[EM] To James re: ATLO

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Mike wrote:
>I already said this, but it was buried in a long posting, and I wanted to 
>say it with its own subject-line.
>If the A & B voters apply ATLO below their favorite, and rank sincerely,
>the co-operation/defection dilemma in James' example doesn't happen.
>Defection is foiled. In particular, when the A voters use ATLO and vote 
>sincerely,
>the B voters, if they truncate or order-reverse against A, can't accomplish 
>anything but the election of C. They'd know that, and they wouldh't try
>it.
>Mike Ossipoff

James replied:

Sorry, Mike, but I don't know what ATLO is. Please don't expect me to keep
track of all your acronyms... there are just too many.

I reply:

James, I couldn't care less what you keep track of. I've defined AERLO & 
ATLO on EM in recent months. The intially posted definitions were in 
postings that had the unabbreviated names of the options as their subject 
line, so it can't be that they're difficult to find.  But  I repeated their 
definition for you recently on EM.

The posting "ATLO foils defection in James' example" wasn't posted just for 
you. It was posted to the list. It doesn't matter if there's someone (you) 
who doesn't bother looking up the definition of the term used in the posting 
that you were replying to. Nor does it matter what opinions are held by one 
person (you) who's more inclined toward arrogant posturing than finding out 
about the subject that he expounds on.

The world is full of jackasses, and one more or less doesn't make any 
difference.

I've done you the undeserved courtesy of replying to your long, long, 
rambling postings about your opinions of Condorcet problems. I replied to 
your first one even though it was so long that my reply wouldn't post for 
some days. I even began replying to your 2nd one, which merely repeats all 
the statements that I'd already replied to.

You can forgive me if I don't waste any more of my time replying to your 
latest long posting of repetition. Or any subsequent postings by you. That's 
partly because it's a waste of time to talk to someone who won't look up the 
meaning of the terms that I use, though they've been recently posted, and 
even repeated for him in recent postings. If you expected me to write out 
the definition of every term that I use, each time I use it, then you're 
asking too much. Communication with such a person isn't possible.

As I always say when I stop replying to someone: When I don't reply to 
James' postings (including the last 2/3 of the one that I began replying to 
yesterday), that doesn't mean that he's said something irrefutable--it's 
just that I'm not going to waste any more time wading through his postings 
and replying to them.

You continued:

thanks,
James

I reply:

You're welcome.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/