MIKE OSSIPOFF vs The list (Re: [EM] I didn't choose to be the topic

[Craig Carey]

At 2005-01-31 15:27 +0000 Monday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
...
>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.
>
>That is another lie, folks. What happened was that I blocked his email
>address
>

You seem to block the e-mail address of everyone who makes significant
attempts to imply that you should be much much more truthful at this EML
mailing list.

An you don't both producing an explanation for the black listing,

Also it is just sudden black listing, without reasoning after,
and without any warning before.

--

I could be this mailing list's only moderator, and moderate only MIKE.
A requirement of truthfulness for only 1 member.

I could report to Lanphier (if not washed overboard)

I can reduce the quantity of MIKE's e-mail down to 20%. 

I would use a test of requiring that MIKE use inference from definition.
Mr Piaelli will be leaving. Then MIKE gets back to having vague ideas
and describing them to the subscribers.


>I reply:
>
>Oh, is that how it happened. When I received the e-mail from Russ that 
>resulted in my decision to not let him send more, I blocked both of his 
>e-mail addresses, at both of my e-mail addresses. Then, having done all 
>that, I replied to that message. When I did so, my reply was delivered. It 
>wasn't blocked. That was the last e-mail that I sent to Russ. So, it's as 
>I'd been saying: It was I who blocked Russ's e-mail, not the other way 
>around. And that explains his raving, frothing posts here.
>

Oh, neat. My guess above; that Piaelli got the same bad deal I did in 2000,
is now found to be true. I.e., for both of us:

(1) At no time did OSSIPOFF send out a statement of the reasoning for his
  black listing action

(2) OSSIPOFF acted suddenly. Presumably if he was emotive (yuck) AND slowly
  deteriorating, THEN he would have sent out a warning.
 
   Let me guess again: what normally happens with MIKE is that he suddenly
    realizes that the person is expecting that be truthful in both private
    and public e-mail.

   Mike merely has to wink and the person has been excecuted. The problem
   became possible ever since he got to learn about the Robt Lanphieria
   species of jellyfish.     


>Russ said:
>
>Well, Mike sent me piece of junk that was chocked full of both syntax
>errors and logic errors.
>
>I reply:
>
>My Python BeatpathWinner program, even in its 1st version, didn't have 
>"logic errors". It had no errors that involved calling upon Python to do 
>things other than the correct BeatpathWinner algorithm.
>


He is probably lying, since he has had a long history of claiming to have
used ideas or have defined usable ideas.

MIKE is lying and gets away with it. If the list does not do anything
about it them I am quitting as well. I take my offer of using moderating
using a test of good definition and reasoning with me.

Reasoning can't be done when definitions as are unreal and as ill-defined
as MIKEs.


MIKE is lying about his algorithm and all these people would probably
write in now and say that they prefer to be lied at by MIKE:

  Eric Gorr, Mr Small would almost write in


MIKE can't quit now that he can see that he dominate the mailing list for
probably 8 months or so, and of course, it will be nothing but unstoppable
lying by MIKE OSSIPOFF for most of 2005.


...

>, yet he is incapable of writing a basic computer
>program.
>
>I reply:
>
>Actually I've written lots of computer programs, and it goes without saying 
>that they ran correctly, sometimes after some debugging, but a few times as 
>initially written.
>
>Mike Ossipoff
>


What the blazes ?: OSSIPOFF's Python code couldn't even accept ballot paper
counts as input. That is what I saw at the Piaelli website. 

It is so stupid that ti comes as no surprise to know that SCHULZE did the
same. Both would insist that they will never ever write an algorithm in a
way that can accept Alternative Vote ballots as input.


I saw the thing of MIKE at the electionmethods.org website: no input code.
It is not the case he forget to write it: it is the case that the entire
Internet can start pulling its weight and finish doing programming jobs that
OSSIPOFF has already completed defending himself over, above.



It is easily explained: like with some types of birds, the first lies that
they read become their parents: it is like that OSSIPOFF and SCHULZE.

Now as a result, OSSIPOFF will try to use  the word "voters" when
 in fact, he should be using the word "votes".



Subscribers don't develop plans for getting MR OSSIPOFF down.

--------------------

Suppose there is a right to cast 400 votes,
but only people with the OSSIPOFF or [MIKE] Ositoff surname.

Mike calls a vote a voter.
Shulze would not take the extra power. Bad habits are not broken by an
offer of power.

I am not going to e-mail Lanphier.  Lanphier doesn not actually want to
stop the subscribers from suffering.


Where else can you get a dud comment (whoops, "comments") from SCHULZE ?