[EM] Re: Name Capitalization. enforcement, etc.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

You said:

	Such a deterrent effect is not at all in evidence. On the contrary, there
is clear evidence that personal attacks on the list lead to further
personal attacks, i.e. further guideline violations.

I reply:

I always hoped that the cnduct-guideline-violator would get tired of having 
his nose rubbed in it. But, as you say, there seem to be some who never do 
:-)  So yes, maybe deterrence isn't working.

You continue:

It seems that it is this sense of
justification on both of your parts (and the impulse to establish that
justification in the eyes of others)...

I reply:

That's right..."folks" :-)

You continue:

	If you are particularly interested in resolving the question of who
wronged whom by writing what and when, I suggest that you and Russ found a
new mailing list devoted to the topic

I reply:

I've often suggested that someone take their off-topic posts to some other 
kind of mailing list or newsgroup, etc. But all my postings to EM are 
on-topic, even when they also contain criticism.

You continue:

, so that it does not interfere with
our discussion of election methods.

I reply:

I'm interfering with your discussion of election methods?

You're kidding, right? What do you think I've been doing if not discussing 
election methods?? As I said, every criticism that I've made has followed a 
statement or argument of mine about voitng systems, a statement about a 
material issue of voting systems. And I've only criticized people about 
specific statements that they'd just made about voting systems.

For instance, when I referred to a stupid conclusion billed as a 
"no-brainer", I had just told why it was a silly conclusion:

I'd pointed out that a criterion that says "Nonrank methods fail because I 
say so" has little convincingness, meaning, or value. I then told how 
Plurality and Approval fail preference CC for exactly the same reasons why 
we all know that they have a lesser-of-2-evils problem. It's a consequence 
of being nonrank methods (though many rank methods do worse than Approval), 
but Plurality and Approval fail pCC on their own, without my naming any kind 
of method or balloting system in the criterion definition.

I explained that thoroughly, before I said "stupid conclusion". How does 
that thorough explanation and discussion "interfere with [your] discussion 
of election methods"? That _was_ discussion of electoral methods.

Mike Ossipoff

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