[EM] The last time that I waste the time to reply to Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

You say:

In your last mail, you used your claim, that you hadn't
fully understood the Schulze method, 5 times as an argument
for claiming credit for this method.

I reply:

No, it isn't just that I didn't fully understand Schulze's method. It's that 
I was completely mistaken about what "Schulze's method" means. I mistakenly 
thought that "Schulze's method" means the method that I call BeatpathWinner. 
Or maybe you mean that I hadn't heard of CSSD. I'd seen your postings about 
it, but hadn't read them, and so I didn't know what count rule you were 
describing in those postings.

I've repeated exactly the same answers more than 5 times, in reply to your 
repetition of exactly the same statements. The answers to your statements 
haven't changed.

And it's particularly asinine for you to keep claiming that I claim credit 
for Schulze's method. Based on what we have now found out about Schulze 
method, it is an umbrella class of methods, I certainly have never claimed 
credit for it. In fact, at no time have I ever claimed credit for anything 
that can be called Schulze's method or an instance of the class of methods 
you called Schulze's method. So it's odd that you keep saying that I claim 
credit for Schulze's method.

>From your last month's definition of Schulze's method, BeatpathWinner is an 
instance of it, and so you could also call CSSD an instance of it. But I 
have never claimed credit for CSSD. The fact that I devised CSSD without 
being aware that you'd described it doesn't mean that I claim credit for 
CSSD.

But you're probably referring to a method that I _do_ claim credit for: SSD. 
But, as I keep telling you, SSD is in no way Schulze's method. You never 
posted a definition of SSD.

Additionally, my claim for credit for SSD does not depend on the fact that I 
hadn't heard about CSSD at the time that Steve & I devised SSD. My claim 
that I was the first to post SSD is based on nothing other than the fact 
that I was the first to post SSD. That would be true even if I had heard of 
CSSD, and posted SSD as a variation of CSSD, though I didn't.

Hello-o-o-o! Markus, are you aware of how many times you've made that 
statement?

If you disagree with anything that I've said, then you need to say what 
statement of mine, in particular, you disagree with, and then you need to 
tell us why you believe that that statement is incorrect. Do you understand 
that that isn't what you're doing? Do you understand that you're just 
repeating the same already-answered statements again and again? Do you have 
any regard for EM's guidelines, which specifically request that we not do 
that?

Rob--

Can a person be evicted from EM by continual disregard for the EM 
guidelines? Or is it that the guidelines don't mean anything?

If I've been rude to anyone, it's only after they've disregarded guidelines 
for a long time. The only problem is that the guidelines aren't enforced. If 
someone enforced them, I'd never have begun being rude to anyone.

I'm working within proper channels now. I'm asking for enforcement of the EM 
guidelines, if they mean anything at all.

Markus quoted me:

#1
    I said that I didn't know (and still don't know or care)
what Schulze's method is, and that I used to mistakenly
believe that it was BeatpathWinner.


#2
    At that time I mistakenly believed that "Schulze's method"
meant BeatpathWinner.


#3
    I thought that it meant BeatpathWinner. Now I don't know
or care what Schulze's method means.


#4
    At that time I mistakenly believed that "Schulze"s method"
meant BeatpathWinner.


#5
    At that time, I mistakenly believed that "Schulze method"
meant BeatpathWinner.


I comment:

Yes, I made that statement again and again, in reply to your repetition of 
the statement that I was replying to.

You could have posted quotes of each time you repeated the staement I was 
replying to. I won't bother. I can't believe that you bother copying and 
pasting each of those quotes.

You continue:

So you say that you believed that the term "Schulze method"
referred only to a _heuristic_ for the Schulze method and
not to this method itself?

I reply:

At that time I believed that "Schulze's method" meant the method that I call 
"BeatpathWinner".

Last month you explained that actually Schulze's method is an umbrella class 
of methods that includes BeatpathWiinner, Beat-And-Tie-Path-Winner, and 
other methods as instances.

Schulze's method, then, according to what you said last month, is not a 
method. It's a class of methods that includes BeatpathWinner, 
Beat-And-Tie-Path-Winner, and other methods.

How many times will you ask me to repeat that answer?

You continued:

Since when do we consider the
underlying heuristic to be a part of a given method?

I reply:

Schulze isn't a method, given or otherwise. From what you said last month, 
Schulze's method isn't a method, but rather is a class of methods that 
includes Beatpathwinner, Beat-And-Tie-Path-Winner, and other methods.

You continue:

I guess that you invented the theory, that the underlying
heuristic is a part of a method, for the sole purpose of
claiming that you "devised" a new method.

I reply:

You guess wrong. I devised CSSD, though you devised it and posted it before 
I did. I don't claim credit for CSSD. I devised and posted SSD. I was the 
first to post a definition of SSD. You never posted a definition of SSD.

I've given you that answer repeatedly in reply to the same statements.

You continue:

However, you have
been pointed several times to the fact that the term "Schulze
method" refers to a _method_ and not to a _heuristic_

I reply:

Wrong. Last month you said that Schulze's method refers not to a method, but 
rather to an umbrella class of methods that includes BeatpathWinner, 
Beat-&-Tie-Path-Winner, and other methods.

You continue:

and that,
already in 1998, I had proposed that heuristic for the Schulze
method that uses Schwartz sets.

I reply:

...and when I posted CSSD, you then posted your earlier definition of it, 
and I acknowledged that CSSD was your proposal, that you'd posted it first. 
What is your problem with that??

You continue:

Nevertheless, you continue
spamming this mailing list with mails in which you only write
(1) that you mistakenly believed that the term "Schulze method"
referred only to that heuristic for the Schulze method that
uses paths and

I reply:

At the time you speak of, I mistakenly believed that Schulze's method meant 
BeatpathWinner.

You continue:

(2) that, therefore (and although I have already
proposed that heuristic for the Schulze method that uses
Schwartz sets before), you claim credit for that heuristic
for the Schulze method that uses Schwartz sets.

I reply:

You never posted a definition of SSD. The definition that you link to, and 
that you want to call a definition of SSD is not a definition of SSD. I was 
the first to post to EM a definition of SSD.

CSSD uses the Schwartz set. But CSSD is not SSD.

You continue:

That's
why I say that you use your claim, that you hadn't fully
understood the Schulze method, as an "argument" for
claiming credit for this method.

I reply:

It isn't that I hadn't fully understood the Schuze method. It's that was 
completely mistaken about what Schulze's method meant. I thought that it 
meant BeatpathWinner.

If you're referring to my statement that I hadn't heard of CSSD, yes that's 
true also. I hadn't heard of CSSD when I and Steve devised SSD, and then 
posted its definition to EM.

But, as I keep telling you (a complete waste of time), my claim that I was 
the first to post a definition of SSD is based on nothing other than the 
fact that I was the first to post a definition of SSD.

That claim does not depend on the fact that I hadn't heard of CSSD at that 
time. I've told you this at least 5 or 6 times during the past day. If I had 
devised SSD as a variation of CSSD, the fact would remain that I was the 
first to post a definition of SSD. My statement that I was the first to post 
a definition of SSD doees not depend on the fact that at that time I hadn't 
heard of CSSD.

I'd said:

    If you want his exact words, I no longer have e-mail from
that year. You ask for a copy of Norm's e-mail objecting that
SSD isn't clone-independent in small committees. I'd be glad
to post it if I still had e-mail back that far.

You reply:

I guess that the fact that you don't save mails

I reply:

I save e-mails, but not from that far back.

You continue:


...(even when they
contain interesting stuff) is one of those reasons why you are
doomed to make the same errors again and again.

I reply:

The error that I make again and again is replying to you when you post the 
same idiocy again and again.

You had said:

    Already in another mail, I pointed to the fact that the set
of candidates who can be elected according to Steve Eppley's
beatpath criterion is _not_ the same as the "set of
BeatpathWinner winners". Therefore, I would be very happy
if Mike Ossipoff stopped using these two terms as if they
were synonymous terms.

I had replied:

    What two terms?

You say:

Well, in your 19 May 2005 mail and in your 22 May 2005 mail,
you referred to the "BeatpathWinner Criterion".

I reply:

I have referred to Steve Eppley's Beatpath Criterion (BC). There is no 
BeatpathWinner Criterion, or at least not one that I have heard of.

Markus, I try to go on the assumption that everyone deserves the respect of 
a reply. In your case, that's a mistake, and a big waste of time. You don't 
deserve a reply. If you want to find out why that is, then read my repies to 
you. In those replies, I explain what's wrong with your postings. Those are 
the reasons why you don't deserve a reply.

Replying to someone is a matter of basic respect. It's just that you don't 
deserve that basic respect.
I won't waste any more time replying to you.

Mike Ossipoff

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