[EM] Comments on Approval posting

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I realize that people aren't interested in these postings in which Russ 
posts his astonishingly ignorance and I try to help him understand what he's 
talking about. There' s no reason why his education should take place on 
this mailing list. Take it off-list? Of course, and, as I said, I recommend 
that Russ get his elementary education elsewhere. I don't deceive myself 
into believing that anyone is interested in hearing me try to explain Russ's 
elementary errors to him. Of course, by replying to him, that just 
encourages him, and so you get your inbox &/or the EM archives filled with 
Russ's frothing-at-the-mouth ranting & raving. I realize that my replies are 
"enabling" him to do that, and so I'm going to quit replying to him.

In fact things have become very busy for me right about now, and it might be 
up to a week before I post again. In any case, I might not have time to 
reply to or comment on any more of Russ's postings, and, if I don't, that 
shouldn't be taken to mean that he's said something irrefutable.

Russ said:

Let me preface this post by first apologizing to all who are annoyed by
this public fracas with Mike.

I reply:

But who's doing all the ranting? I've just been answering your questions and 
mis-statements about Approval strategy, a courtesy that a newcomer deserves, 
but one which you're showing yourself undeseving of.

Russ continued:

Let me point out, however, that it was
Mike, not I, who introduced every off-topic subject to this forum.

I reply:

No, you introduced the 9/11 topic, for no other reason that you believed 
that it would discredit me if anyone knew that I find the media explanation 
fishy.

I mentioned your anti-evolution beliefs, and your Leftist media conspiracy 
theory only because you'd already brought up the subject of beliefs that you 
consider wacko, unpopular, or beyond-the-pale.


And
it was Mike, not I, who initiated the insults and the patronizing tone.

I reply:

Well, which is it? Are my replies to you insulting, or patronizing? Or maybe 
they're insulting because they're patronizing. But how do you expect someone 
to reply to your errors, other than by politely trying to let you know what 
they are?

Now, having brought up the off-topic 9/11 issue, you return to it again.

Russ says:

As I wrote earlier, and as he has since corroborated, Mike is absolutely
convinced that the 9/11 attacks were organized and planned by the Bush
administration.

I reply:

That's at least the 3rd time you've repeated that on EM.

I'll repeat what I said: The official media explanation contradicts the 
evidence in so many ways that it would be ridiculous to say that it isn't 
questionable. Administration participation in 9/11 is much more consistent 
with the evidence.

You imply that that is beyond the pale. But in '62 the joint chiefs of staff 
authorized "Project Northwood", which involved carrying out attacks in the 
U.S. and against U.S. passenger aircraft, and attributing the attacks to 
Cuba, to justify an invasion of Cuba. That isn't a conspiracy theory, it's 
historical fact, obtained via the freedom-of-information act. No, the 
project wasn't actually implemented, but it was authorized.

General Smedly Butler was an important participant in many empire-protecting 
military adventures in many countries. He even referred to himself as the 
corporate interests'  mafia enforcer. He did it so well that during the 
'30s, an organization consisting of some of the U.S.'s most major 
corporations approached him with their plan for a military coup in the U.S. 
The original "march on Washington". Butler instead reported the intended 
coup. Again, that's established history, not conspiracy theory. And it shows 
again that your trust is a bit misplaced.

My point with those things is that administration participation in an 
attack, for the purpose of gaining power or justifying an invasion isn't 
unprecedented or implausible.

The list goes on. It's generally accepted now that the Roosevelt 
administration intentionall allowed Pearl Harbor and that the Gulf of Tonkin 
attack by North Vietnamese craft was fake.

So your unswerving loyalty and trust aren't justified.

But I never said that the administration organized Al Qaida's attack, only 
that the evidence suggests that they  participated in it by co-operating 
with it and facilitating it. It's no secret that Al Qaida is to a large 
extent a U. S. creation anyway or that the Bush family has extensive 
long-time ties with the Bin Laden family. No, that doesn't prove that the 
administration worked with Al Qaida in organizing their attack. Likewise, it 
doesn't prove that they didn't. Nor does the fact that the administration 
declined several easy opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden, along with 
much of Al Qaida, both after 9/11, in Afghanistan, and before 9/11.  
Regarding the U.S. refusal to attack Al Qaida when they were vulnerable and 
easily available, a reporter was motivated to ask whether Bin Laden is 
working for the administration, or vice-versa.

Russ continued:

He believes that the WTC had explosives installed that
were wired to detonate on cue to collapse the buildings.

I reply:

Again, Russ is repeating that for the 3rd time, at least. I said that the 
collapse wasn't consistent with the media's fire explanation, but was 
consistent with ordinary explosive demolition. Check Griffin's book, &/or 
the other links and sources that I posted on that and the general 9/11 
topic.

Russ continued:

He believes
that a U.S. missile hit the Pentagon

I reply:

No airplane parts found outside the bldg. Supposedly all the metal was 
consumed in a kerosene fire.

No 757 parts found inside the pentagon. And the kerosene fire that consumed 
all the metal, and the seats, etc. supposedly left human remains with 
identifiable fingerprints. But then the story changed, that they found the 
entire 757 in there, and have it warehoused, but won't show it.

Somehow the heavy & fast-moving engines, instead of striking the facade or 
lawn, were accelerated back and in by the wings, so that they went through 
the little fuselage-hole. Likewise the tail.

Russ didn't explain how that big, slow aircraft got past the surface-to-air 
missles of the best defended place on Earth, when it was known to be 
hijacked and on the way ther, and that other jijacked airliners had crashed 
into bldgs.

Never mind the question of how it got past the other air-defenses--that's 
another question altogether.

Russ said:

And the airplane that supposedly
hit it somehow disappeared without a trace.

I reply:

As I already said, it's unlikely that anyone would falsly claim that the 757 
had hit the pentagon if it had crashed somewhere where it would be found.

Russ continued:

Mike is also absolutely
convinced that the Republicans stole the 2004 election by means of
rigged paperless voting machine

I reply:

Again, Russ is repeating that for at least the 3rd time.

As I said, the mere fact that we're supposed to take the word for the 
vendors, about the results of unverified machines, whose programming isn't 
subject to examination, is, by itself, enough to mean that the election is 
illegitimate. And it doesn't add to the legitimacy that the owner of one of 
the machine providing companies said that he'd deliver Ohio to Bush, or that 
the companies that provide the unverifiable machines are Republican-owned.  
Again, that isn't consipiracy theory, it's public record.

Russ goes on at great length about me. I suppose I should be flattered to be 
the topic of such a long posting, but I believe that the members of EM 
deserve to not have all this off-topic material.

Russ continued:

What I have *no* respect for is the view that we are
in Iraq for purely "imperialistic" reasons and that we are terrorizing
the Iraqi people.

I reply:

No, we've just killed an estimated 100,000 which doesn't count the ones whom 
we've seriously injured, or whose lives we've ruined, whose families we've 
destroyed by killing one or more family-members.

But we're doing it to give the Iraqis democracy, Russ says. Never mind that 
our own "democracy", a banana-republic democracy, isn't such as to give 
anyone confidence that we could give anyone democracy. Never mind that the 
Iraqis just want us out. As I said, Russ's "democracy" can't be bothered 
with what the Iraqis want. A peculiar notion of democracy.

And Russ insists that all those deaths and maimings are worth it--because 
it's the lives of Iraqi kids and women instead of his own life.


Russ said:

You're a fruitcake, Mike.

I reply:

Russ isn't being very original. He's borrowing a word that I'd applied to 
his pseudo-techincal objections to evolution, which Russ copied from some 
other fruitcake.

Russ continued:

OK, that was fun.

I reply:

But the question is, should Russ waste the list's time and archive space 
with his fun?

After I'd said that in Approval a voter-median party is the only one that 
can win at MW equilibrium,
Russ had said:

        If only one party is popular, then obviously that party will 
dominate.
That is true for practically *any* democratic system.

I replied:

But I didn't say that if a party is the only popular party it will keep on 
winning at MW equilibrium in Approval. I said that if a party is always at 
the voter median it will keep winning at MW equiilbrium. That

Russ replied:

I did not say that you said *anything*, Mike. You just *assumed* that I
had *implied* it. You are free to correct what you think I am implying,
but you are not free to attribute your extrapolations of my statements
to me.

I reply:

Since you said it after I'd referred to the voter-median party continuing to 
win in Approval, one could guess that you were referring to what I'd just 
said. If not, then it's anyone's guess what you thought you were talking 
about when you said that any method would make the most popular party 
dominant.

Russ said:

Show me where I said that the two are the same?

I reply:

As I said, if you weren't referring to my statement that, with Approval, the 
voter-median party is the only one that can win at MW equilibrium, when you 
said that in any political system the most popular party is dominant, then 
it's anyone's guess what you thought you were talking about when you made 
that statement. But quite frankly I don't care what you thought you were 
talking about, so I suggest that you drop it.

Russ continued:

I have a dictionary, Mike, but I didn't even need it for this case.
Nevertheless, I looked it up for you. The relevant definition here is

popular: commonly like or approved

Now, if only one party is "commonly like or approved," Mike, what do you
suppose will happen in an Approval election?

I reply;

If being the only party "commonly liked or approved" means being the only 
party to get Approval votes, then that party would win in Approval. As I 
said, that's what we call a truism. As I said before, it's a rather 
valueless truism.

But the question is, what does that have to do with anything? What justifies 
your inclusion of that worthless truism in your posting. That's a rhetorical 
question. That means that you're not being requested to answer it.

I'd said:

    That sloppiness is typical of you, Russ. You come along, repeating the 
Approval comments made by people who have just been introduced to it, 
announcing that you'vd discovered that Approval requires strategy decisions 
that are often based on uncertainty :-) , and actually believing that you're 
telling us something that hasn't occurred to any of us. And you talk about 
delusions of grandeur.Of course newcomers are


Mike, you still haven't given the slightest indication that you have a
clue what I was trying to say about Approval strategy.

I reply:

I'm the first to admit that I have no idea what you're trying to say. I 
suggest, furthermore, that you don't either.

I'd continued:

    welcome, but you come putting on airs, with the arrogance that typically 
goes with complete ignorance, expounding on a whole list of things that you 
obviously have no understanding of, acting out a delusion of grandeur that 
you're informing us of something and meaningfully participating in the list.

If you have questions, and had asked them less pretentiously and more 
politely, we all would have been glad to help you. But it's become evident 
that it would be better if you get your elementary education somewhere else.

You replied:

OK, Mike, here's my question. Do you have a clue what I tried to say in
my post about the potential *practical* problems of Approval strategy
under certain conditions? I don't think you do.

I replied:

You're right. As I said, I have no idea what you're trying to say. But 
that's ok. Don't try any more to explain it to me, ok? To tell the truth, 
I'm not interested in what you're trying to say.


I'd said:

No, you don't undestand at all. I'll patiently repeat what I said: With 
Plurality, nearly any 2 parties can keep on being the top votegetters at MW 
equilibrium. With Approval, if one party is consistently the CW, no other 
party can win at MW equilibrium. That CW party will soon win, and will keep 
winning. And no, that is not true of all methods.

Russ replied:

But wait, Mike. Doesn't that claim depend on voters adopting a certain
strategy?

I reply:

It assumes that they want the best outcome that they can get.

Russ continued:

So your statement is conditioned on a fundamental assumption
that you did not state.

I reply:

Then now I've stated it.

Russ  continued:

Yet you have the nerve to tell me that my use of
the word "popular" was not precise enough.

I reply:

I merely mentioned that it would be better if you told us what you meant by 
it. Your quotation of the dictionary definition tell us that you aren't 
using some precise definition of it that would be suitable for making some 
meaningful claim about voting system results. But it isn't clear exactly 
what statement you were tryng to make. Yes, I admit that I don't know what 
you're trying to say. But, again, I don't care.


You'd said:

Are you claiming that if only one party is "popular," it will not
"dominate"? Or are you saying that this is not true for "practically any
democratic system"? Please clarify. I'd really like to know of a
"democratic system" in which only one party could be popular and yet not
dominate the elections. That must be a very strange system indeed.

I'd said:

No one made any of those statements. No one but you has referred to the only 
party that is popular.

Russ replies:

No, you didn't. But you seemed to imply it

I reply:

Ok, now you're getting somewhere. I said that, with Approval, a party at the 
voter median will be the only one that can win at MW equilibrium.

And now, as before, you're saying that that statement seems, to you, to 
imply something about a party that is the only dominant party. And yet you 
claim that I shouldn't say that you don't know the difference between "the 
party at the voter-median" and "the only popular party"  :-)


Russ had said:

Now, when a voter tries to plug into one of your formulas, he must
somehow translate polling data into probabilities. Perhaps I missed it,
but I don't recall any guidance from you explaining how to do that. Yet
that may be the harder part of the problem.

Translating polling data into probabilities involves the mean and the
variance of the polling data. If either are off, the computed
probabilities may be useless. In particular, if the error in the mean
approaches or dominates the error in the variance, then all bets are off.

I reply:

If you believe that that is the only possible source of a voter's 
probabilities, then it would be better if you didn't try to discuss 
probability.

Though a voter could use polling data, and the previously-observed 
variabilitly of its accuracy, to calculate probabiilties, or could similarly 
use past election results, that certainly isn't the only source of 
probabilities for the voter. Anyway, only some of the Approval strategies 
explicitly use probabilities, such as Pij or Pi.

Russ replied:

Yes, he could use past elections. But has it occurred to you that many
voters vote for candidates rather than parties? Usually the party will
have a different candidate from the last election. That seems to be
forgotten in a lot of the discussion of Approval strategy.

I reply:

We all understand that, Russ, but thank you for reporting your discovery to 
us :-)

If the parties are wildlly different from one election to the next, then 
Approval won't converge to the voter median as I claimed. Yes, we assume 
that that isn't the case.

Russ continued:

By the way, you still apparently have no clue about the problem I
mentioned.

I reply:

As I've already admitted, I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I 
don't care, so don't keep trying to explain it to me.

Russ continued:

But if three or more candidiates are at rough parity,
your formulas for strategy might not be helpful. Why? The uncertainties
will dominate the equilibrium.

I reply:

As I've kept repeating to you, and apparently must repeat again, you need to 
read the Approval strategies before telling us about them. For instance, 
only the Best Frontrunner strategies assume that the voter has an estimate 
of which 2 parties will be the biggest votegetters. The other strategies are 
unaffected by the situation in which the voter doesn't have such an 
estimate. Is that clear enough? Are you going to keep asking that same 
question? Surely people must be tired of hearing you ask it and me answer it 
so many times.

Russ said (referring to a book):

It's called "Not by Chance"
by Lee Spetner, a prof. of physics at MIT. I could recommend several
other excellent books too, but I would be wasting my time.

I reply:

And you'd be wasting everyone else's time too. As for Russ's MIT physics 
professor, note that Russ is making another appeal to authority here. A 
professor of physics says evolution of species by natural selection couldn't 
happen, and so of course we should believe that claim, because a physics 
professor said so. But what Russ is forgetting, though I've pointed it out 
to him, is that nearly all scientists, including professors of physics, at 
MIT and everywhere else, agree that people like Russ and his 
anti-evolutionist sources are a bunch of loony-toons.

I'd said:

What's this? Before I told you that you no longer have permission to have my 
articles at your website, you were telling people that I was a "world-class 
expert". So then, just by denying you permission to have one's atricles at 
your website, one can go from a world-class expert to a pathetic amateur :-)

Russ continued:

That was before I realize that you are a fruitcake, Mike. You may know a
lot about election methods, but you probably picked it up from others.

I reply:

During the discussions in which I didn't agree with Russ, he regularly 
resorted to namecalling as a substitute for defending his refuted 
statements. Well, you've seen him do it here too. In fact it's pretty much 
all he's been doing.

But the fact remains that, with all his namecalling, he still complained 
when I asked him to delete my articles from his website. He wanted to keep 
articles written by someone whom he claims to believe is everything that 
he's been calling me.

That further confirms that what Russ says doesn't mean anything. What Russ 
says is of no value, because it obviously has no relation to anything that 
Russ believes to be true. The fact that what he says is of no value and 
doesn't mean anything doesn't make his postings very valuable.

About the pseudocode, no the Python listing is not pseucode. It has things 
that wouldn't mean anything to someone who didn't know those particular 
aspects of Python. Others have told me that, and have said that they 
appreciated the pseudocode that I'd sent to them. I wanted to have the 
pseudode at the website to save the trouble of having to e-mail it to 
everyone who had questions about the Python listing of the algorithm.

Mike Ossipoff

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