[EM] Confirmed advice for readers disturbed by my posts.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

SUMMARY: if you find a writer tedious and useless to read, don't read 
him! Instead, skip his posts, or even set an email filter so they go 
into the trash, or, if you want to be able to go back if it turns out 
that a post was important, into a "Not read, discard after a period" folder.

I've done this for certain writers, not because they are tedious, per 
se, but because they are endlessly contentious, and if I don't read 
their posts, I'm not tempted to respond, thus triggering more useless 
argument that goes nowhere. Now, to the extended consideration of 
something that just happened here:

We were discussing paper ballots, and Chris Backert, who had been 
writing to this list occasionally since February, chimed in with a 
private email to me:

>With all due respect I think a better education on the topic would boggle
>your mind a bit less. You are incorrect that in your assumption that a
>"simple" paper ballot would satisfy the requirements, nor would it be a
>workable solution for most local jurisdictions.

I responded, taking it back to the list. I suggested that my need for 
education was generic and that I gained nothing from a comment that I 
needed a better one, unless provided with more specific guidance. 
Further, a comment that I'm "incorrect," without any information as 
to how, was little more than a one word post: "Wrong!" Such a post 
conveys as much information as a No vote in a poll, do you agree with 
[Assertion], which is very, very little. On a discussion list, it is 
so useless as to be offensive, with one exception: where no one else 
comments and it might be assumed that the assertion therefore enjoyed 
consensus. It would still be better to explain *why* one disagrees. 
There was not a clue in Mr. Backert's mail to me.

Mr. Backert responded with

>I was only trying to give my opinion that your comments were a bit brash and
>made without a thorough command of the issues at hand. For one, saying
>"can't we just use paper ballots" ignores the millions of American's who are
>unable to use paper ballots.

There are two aspects to this: one repeats his opinion about my 
ignorance, and the other raises a substantive issue that was actually 
a red herring, as some research and further discussion showed. There 
are already many possible solutions for the millions involved -- that 
wasn't an exaggeration, and commentary from some questioning the 
number was, again, very much a side issue -- and current law, and 
HAVA, deal with this. Paper ballots satisfy the requirements of HAVA. 
Explicitly.

I responded again, dealing with the substance, and ultimately did 
more research on HAVA, which turned up quite a bit of interest. HAVA 
does not create any problem with paper ballots, which, contrary to 
what Mr. Backert had asserted, fully satisfy HAVA. He was wrong, and 
I showed why. Of course, I might have erred in any of a number of 
different ways. I depend on the list to pick up on any of them that 
are important; this is the value of these kinds of discussion groups, 
which do not, in themselves, resolve any controversies, but which can 
develop, among those who pay attention, a kind of consensus on at 
least some aspects of some issues. At the very least, I learn what 
arguments are understood and accepted, and what ones are not. It can 
be extremely useful later. Participating in mailing lists can be a 
very effective way of gaining an education, and probably surpasses, 
with one exception, taking the best available course on the subject 
from a real expert. The exception is that the expert may provide a 
better overview, more quickly. But on any narrow topic, the expertise 
of a good list is vastly superior to that of any single individual. 
This is, indeed, part of the theory behind my own political efforts: 
to harness the distributed intelligence of the entire population.

I do not hold some idea of what the "right" decisions are. I consider 
my own opinions as worth pursuing, with the power of one vote and one 
voice. But I also know that I make mistakes and fail to understand 
situations. I'm trying to set up situations where decisions that are 
made are based on the best possible intelligence, and what democracy 
does is, properly set up and used, to do just that. I'm trying to set 
up *smart* organizations, not ones that will confirm my prejudices, 
which is what you get when people who already agree form political 
action groups. They reinforce each other. Consider all the IRV 
advocates. How much dissent is voiced, within their forums, when 
blatantly false arguments are advanced for IRV?

As a contrast, look at the Range Voting list. Try to make a false 
argument for Range Voting there! It won't stand without challenge. 
Even aspects of Range Voting that are sufficiently established to be 
placed on the Center for Range Voting web site are frequently 
challenged, and, over time, changes take place. This is democratic 
process (even though CRV is not, formally, a democracy, it is a 
non-coercive oligarchy).

In any case, Mr. Backert never did enter into a substantive 
discussion over the issue of paper ballots. I received another 
personal email from him:

>While I appreciate your zealous interest in this conversation, I have
>neither the time nor the desire to continue it. I mean no disrespect, but I
>think this is wasting the time of listers.

By the way, readers be warned. Unless a mail to me is accompanied by 
a request that it not be made public, I may often post it where I 
think there is something of general interest. Sending a mail to me is 
no more private than sending a letter to the editor of a newspaper. 
Unless it specifies this. And, just as an editor may disclose the 
content of such mail if the editor chooses, under certain 
circumstances, so may I. *Usually* a polite mail to me, even if it 
tells me that I'm totally ignorant -- but is not gratuitously 
abusive, after all, I might indeed be ignorant -- that requests 
nondisclosure will be respected, as some readers of this list know, 
who have sent me such mail.

I responded, very briefly:

>Then don't waste your time, if you think that! As to the listers, 
>each of them can make a choice. Nobody is forced to read what I 
>write, and I wouldn't want it even if it were possible.

At this point, most sane individuals would have recognized that it 
was, indeed, their choice to read or not to read. However, I've been 
computer conferencing since the mid 1980s, and I have long experience 
with a certain subset of the population which comes completely 
unglued when I write. Some of these people might seem fairly stable, 
otherwise. But tolerate the unchallenged presence of my ideas and 
expressions, no. I saw one conference moderator who, after long 
discussion on many topics, was so incensed that she went back and 
deleted every post either from me or quoting material from me on her 
conference, going back many months, and then, when she realized that 
she had made largely incomprehensible swiss cheese out of her 
conference, she deleted the entire thing. Countless hours of writing 
by herself and others.

Something like this happened again, fairly recently; I subscribed to 
a list on a topic of interest, and, after months, did very little 
more than quote some lines from the material describing the list and 
the list rules from the list home page. I was not only banned from 
the list, the moderator -- who was anonymous but whose identity was 
pretty obvious -- also deleted all posts similarly to the much 
earlier example above. Quite clearly an imbalance person. We aren't 
seeing anything that extreme here.

When I was banned from the Approval Voting list, it is fairly 
apparent to me that there was something like this happening with the 
moderator there. It was not really about the list itself, and the 
largest factor may have been private email where I, entirely contrary 
to what the moderator expected, I'm sure, presumed to advise the 
moderator as to how, with due process and fairness and, indeed, ease, 
create and enforce the rules the moderator was asking me to 
anticipate and obey on my own. I never did violate any rules, but I 
was banned anyway. But that moderator did not erase anything and did 
not prevent me from reading this list, perhaps knowing that this is 
impossible anyway. It's also impossible to keep me from posting to a 
list, but I did not attempt to circumvent the moderator's ban. I'd 
consider that a bit rude.

Mr. Backert had no power to ban me from writing to the Election 
Methods list; I'm sure he would have if the power had been his. I 
find it quite interesting that there are people, ostensibly in favor 
of election reform, who have no tolerance for free speech, nor for 
actual democratic process. Examples abound.

Mr. Backert responded, again privately, to my brief post, with:

>For the first time since I started this conversation I think you are right.
>Because of your seamlessly endless stream of inane chatter I've unsubscribed
>from the list.
>
>Please don't waste any more of my time responding.

Let's suppose that he is accurate in describing what I write as a 
"seamlessly endless stream of inane chatter." Certainly I'm Mr. 
Chatterbox, to some degree. Anyone familiar with the Mr. series of 
children's books?

Let's also suppose that Mr. Backert is actually interested in Election Methods.

Why did he unsubscribe? It's pretty simple to avoid reading my posts, 
and simple as well to set a filter. Anyone who does know how to set 
filters in their email program to automatically process mail with 
certain characteristics, such as being from an individual or a list, 
is well advised to learn how to do it. I receive a huge volume of 
mail, and life without filters would be far more complex and tedious. 
I start with a heavy-duty spam filter, a separate program called 
Mailwasher, which enables me to deal with approximate 500 spams per 
day in a minute or two. Because I use this, my instructions to my 
domain host are to keep their IP blacklist filter turned off. My 
Friends list and other filters in Mailwasher, such as ones that 
detect list mail and don't allow it to be deleted, then allow known 
good mail to get to me, even if the source IP is blacklisted, which 
happens to yahoogroups quite frequently. Then when I actually 
download my mail into my email program (I use Eudora), all list mail 
is presorted into folders for each list. I almost never delete list 
mail. I occasionally set a filter for some individual who writes to 
lists. But mostly, if I learn that I'm not usually interested in what 
a writer says, I do no more than glance at the first screen of posts 
from that person.

Mr. Backert unsubscribed, I'll assert, because something about my 
writing pushes a powerful button for him. It was obvious from his 
first comment, actually. There was more to it than gentle advice to 
me. I ultimately did some of the research he suggested, I took him 
seriously and assumed that, perhaps, he knew far more about the topic 
under discussion than I. That remains possible, but he never did 
betray the knowledge that he must have had, to be justified at all in 
his otherwise quite arrogant comments.

Many people have written dismissively about what I assert on these 
lists. Some of them are quite knowledgeable, Chris Benham, for 
example. But when Benham considers something I've written ludicrous, 
he usually explains why, and sometimes, though it can be tedious, 
underneath all of this is something quite interesting. I've come to 
quite a better understanding of the Majority Criterion and its 
implications, as a result of belaboring, with Chris, matters that may 
have seemed obvious to others. Obvious if you overlook certain subtleties.

There have been quite a few people who have complained about my 
lengthy posts; I'm thinking about people who say that they appreciate 
some of what I have to say, but are upset that it is buried in so 
much verbiage. To these I say that, while I'd like to write more 
succinctly, and can when necessary, I don't ordinarily have the time. 
Jan Kok generally writes far more succinctly, sometimes to say in a 
few words what I will say in hundreds or even thousands. However, Jan 
also notes that his "succinct" writing takes him many hours to write. 
Writing well about these subjects can take extraordinary amounts of time.

Here is what I suggest: if it is too much for you to read my posts, 
read them only when they interest you enough to make it worthwhile. 
If I write something that is specifically important, depend on the 
list to pick up on it and repeat it, whether to agree or to argue 
with it. Let the list filter the posts for you.

For such people, simply glancing at the first screen should be enough 
for them to know if they want to read further. When I myself consider 
something quite immediately important, I'll put it in that first 
screen. I write important things elsewhere, but they are there for 
the future, not necessarily for now. I do not write solely for the 
current list, I write for the archives that will exist long after I'm gone.

And I also write to learn. I find it fascinating to go back and read 
what I wrote a year ago, or years ago. Sometimes it's quite good! 
Other times, I can see where my views have shifted as I've learned more.

As to Mr. Backert, his comments were harmless, even if slightly rude. 
Too bad he could not benefit from the ensuing examination of the 
issue, he might have learned something. It's also too bad that he 
will probably not be able to learn from this final response of mine 
since, respecting his explicit request, it has not been sent to him. 
He might have learned something about himself.

If I found myself engaged in such a response myself, I'd seek out an 
EMDR therapist and try to find out why. EMDR is highly effective, I 
know from personal experience, it is really a major breakthrough in 
psychotherapy, though it does continue certain streams that 
previously incorporated elements of it, but less explicitly and less 
powerfully. EMDR can often resolve obsessions and compulsive 
behaviors, including severe PTSD, *totally*, in a few sessions, 
whereas more traditional methods can take years with very low success rates.