[EM] Russ's hopefully final reply

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Russ said:

Folks,

This is my final reply to Mike

I reply:

That's great, if you can really keep that promise.

Russ continued:

, then I will block his email address.
already blocked the one he was using to communicate with me privately

I reply:

  Actually, as I said, it was I who blocked Russ's e-mail some time ago. 
Though I've sent nothing to his e-mail addresses, he can block e-mail if it 
makes him feel better.

Russ continued:

I'd said:

>Of course, we'd all like to believe that anyone can be reached. I found 
>that to not be so, and so I blocked Russ's e-mail, and that led to his 
>raging and ranting on EM.

Russ replies:

That is another lie, folks. What happened was that I blocked his email
addres

I reply:

  Russ demonstrates the elementary-school inclination to copy things that 
have been said about him. For instance, copying word-for-word some terms 
that I've used when referring to his anti-evolution sources. And now his new 
claim that he has blocked my e-mail, after I'd previously mentioned that I'd 
blocked his e-mail.

  Yes of course it makes no difference who blocked e-mail first,  and the 
good thing is that, if his word is any good (but when has it been any good?) 
he won't post any more of his rants.

Russ continued:

s, and then I discovered later that he had posted a message behind
my back on EM in which he fabricated a story about why
ElectionMethods.org was "canceled."

I reply:

No, actually I accurately told why I told Russ that he no longer had 
permission to have my articles at his website, or anything from me that he 
couldn't find from other sources.

Russ continued:

Mike is a sneaky, dishonest guy.
Apparently he thought I would never see his phoney message on EM, but he
was wrong.

I reply:

No, it was obvious that someone would send a copy of it to you, or you'd 
check.

Russ continued:

I must admit, folks, that I was lazy and foolish when I decided to
partner with Mike on ElectionMethods.org. I should have at least spent
some time on EM, and I should not have simply assumed that Mike was a
normal, sane person. I am trying to do you folks a favor by informing
you of Mike's bizarre ideas.

II reply:

But you did that favor a long time ago, so it hardly justifies your 
continued ranting. And no matter how many times you repeat that it's bizarre 
to not believe everything that your tv tells you, things aren't so merely 
because you repeat them.

  Anyway, thanks for demonstrating to all of us, by your postings, how much 
of a sane person you are.

Russ continued:

A couple of years ago, Mike expressed an interest in learning to do some
programming

I reply:

Actually I'd done some programming, going back to the 70s. No, not 
professionallly, and just using the programming languages that were 
available on college computers at that time: Fortran Wat4, Fortran 77, and 
BASIC.

Russ continued:

, which he had never done.

I reply:

  No, actually I had.

Russ continued:

He asked me what language I
recommend. I told him that I like Python

II reply:

I'd read recommendations of Python from a few sources, that suggested that 
it was the easiest of the currently popular programming languages. Russ said 
that he liked it too.

Rss continued:

Then we decided to post some CSSD code on the site. He said he would
send pseudocode, and I would implement it in Python.

I reply:

  Actually no. At that time it hadn't occurred to me that I could make the 
job a lot easier for myself by sending the algorithm to Russ in pseudocode. 
At that time I felt that it would be necessary to send it in a programming 
language, of course one known to both Russ and to me. Python seemed like the 
best language for that purpose. Of course pseudocode would have been easier.

Russ continued:

Mike had never
actually obtained access to a Python interpreter, but I suggested that
he could take a cut at a Python implementation and I would fix the
syntax, debug it, and test it. In other words, the pseudocode would be
written in Python.

I reply:

Python was agreed-upon, but I wasn't aware that Python is pseudocode.

  Russ continued:

Well, Mike sent me piece of junk that was chocked full of both syntax
errors and logic errors.

I reply:

Incorrect. . There were some things that Russ wanted to do differently. In 
some instances I convinced him that what I'd suggested was better. In some 
instances he did it as he preferred.
Those were things that would have worked fine either way.

  As for errors, they were of 2 types: 1) trivial syntax errors like 
forgetting the ":" at the end of some lines; 2) The wrong guess about the 
meaning  of ambiguous wording in a Python book, regarding how Python reads 
array notation. Those were the only types of errors.

Russ continued:

Rather than spend all kinds of time trying to
make it work, I replied and suggested how he could fix some of the
syntax errors at least. Then I tried to explain to him what everyone who
has ever written one line of code knows: you can't get any nontrivial
program working without trial and error. Any nontrivial programming
requires *testing* -- often *lots* of testing.
\
  I reply:

Of course I agreed with that, and didn't expect my Python to be bug-free the 
first time. As I said, it had syntax errors, and misinterpretation of 
ambiguous wording in a Python book,about how Python reads array notation. As 
for errors relating to what the program should do, , no there weren't any 
errors of that type.

Russ said that's why it would be better if I actually tested the program in 
Python. I preferred to letl Russ do that.

Russ replied:

But Mike was technically incapable of getting access to a Python
interpreter (or any other language either, as far as I know)

  I reply:

  Russ seems to be saying that my reason for not implementing Python was 
that it was too complicated a task. I'll never know how complicated a task 
it would have been, though, because I had a lot of other things to do, and 
wasn't inclined to deal with it.
\
Russ continued:

, so Mike then explained that he couldn't handle the Python convention of
using indentation, in lieu of "endif" and "endfor" delimiters, to define
the logical structure. By this time I was starting to wonder about
Mike's level of intelligence, but I figured it was probably just a
matter of personal preference.

I reply:

No, it wasn't just a personal preference.

  Actually again Russ's account is incorrect: I'd repeatedly made it clear 
that _e-mail_ sometimes can't deal with indentations. Sometimes e-mail 
alters columns, and displaces the indentations, making Python's indentations 
into garbage. I clearly explained to Russ that that was why I wanted to 
include the "endif", "endfor", "endwhile", etc. I said that, when the 
program arrives, he could remove the delimiters. I liked the idea of leaving 
them in, labeled as comments, so that anyone couuld easily copy and e-mail 
the program.

  Russ continued:

A also explained to him, in passing, that he could put in comments by
simply preceeding them with a "#". I even showed him an example of how
to do it.

I reply:

Thank you Russ, but I'd already read about that  notation for comments, in 
the Python book that I'd purchased.

Russ continued:

Well, on his next iteration, he did something that really amazed me. He
had corrected some of the syntax errors, and he sent me the code
embedded in an email message (rather than attaching it). No problem. I
can easily cut and paste a section of code.

I reply:

Yes, that seemed to me something that would be easy.

Russ continued:

He has preceded the actual
code with a lengthy explanatory message to me that was perhaps a page or
two long.

I reply:

I don't remember the particular e-mail, or how long the message was. When 
sending a program, sometimes there are issues about the program that should 
be commented on, and presumably that's what Russ is referring to.

Russ continues:

This lengthy preamble was obviously not intended to be a
comment to be included with the code, yet Mike had preceded every line
of it with a "#" comment delimiter!

  I reply:

   So let's find out if I've got this right: I'd preceded the lines of text 
with the comment marker, so you're assuming that I hadn't intended for it to 
be able to be included with the program. A more obvious explanation would be 
that I added the comment markers in case you copied the whole thing as a 
program. You'd said something to the effect that the program shouldn't have 
anything e-mailed with it, just the program. But it seemed important to make 
my comments in the same e-mail. Therefore, since you wanted the e-mail to 
contain nothing but program, I added the comment markers so that it could 
all be program.

It isn't clear why that's so important to you, or why you waste the list's 
time and archive space by writing at such length on a topic so off-topic as 
your impressions of programs that I've written years ago.

Russ continues:

He fancies himself to be some sort of expert in
voting algorithms

I reply:

  Excuse me, Russ, but I've never said that I was an expert on voting 
algorithms. You, however, were telling people that I was a world-class 
expert on voting systems--until, of course, you found out that I find fault 
with your tv's account of 9/11, and question the legitimacy of unverifiable 
election count results. :-) Or, more accurately, till I told you to delete 
my articles from your website, and blocked your e-mail.

I reply:

, yet he is incapable of writing a basic computer
program.

I reply:

I'd been writing and using computer programs since the 70s.  Because Python 
was new to me, I at first made such syntax errors as leaving out ":"   And, 
as I said, I mis-guessed the meaning of a Python book's ambiguous 
description of how Python reads the notation that could be used for 
multidimensional arrays. Later I wrote my Python programs in a way that 
didn't use Python's facility for those arrays, but which, rather used a 
function to make the arrays using the book's more-unambiguously-described 
1-dimensional lists. That made it more useful for copying into other 
languages, , since pretty much all languages have at least 1-dimensional 
arrays, but not all (at least at that time) had multidimensional ones, and 
different languages  use different notations for them.

Russ continued:

He is a pedantic pretender. My embarrassingly dumb mistake was
not to figure that out sooner.

I reply:

His embarrassing and dumb mistake was to complain about and argue against my 
withdrawal of my articles from his website. What was wrong with Russ, to 
want the articles of a pedantic pretender and pathetic amateur? :-)
.
Russ continues:

he never did see fit to tell us his occupation

I reply:

No, but I told you why I won't tell you where I work, where I reside, or 
anything else about me: You seem like a dangerously unstable lunatic.

Russ continued:

and level of
education

RI reply:

Russ really wants to know. Russ boasts that he has an engineering degree 
from Stanford. Maybe true, maybe delusion. If true, then good for you, Russ. 
You want us to know that you're good at something. If so, then it would 
probably be better to stick with that. Because, if so, then why do you feel 
a need to keep repeating the same ignorant comments here? Haven't you 
anything else to do?

Maybe I didn't make this clear enough before, so I'll be more explicit with 
it: If anything that I say seems incorrect, or doesn't make sense on its own 
merits, then disregard it.

  In voting system discussions and articles, one really must judge what is 
said on its own merits. Authority and credentials aren't very helpful. For 
isntance, Russ claims that there's something that he's good at, but his 
voting system postings sound like those from the typical pretentious and 
ignorant  crank.

If anyone wants to judge what I say about voting systems on whether I've 
attended Stanford to study some different subject, that's their business. In 
fact, I don't benefit from my voting system work. It wouldn't affect me if 
everyone said: "Russ is right, Mike doesn't have the credentials in some 
other subject to make him credible on voting systems."

I've merely felt that I should do my part, and I have done my part. For me, 
that's enough. What others do or don't do, isn't my business.  I've 
furnished information, and what, if anything, is done with it isn't the 
important thing.

As for academic details, you can believe that I want to conceal them if you 
want to, but I just consider it an unreasonable  question. If you know me at 
all, after all this time, you know that I wouldn't want to try to gain 
credibility or authority by having someone mistakenly believe that I have 
credentials or authority that I don't have. So am I refusing to tell 
academic details because my academic record wouldn't be impressive enough 
and I want you to think I have more credential-authority than I do, or  
because it's just none of Russ's business, is irrelevant here, and is an 
unreasonable question? Just assume that I have no credential-authority. As I 
said, I've never expected anything that I say to be accepted because of 
authority or credentials.

Anyway, it isn't clear just what else Russ thinks that I should accomplish 
in order to establish credibility.

If Russ can take pride in somethng else that he's done elsewhere, then good 
for him. But no boasting about a degree can make his postings here betteror 
more original or more rational than they are.

As for the degree that Russ boasts of, I'm not just trying to be critical 
when I say that it would be surprising if his claim is true. He just doesn't 
sound like someone sane or responsible  enough for that. .  But I won't make 
an issues of that. I don't take a position on whethe or not Russ has that 
degree.

  If he does have the degree, how can it be explained?

  Was his father an alumnus there?

Did his father make big donations to the university?

  Did Russ's teachers like him enough and feel sorry enough for him to give 
him C grades that he hadn't actually earned?

Or is the degree just a delusion?

I don't claim to know the explaination for the apparent contradiction 
between Russ degree claim and his postings here. But it doesn't matter. No 
degree can make Russ's posted statements, on voting systems or anything 
else, have validity that they don't have.

Now, let's find out if Russ can keep his promise to quit the ranting, 
raving, frothing-at-the-mouth postings.

Mike Ossipoff

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