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

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

again: Instead of saying "Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd algorithm."
and bombarding those with insults who mentioned that you mistakenly
called your implementation "Floyd algorithm", it would have been better
if you had said "I don't call that the Floyd algorithm anymore." to stress
that you had corrected your terms.

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> I suggest that you keep to yourself your suggestions about how I should
> word things.

When I said that your use of the term "Floyd algorithm" was incorrect,
then this wasn't a suggestion about how you should word things. This was
a warning to the members of the Election Methods mailing list that your
use of this term was incorrect. Or do you want to say that when you use a
term in an incorrect or misleading manner then everybody has to use this
term in this manner?

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> 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.

On the other side, when you say "Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd
algorithm." then you make me believe that you claim that I have made
a mistake. However, I haven't made a mistake since when I wrote on
15 Dec 2003 that you called your implementation "Floyd algorithm"
my observation was correct.

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> If I say "I don't smoke", that doesn't mean "I have never smoked".

On the other side, when I see you smoking and I ask you for a cigarette and
you then stub out your cigarette and scream "Wrong. I don't smoke." and call
me an "idiot" and a "confused wording-Nazi" for saying that I have just seen
you smoking, then, of course, you make me believe that you claim that I erred
when I thought that I saw you smoking.

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> 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.

On the other side, when I wrote on 15 Dec 2003 that you called your
implementation "Floyd algorithm" my observation was correct.

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> 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.

Actually, it is you who spams this mailing list with lessons in English
grammar. I agree with David Gamble: "One of your rhetorical techniques
is to mock and highlight unintentional errors of grammar and spelling."

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> 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.

When I wrote that your use of the term "Floyd algorithm" was incorrect, then
I didn't point to a _grammatical_ error, I pointed to a _mathematical_ error.

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> Markus continued:
>
> The problem is: When you refuse to say that you don't call your implementation
> "Floyd algorithm" _anymore_ and when you insult those people who mention that
> you had called your implementation "Floyd algorithm", then you make the readers
> mistakenly believe that you claim that you had never called it "Floyd algorithm".
>
> I reply:
>
> Markus the confused wording-Nazi. I've told you that "anymore" is optional.

I guess with your statement you want to say that you prefer terms like
"confused wording-Nazi" to terms like "anymore".

******

You wrote (29 Jan 2004):
> 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?

On the other side, I don't know why you are so upset. You admitted that you
mistakenly believed Eppley's algorithm to be Floyd's algorithm and you admitted
that you mistakenly called Eppley's algorithm "Floyd's algorithm". But instead
of thanking me for pointing you to your error, you spam this mailing list with
annoying and insulting mails.

Markus Schulze