[EM] Russ's criteriai postingse

Russ Paielli 6049awj02 at sneakemail.com
Sun May 8 21:49:34 PDT 2005

Mike, your looniness is absolutely unbounded. Just when I think I've 
reached the end of it, it unravels for another five miles.

Yes, I admitted a long time ago that I had your wacky CC definition at 
my website for quite a while. It is now mercifully gone. We've been over 
this several times, but it never seems to get through your solid granite 

By the way, we had absolutely no agreement, either written or implied in 
any way whatsoever, that you owned or had exclusive rights to any of the 
content on the site. Any such agreement is in your deluded imagination 
only. But I've already repeated that several times. When you don't want 
to hear something, you simply ignore it, just as you will ignore this 
and repeat the same old canard in a few months. I can almost guarantee it.

(more below)

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
> I'd said:
> "Approval would pass CC if CC were defined votes-only, as you
> yourself said."
> Nonsense. Any reasonable definition of the Condorcet Criterion...
> I reply:
> Nonsense. I'm not interested in Russ's subjective judgement about what 
> is "reasonable". Anyway, regrettably the discussion hadn't been only 
> about reasonable criteria, by my own subjective judgement.
> Russ continues:
> ...either
> assumes that ranking is allowed or says so explicitly.
> I reply:
> Russ, you had at your website for years a CC definition that didn't 
> "assume that ranking is allowed or [say] so explicitly", stupid.

addressed above.

> You've just recently discoverd that that CC definition wasn't 
> "reasonable"? Yes, you concidentally discovered that right after I told 
> you that you no longer had premission to have it at your website.

I didn't need your permission and still don't need your permission to 
use any of the material at the site that I essentially created and that 
we worked on together. I have since cut most of your material because it 
was crap. Call a lawyer and find out for yourself.

> My preference version of CC doesn't say or "assume" that rankings are 
> allowed. It makes no mention of methods' rules, and it applies to all 
> methods.
> The difficult thing about replying to Russ is that first one has to 
> guess what he's trying to say:
> What does it mean for a criterion to say that ranking is allowed? Maybe 
> Russ is trying to say that the criterion stipulates in its premise that 
> it only applies to rank methods. Or maybe he means that its requirement 
> requires that the method be a rank method, otherwise the method fails. 
> Who knows which he means? Who cares?

You're brilliant, Mike. Now you want to get into legalistic quibbling 
about what it means to say that "ranking is allowed"? Unbelievable! I 
also said "ordinal methods," Mike. Do you know what that means, genius?

> And, when a "reasonable" criterion doesn't say that, it "assumes" it, 
> Russ tells us. What does it mean for a criterion to assume something 
> that it doesn't say?? People assume things, but I've never heard of a 
> criterion assuming something unsaid. But maybe Russ does. And if Russ 
> thinks that people assume that reasonable CC definitions mean something 
> that they don't say, presumably Russ knows that by using ESP.

Take a look at Blake Cretney's web page, Mike, and try to learn 
something. Here is what you will find:

Name: Condorcet Criterion
Application: Ranked Ballots
If an alternative pairwise beats every other alternative, this 
alternative must win the election.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Mike, I actually have some sympathy for your mental disorder, but not 
enough to put up with your garbage. James and Markus can reply politely 
to your insults all they want, and I respect them for what they are 
willing to endure and yet maintain civility, but I don't have the 
tempermant for it. Sorry, I'm not a saint.

You're an asshole to the core, Mike, and you don't have a clue about 
what is really needed for a good public election method.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that everyone on EM seems to manage 
to communicate respectfully except when dealing with Mike?

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list