[EM] I'm not going to waste more time replying to Russ

[Russ Paielli]

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> 
> As I said in the subject line, I'm not going to waste any more time 
> replying to Russ.

Oh, I can't wait for Mike's "non-reply"! Here it goes:

> For one thing, I've already answered all of his recycled and re-used 
> objections to wv, and to whatever else I propose.

<one paragraph of non-reply cut>

> But I will briefly comment on Russ's advocacy of methods that combine 
> ranking with ratings. Kevin had proposed such a method, and later Russ 
> announced his invention of that method on EM. Later it was pointed out 
> to Russ that that method had been proposed on EM before Russ mentioned 
> it. But even after that, Russ continues calling it by his own name for it.

That is a despicable lie by a despicable loser. First of all, I *did* 
come up with RAV independently. I then searched the EM archives and 
discovered that it had already been suggested by Kevin back in 2003, 
which I stated plainly in my first message on the topic. Note, however, 
that Kevin apparently did not push it much at all (and still doesn't). 
As far as I know, he never gave it a name. Here's the relevant message:

http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-March/014955.html

Frankly, I think it's a shame that this forum must be fouled by the 
likes of Mike Ossipoff. I still remember his pathetic lies about why he 
dissociated himself from ElectionMethods.org. He claimed that I had 
modified his definitions without his approval, which was a flat-out lie. 
This is no different, but this time the proof that he is lying is right 
in the archives. You can't hide from this one, Mike. Your slimy 
character-assassination tactics are clear for all to see.

> I'm not saying that methods that use rankings and Approval votes can't 
> be good, but they're likely to run into the 1-person-1-vote objection 
> that causes so many people to object to Approval. As I said, though the 
> objection is fallacious, a large percentage of people express opposition 
> to Approval because of it.

Stop the presses! The sage of election methods says that DMC/RAV may 
have some benefits!

Mike, you are absolutely and completely irrelevant to any advances in 
election methods. You're an amateur pedant who can't see the forest for 
the trees.