[EM] The answer: Yes Markus said it again.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

I suggest that you should use the term "anymore" more frequently.

I reply:

I suggest that you keep to yourself your suggestions about how I should word 
things. The word "anymore" can optionally be used to make a double 
statement, a statement about the present, and a statement about the past. I 
was making a statement about the present. Can you refer us to a grammatical 
source that says that "anymore" is needed in order for a sentence to 
indicate the present tense? If not, then I suggest that you quit the 
assertion.

If I say "I don't smoke", that doesn't mean "I have never smoked". As I 
explained before, it means that right now is part of a period during all of 
which I don't smoke. Always understood to be an extended period.

"I don't smoke", and "I have never smoked" really aren't the same, Markus. 
Take my word for it.
Likewise, "I don't call it that", and "I have never called it that" aren't 
the same.

Markus continued:

When you say that you don't call your implementation "Floyd algorithm",
then, of course, I will point you to a concrete quotation where you call
your implementation "Floyd algorithm".

I reply:

What you mean is "...a concrete situation in which you _called_ your 
implementation the Floyd algorithm". With regular verbs, we denote the past 
by the "-ed" ending. It's sometimes considered ok to informally use the 
present tense as you did, when speaking about the past, but you seem to 
believe that you're not talking about the past.

The fact that I called something the Floyd algorithm at some past time 
doesn't mean that I call it that, if you know that the present is part of a 
period during which I haven't been calling it that,a period after I've 
stopped calling it that. And you do know that. In other words, Markus, 
because  I  stopped calling it that around 18 December, then it just isn't 
true that I call it that.

Look, this mailing list is about voting sytems, and it just isn't the place 
for you to find out about verb grammar. There must be grammatical discussion 
mailing lists. Couldn't you take your questions there instsead of here? 
you're off topic, and people don't appreciate your off-topic spamming about 
your grammatical misundestandings.

You continued:

However, when you say that you
don't call your implementation "Floyd algorithm" _anymore_, then I will
consider this to be a correction of your terms.

I reply:

Consider whatever you want to, but don't keep spamming this mailing list 
about your mistaken beliefs about grammar.

This mailing list is about voting systems. Why is it important to you to 
spam the list with postings with your beliefs about the grammar of 
statements that another list member made a long time ago, statements that no 
one but you remains interested in? And about which your grammatical beliefs 
are  incorrect.

You continued:

If you only wanted to say that you don't call your implementation "Floyd
algorithm" _anymore_ and not that you had never called it "Floyd algorithm",
then why did you spam this mailing list with tons of insulting mails instead
of just saying that you don't call your implementation "Floyd algorithm"
_anymore_?

I reply:

As I've told you so many times, "anymore" is an optional way for a sentence 
to make a statement about both the present and the past. I was speaking 
about the present. I wasn't trying to make a statement about both the past 
and the present. Hence my non-use of "anymore".

You continued:

The problem is:

I reply:

No. The problem _to you_ is...  Why don't you take your problem somewhere 
else, where people might be interested in it. We here aren't interested in 
it.


You continued:

When you refuse to say that you don't call your implementation
"Floyd algorithm" _anymore_

I reply:

Markus the confused wording-Nazi. I've told you that "anymore" is optional.

You continued:

and when you insult those people who mention that
you had called your implementation "Floyd algorithm"

I reply:

...but not because you mentioned that.

I never insulted you for mentioning that I _had called_ it the Floyd 
algorithm.

You continued:

, then you make the readers
mistakenly believe that you claim that you had never called it "Floyd 
algorithm".

I reply:

No, you're the only reader who doesn't understansd the difference between 
the perfect tense and the present tense.

You condinued:

Again: Why do you believe that it is of public interest why you mistakenly
believed what about the Floyd algorithm?

I reply:

Excuse me, but did I say that it is of public interest why I mistakenly 
believed something about the Floyd algorithm? Did I recently say anything 
about that? It would seem that you are the only one who thinks it's of 
enough public interest for you to keep on about it.

You continued:

But it is clear that
when we discuss how to calculate the strengths of the beatpaths it is
necessary for me to stress that your implementation is not the Floyd
algorithm.

I reply:

In my most recent reply about this, I said: The question now is: Is Markus 
going to again assert that he was justified in pointing out that our 
algorithm wasn't the Floyd algorithm (though I've never said that he wasn't 
justified in pointing that out)? Markus has answered that quesetion for us: 
He's shown us that he's willing to still keep repeating that answer to 
something that I never said, even when I have just  discussed that behavior 
and asked if he can't quit.

You continued:

t is also clear that when I wrote on 15 Dec 2003 that you
mistakenly called your implementation "Floyd algorithm" this statement
was correct.

I reply:

Yes, and in my previouis reply on thiat issue, I asked the list if Markus is 
going to again assert that he was right to say that our implementation 
wasn't the Floyd algorithm, even though I have not been saying that he was 
incorrect to say that I once called it the Floyd algorilthm.

You continue:

Actually, instead of being happy about the fact that you have been pointed
to the fact that the strengths of the beatpaths can be calculated with the
Floyd algorithm in a runtime O(N^3)

I reply:

Thanks, but that statement is useless to me without proof. No, I'm not going 
to ask Russ to change the algorithm because of something that you say 
without proof. If You prove that the modification that you suggest would 
speed the algorithm, then I'll send your proof to Russ.  But your repetition 
of the statement doesn't give me anything that would justify my asking Russ 
to change the algorithm.

You continued:

, you are upset about the fact that the
runtime to calculate the strengths of the beatpaths isn't prohibitive.

I reply:

Did I say that I was upset about runtime that isn't prohibitive? 
Non-prohibitive runtime is a good thing. For instance,the runtime of our 
algorithm isn't prohibitive. But if you show that your modificastion  would 
shorten the runtime, then we might make the modification you suggest, unless 
we judge the the time saved is insignificant compared to the puzzlement that 
the un-obvious index-order could cause for readers.

You coninued:

Otherwise you wouldn't have insulted people

I reply:

No, not people. Just one person.

You continued:

for pointing you to the
correct version of the Floyd algorithm.

I reply:

As must be obvious to everyone but you, I've never insulted you for pointing 
to the correct version of the Floyd algorithm. I explained that to you again 
in my most recent reply on that issue. And I askd the list if Markus is 
going to again repeat his assertion that I criticized him for telling me 
that our implementation wasn't the Floyd algorithm. I'd thought that my 
asking you that would make it too uncoimforable for you to  repeat it yet 
again, after I'd called attention to it and asked if you'd say it again. But 
the answer to the question is: Yes, Markus repeated it yet again.

Since I never criticized you for giving information about the Floyd 
algorithm, I don't know to whom you're replying. Do you hear voices? Is that 
it?

Is it that you're continually posting to tell us about your hallucinations?


Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here. 
http://special.msn.com/bcentral/prep04.armx