[EM] Re: Mike's Mistake, part 2

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Russ says:

First of all, I always informed you of any revisions I made to your
wording.

I reply:

No, I usually found about about the sloppifications when someone posted 
about them on EM, or otherwise told me about them. You never e-mailed to me 
to say: I've just changed the wording of a definition of yours, in the 
following way. Never happened. I got to be surprised by hearing about your 
sloppifications via postings to EM about them.

It's ridiculous to claim that I agreed to those sloppifications of my 
definitions. I objected to them whenever I found out about them. You always 
justified them as "smoothing out the wording" for public consumption. But it 
didn't bring any benefit when it made your rewordings an embarrassment, when 
people, on EM, pointed out their ambiguity and sloppiness.

You continue:

Furthermore, the material was all posted publicly, where you
were free to examine it at any time and report back errors.

I reply:

I didn't have time to keep checking on you.

You continue:

I was almost
always responsive with any revisions you requested -- and you know it.

I reply:

Maybe. But the rewordings were too many for me to have time to check for, 
catch, and object to.

You continue:

If any "sloppy" definitions appeared at the site, you had signed off on
them either explicitly or implicitly.

I reply:

That's ridiculous. Why would I "sign off on" someone else's wording of a 
definition of mine, when it changes the meaning, when it is sloppy and 
ambiguous?

And what does it mean to "sign off on [something] implicitly"? To not have 
time to check on you often enough to catch the error at the website?

You continue:

For you to place the blame on me demonstrates an unwillingness to take 
responsibility for your own errors.

I reply:

You change the wording of my definitions, changing their meaning, and then 
you call that my error, because I didn't have time to check on you often 
enough to catch you at it? And you speak of taking responsibility for one's 
errors.

You continue:

But none of that is really the point anyway. The point is that you
dissociated yourself from ElectionMethods.org because we had a nasty
argument about the 9/11 terrorist incident.

I reply:

Who asked you to bring all that up again? I've been posting on topic only. 
It wasn't about the 9/11 issue. It was about your conduct and behavior. 
Because of that, I no longer wanted to work with you. Thanks to your  
behavior here, no one here has any doubt about what I'm referring to, or 
would be willing to work with you under the same circumstances.

You continue:

You were (and probably still
are) convinced that the whole thing was orchestrated by the Bush
administration to consolidate power

I reply:

You're a fruitcake loony-toon crank who claims that evolution of species by 
natural selection has never taken place.

You exhibited errors that a 6th grader shouldn't make, when you tried to 
justify your funny claims about how the government is allegedly 
double-taxing people.

You "independently" invented DMC, coincidentally at a time when it was being 
much discussed on EM  :-)


You continue:

-- but I have enough common sense to
know how ridiculous that notion is. That's why our partnership on the
website ended.

I reply:

I ended the website collaboration. You at first tried to object to my ending 
of the website collaboration and my withdrawal of my articles from the 
website.

Because of your conduct and behavior and bizarrely problem personality. No, 
not because of sloppy definitions.

Mike

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement