[EM] Re: Comments on Approval posting

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

>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

Russ replies:

Mike, I have a Master's Degree in engineering from Stanford.

I reply:

  So you've claimed before. Given your lack of honesty, your seeming 
ignorance of what honesty is, your other delusions of grandeur, and your 
incompetence on every topic you've discussed, including your probleem with 
6th grade mathematics,  there's no particular reason to believe you about 
that claim either.

  But even if it were true, what relevance or sigificance here are you 
claiming for it? (Again, a rhetorical question only). Whether true or 
untrue, it's a boast from someone desperately trying to convince others of 
his value. And it's a boast that you feel that you need in order toi prove 
your competence,  because your you've begun to realize that your postings 
here have put your competence into question. "Value what I say, because I 
have a degree from Stanford, and don't look at the matter of whether what I 
say  actually makes any sense."

So then, because you (maybe or maybe not) have a degree from Stanford, we 
shouldn't question your claim that your statement that all methods will make 
a party dominant if it's the only popular party is somehow a meaningful 
reply to my statement that, with Approval, the party at the voter-median is 
the only party that can win at MW equilibrium.

And your claim that that in no way implies that you don't know the 
difference between "the party at the voter-median" and "the only popular 
party".

And then there's your statement that the only way for a voter to determine 
his probabilities about the election would be for him to get them from polls 
or previous elections, by looking up previously observed means and 
variances. That showed an ignorance of what probability is, but we shouldn't 
question that  statement of yours either, because you say that you have a 
degree from Stanford.

Then there's your repeated statement that Approval strategy won't work, 
because sometimes the voter doesn't perceive which two parties are the 
likely fronrunners. Though it was repeatedly ponited out to you that only 
certain Approval strategies need that information, you kept repeating your 
confused claim. But though you thereby demonstrate surprising incompetence, 
you believe that you can authoritatively back up such indefensible 
statements by claiming (truly or delusionally) that you have a degree from 
Stanford.

Whether the Stanford degree is real or delusional, it can't make your 
statements less incompetent.

So yes, I said that you were getting an elementary education at EM (except 
that you seem ineducable), and that you should get it somewhere else. I 
stand by those statements.

I've never asked anyone to take my word for anything because it's from me, 
or because of claimed authority or credentials. So, if you want to deny 
something that I've said, you need to talk about it, rather than me. You, 
Russ, might not be so incompetent if you paid more attention to the subject, 
and less to the people and your evaluations of them.

So, when you can't find fault with things that I've said, and have 
thoroughly made an ass out of yourself trying, you fall back on your old 
"criticize the indivudual" solution to making up for your complete inability 
to defend what you say.

You've repeatedly asked me what I do, so here's your answer: With your 
instability and irrationality it wouldn't be a good idea for me to tell you 
where I work, where I reside, or anything else about myself. Anyway, this 
list is only about voting systems.

Russ continued:'

Yes, I did bring up 9/11, but it was only in reply to your dishonest
post in which you lied about why you decided not to work with me anymore
on ElectionMethods.org. That was the post in which you pulled that stuff
out of your rear end about my reworded definitions on the site.

I reply:

You're again repeating yourself. The befudled and ambiguous nature of your 
definitions was repeatedly pointed out on EM. When that happened, it was 
necessary to point out that you, not I, wrote those confused definitions. 
Then it was necessary for me to post my definitions, the ones that I'd sent 
to your website. When people saw the definitions that were actually mine, as 
opposed to your rewordings of them, they dropped their claims that the 
definitions were vague and ambiguous. You seem to believe that you can make 
that not have happened, by saying so enough times. But this is the mailing 
list on which your befuddled definitions were discussed.

But wait--your definitions can't have been befuddled, all-confused, vague, 
and ambiguous-- because you have a degree from Stanford :-)  Of course the 
degree, real or imaginary, can't change that either.

Your website, with its sloppified definitions, was an embarrassment.

And I never said that was the only reason why I didn't want to work with 
you. I clarified that that was because your ranting, raving behavior has 
shown yourself to be someone I don't want to work with.

Previously said:

>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.

Did you read the links that I sent a few days ago, Mike.

I reply:

No, you didn't send links a few days ago.

Russ continues:

They had major
studies and explanations, by professional structural engineers, of how
and why the WTC collapsed.

I reply:

No, the only link that you sent about that (not a few days ago) was to an 
article that _reported about_ such a study. It and you  didn't have a link 
to the actual paper explaining the collapse. It merely stated that someone 
had won a prize with a study about the collapse of the towers. That's it.

Russ thinks that he's somehow disproving all of Griffin's suggestions by 
telling you that Griffin is a theologian. But Griffin doesn't say things 
that require that he have technical expertise that he doesn't have. He 
quotes experts on technical matters. Again, it's a matter of trying to 
criticize an author, as a substitute for actually answering the questions 
that the book asks.

  How reassuring to hear that Russ is still sane :-)

Russ goes on:

He [Mike] spits in
the face of the men and woman who defend the very freedom...

I reply:

  I presume that our alleged Stanford graduate meant "women".

  Russ is repeating that statement that he made in an earlier posting. No, I 
haven't said anything about the U.S. men & women in Iraq. Like many others, 
I say, "Support the troops--by allowing them to come home."

Perhaps Russ's notion of suporting  the troops is to  keep them over there 
to be killed, not even letting them come home when their military term is 
up. How's that for support. Then there's the blocking of an increase in 
hazardous duty pay for the soldiers.

Not only have I not said anything about the troops, but I've opposed the 
policy of keeping where they don't want to be, where they shouldn't be. 
Whose polilcy proposal would the troops like more, mine or Russ's?

Russ says that our troops in Iraq are defending our freedom. Ok, so Russ 
believes that the Iraqis are trying to take away our freedom? :-)  And 
that's why we have to occupy their country.

We're giving them freedom? Apparently not the freedom to determine whether 
or not we remain in their country, killing, maiming, arresting and torturing 
them.

I've mentioned repeated polls that show that the Iraqis consider us 
occupiers, not liberators, and want us out. Also, more and more, military 
officials are saying that the population supports the insurgency. This is 
heard from U.S. military officials, intelligence people in the Iraqi puppet 
regime, and from U.S. soldiers encountering it first-hand. It's becoming 
evident that it's a popularly-supported insurgency, as in Vietnam. It's 
becoming entirely impossible to claim with any credibility that the Iraqis 
are willing to have us there or that we're somehow protecting their freedom.

Or our own, of course. Committing more war-crimes against people who've 
never done anything to us doesn't defend our freedom. But it sure gives us a 
monstrous reputation around the world.

There's talk of an "El Salvador solution", to use death-squads to retaliate 
against the Iraqi population, to convince it to oppose the insurgency. 
Apparently the ongoing large-scale massacrre of Iraqis isn't doing the job 
well enough.

p.s. Russ says that there was an error in the BeatpathWinner pseudocode that 
I sent to him, but he forgot to tell us what the error was. Given Russ's 
accuracy record so far, there's no particular reason to believe that there 
was an error, though Russ may well believe that there is.

Mike Ossipoff

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