I find it very difficult to follow because that is a common occurrence.

Maybe the veterans are used to it, but they also say "you should've checked the archives" and for the reason I mentioned the archives aren't all that useful, since the pertinent information is usually buried in an off-topic reply. 

My point was an observation, not a criticism.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20040124/238244e7/attachment-0002.htm>