[EM] Russ reply, 1235 GMT, 2/25/05

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I´d  said:

>What does it mean to "prove" a criterion? :-)
>
>One defines a criterion. Then one might prove one or methods' compliance or 
>noncompliance with it.

>Is Russ trying to say that  never proved methods' compliance or 
>noncompliance with the criteria?

Russ replied:

You know that's what I meant, or you're an idiot.

I reply:

Sorry Russ, but people can´t guess what you´re trying to say unless you say 
what you mean.
Alright, sometimes we can guess, but sometimes no, your sloppy sentences 
can´t be deciphered with any reliability. Prove a criterion? :-)

Russ continued:

Mike, communicating
with you is almost like programming a computer. Leave out a semicolon
(in some languages at least), and it squawks back at you about a syntax
error. Go ahead and call me on my error, but don't be an ass and pretend
that my intended meaning was unclear.

I reply:

Your intended meaning was unclear. You´re sloppy, Russ. That´s why people on 
EM criticized the vagueness of your rewordings of my definitions at your 
website. By the way, when I said that those 4 people couldn´t find fault 
with my criteria, I should add that some did find serious fault with your 
sloppifications of my definitions at your website. People like you, Russ, 
will always be sloppy, often to the point of unintelligibleness, because 
they´ll never understand that they´re sloppy. And no, it isn´t just I who 
have said that you´re sloppy. Those EM members who criticized the vagueness 
of your rewordings of my criteria thought so too.

I´d said:

>Actually I sent those demonstrations to Russ more than once. First when he 
>firsts asked to have the criteria at his website. And again later when the 
>demonstrations were requested by someone else.

Russ replied:

Hmmm... I don't recall that. Well, maybe you did send a few, but
certainly nothing like the entire set.

I reply:

Upon request, I sent to you, more than once, demonstrations that Approval 
meets FBC, WDSC, & SARC; that PC meets WDSC & SFC; that BeatpathWinner/CSSD 
& RP meet SFC, GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC; and that Plurality & IRV fail WDSC, FBC, 
SARC, & SFC.

Russ continued:

What would be much more useful would be if you put it on a website in a
nice, organized structure rather than just spitting it out on in email.
That's how we communicate such information here in the third millenium,
Mike. Oh, wait ... I forgot. You're incapable of doing that yourself --
and you've pissed off anyone who might be willing to do it for you.

I reply:

No idea what you´re talking about. The only thing that annoyed me was your 
continual sloppification of my definitions at your website.

Maybe I´ll add the compliance/noncompliance demonstrations to the website 
where my articles are, after I update the Approval strategy articles there.

I´d said:

>But it goes without saying, that now that I've withdrawn permission for you 
>to have my articles or anything originating from me at your website, you 
>instantly become an opponent of whatever is from me, and that's ok too.

Russ replied:

That's baloney. I still oppose IRV and favor Approval

I reply:

I didn´t originate Approval or opposition to IRV.

Russ continued:

, though I now
realize that you didn't (and perhaps still don't) understand the
real-world limitations of Approval.

I reply:

What I don´t undestand is what you´re trying to say about that. But don´t 
explain it again. You´ve repeated your Approval misunderstandings enough.

I´d said:

>Aren't you going to now oppose wv Condorcet too? Because, I must warn you, 
>Russ, I was its initial proponent. Well, Norm posted quotes

Russ replied:

I'll give that more thought later.

I reply:

Yes, do. You still advocate wv Condorcet at your website. You still have my 
definitions there, regarding wv Condorcet. You don´t have any self-respect, 
do you. If you did, you wouldn´t continue to have my definitions at your 
website after I told you you didn´t have permission to have things from me 
there.

You must have no self-respect, because, after all your claims about being 
more capable,  you continue to use my definitions and advocate a method that 
was first proposed by me, someone who doesn´t even have a degree, after I´ve 
withdrawn permission to use anything from me. You need to copy from someone 
who doesn´t have a degree :-)

What is it, that with all your namecalling and claims of superiority, you 
need my definitions and the wv Condorcet class of methods that I proposed? 
:-)

You said that I was an amateur, and that you´ve gotten rid of the amateur 
things at your website, but you still have things that were from me, 
including definitions that were written by me, and a class of methods first 
proposed my me.

So much for your pretense of having an original website.

No, I probably can´t legally enforce my request that you not have things 
from me at your website. As I said, it´s just a matter of whether or not you 
have any self-respect.

>Russ had said:
>
>but the loss will only be his.
>
>I reply:
>
>What loss? I don't get royalties when my criteria are used. Take them or 
>leave them. I offer them, but I don't go out of my way to promote them.

Mike, the word "loss" doesn't apply only to financial loss. It can also
apply to reputation or recognition, for example. I assume you would like
to be recognized for your contributions like anyone else. That's where
your loss will be.

I reply:

That´s one of a number of differences between you and me. You´ll never 
understand this, Russ, but no, I don´t crave recognition or reputation as 
you do. And it´s plain that you do, because why else would you desperately 
try to keep your former website, by holding on to things from someone who 
has withdrawn permission for you to have them?  Why else would you copy the 
Approval strategy material from me that was at your website, and then offer 
it back to us as something that you derived? Your "Approval formula" is the 
expression that I derived in one of the Approval strategy articles by me 
that was at your website, when I demonstrated the optimality of 
Better-Than-Expectation.


>Russ continues:
>
>I suggest that he formally document his
>criteria in one or more technical papers and submit them to
>peer-reviewed journals or conferences.
>
>I reply:
>
>Why??  I've read enough of what is written by voting system academics to 
>know that they aren't interested in getting rid of the lesser-of-2-evils 
>problem. Getting rid of that problem is the purpose of my criteria. It 
>could be worded more generally, as the goal of minimizing need for 
>defensivse strategy, as I've defined it on EM. Minimizing the range of 
>situations in which that strategy is needed (SFC & GSFC describe conditions 
>under which certain voters won't need defensive strategy, with a complyilng 
>method), or the drasticness of taht strategy when it is needed.

So you're not even willing to try? You've simply *assumed* that your
work will be rejected and you are already complaining about the reasons
why.

I reply:

We can, for the time being, set aside the value judgements, and I´ll just 
say that I´d be wasting my time to explain about getting rid of the 
lesser-of-2-evils problem to people who aren´t interested in getting rid of 
the lesser-of-2-evils problem. I don´t have time for pointless pursuits. I 
make information available, but I don´t promote it.

Russ continued:

I do guarantee one thing, however. If you do decide to try to formally
document your ideas in journal papers, you will find out that it is not
nearly as easy as you think it will be.

I reply:

You don´t say why you think it would be difficult, or in what way you you 
think that I believe that it would be easy. But it would be a lot easier due 
to not having you sloppifying my definitions.

Russ said:

-- especially given the massive amount of time you have already
devoted to the subject. How long have you been posting those multi-page
diatribes, Mike? Since well into the previous millenium?

I reply:

I have no idea what you´re talking about. How long have I been writing about 
voting systems? About as long as I´ve wanted to. The previous millenium only 
ended a few years ago, Russ.

If I write about something for long time then I should want to write about 
it to people whose interests don´t coincide with mine? You apparently 
believe that my effort is all wasted unless I communicate it to some sort of 
fraternity of authority.

I´d said:

>I'm not trying to build a career.

Russ replied:

But you are obviously trying to build a reputation.

I reply:

No. I´m not. If I cared about reputation I wouldn´t be replying to you. I´m 
not doing any of this for personal gain, and that includes glory, 
reputation, recognition, etc., etc. Those are things that are important to 
you.

Russ continued:

Now that I think about, I guess I can start to understand why you are so
friggin' hostile. I would probably be hostile too if I didn't get paid
for the work I do.

I reply:

Again, I have no idea what you´re talking about. What I´ve been doing in 
voting systems, I´ve willingly done for no other reason than  because I 
wanted to do my part.

Russ continued:

Then again, I'd still like to know what you *do* get
paid for, Mike. But apparently you are too embarrassed to tell us.

I reply:

You´ve asked that question three or four times now, and so I´ll answer it 
again for the third or fourth time: You´re a dangerous lunatic. It wouldn´t 
be a good idea to tell you where I work or where I reside.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/