[EM] Responsible discussion. Resonance.

[Michael Ossipoff]

Richard says:

To Michael Ossipoff:

If you don't want to get hurt, then don't attack.

[endquote]

Excuse me? :-)

Did I complain that I'd gotten hurt?

I've been around Internet-abusers for a while. As I've mentioned
before, it was I who first suggested the formation of the
"Single-Winner Committee", which soon became the election-methods
mailing list. So, off and on, I've experienced the EM mailing list for
a long time. And various other forums too, forums that discuss voting
systems, and various other topics too.

So I'm not new to Internet abusers and their behavior, conduct and
their tactics. It's all very familiar, so don't worry: You didn't hurt
me :-)

People like that are just all in a day's work at an Internet forum.
Par for the course. Goes with the territory. No big deal.

If Internet abusers, such as vague and sloppy criticizers like you,
bothered me, then I wouldn't still be participating. So stop worrying.

Richard says:

You attack with words
such as "your confusion," "your mistake," "wrong," etc. even where those
words do not apply.

[endquote]

Let me guess: When they refer to you, they do not apply, right? :-)

No I don't attack. Have you heard of frankness? Frankness is ok.
(even if it's not ok with you)

I understand that you're in denial about your inability to support
what you say, or even say what you mean, or even specify what you're
referring to. Don't feel bad, those problems are sadly common in
Internet discussion. But you need to understand that better, in order
to understand why discussion can't be as polite as you imply you'd
like it to be.

Ideally, discussing a topic with different people, people with more
honest, self-honest, and responsible discussion-habits, we'd all no
doubt be very polite.

But those aren't the conditions of the discussions in which I often
find myself here. When you're answering people with thoroughly
dishonest and irresponsible discussion habits (maybe just
subconsciously dishonest), frankness is called-for and needed.

Not polite? If it makes you feel any better, I'll point out that, when
things get like that, when I'm talking with someone like that, then
their conduct has already become a little less than cordial anyway.
So, no polite discussion is spoiled by the necessary frankness, when
things reach that point.

Richard says:

In your initial "Resonance" message, you start by (mistakenly) claiming
I'm wrong, and afterward you say you weren't sure what I meant.

[endquote]

When I said that I didn't know what you meant, it was obvious (or
would be to most people) that I was referring to one particular
utterance, one that came after your confusion between oscillation and
resonance.

So you don't think you were wrong? You said "resonance" when you
clearly meant "oscillation", because you were confused about the
difference between the meanings of those two terms.

If you want to deny that, that's fine with me. Suit yourself.


Richard says:

When
you don't understand what I write, please ask -- first.

[endquote]

You have a poor track-record, for answering questions about what
you're trying to say. In reply to various vague comments of yours,
I've asked what you meant or were referring to.

I'll point to vague statements, and unspecified references, in this
message, for instance. Right below, in fact:

Richard says:

This is related to the pattern I've seen repeatedly.  You ask for
feedback, but then you dismiss that feedback

[endquote]

Whoa, Cowboy. What do you mean by "dismiss"?

"to reject serious consideration of..."?

So you want to say that, in that sense, I dismiss people's arguments
or answers instead of answering them?

That's a funny thing for you to say, because, unlike you, I actually
do answer all arguments.

Sometimes the other person is right, and, in those instances, I've said so.

For example, Chris Benham was right about the merits of ICT. Likewise,
Chris was right about IRV having a powerfully valuable combination of
criterion-compliances--very helpful to some factions under some
circumstances. (...though IRV's FBC failure disqualifies it for use
now, given the electorate's beliefs).

I agreed that Chris was right about ICT. I reversed some of the things
I'd been saying about IRV. I apologized about our overzealous
unqualified criticism of IRV.

I haven't refused to admit when I was wrong, or when someone else was right.


When people pointed out that methods that I liked would be criticized
for failure of Mono-Add-Plump or Plurality (or Kevin's MMPO
Plurality-failure example), I dropped my advocacy of those methods,
agreeing the undesirability of criticism-vulnerabilities.Yes, I
answered the criticisms and told why I didn't think they gave any
particular voter anything serious to validly complain about. But the
critics' point was that the criticisms due to those failures would
make the methods un-enactable. I agreed, and quit advocating them.

I found that my "conditional methods", such as AOCBucklin, and MTAOC,
were subject to a secondary chicken dilemma that would make it
prohibitively problematic to claim that they get rid of the chicken
dilemma. So I said so, and I dropped my advocacy of them.  At that
time I then said that Chris's ICT genuinely avoids the chicken dilemma
much more effectively and neatly. I admitted that my proposal didn't
solve the problem nearly as well.

I was interested in finding a method that automatically avoids the
chicken dilemma. I was more interested in that than in claiming that I
was right, when I wasn't.

But when I tell what I claim is wrong with _your_ arguments, that's
hard for you to hear, right?

Or maybe, by "dismiss", you just mean "not accept as correct". If
that's what you meant, then it's hardly something to complain about,
unless you think that we should all agree with all that we hear. Part
of discussion is answering the arguments given by others. If we don't
agree with them, then it's ok to say so, and tell why.

And I _do_ tell why.

I sometimes complain when others don't justify their statements.

But that's ok. If you're sure that it's obvious to others that you're
right, and that my criticisms of your argument aren't valid, then
there's no reason for you to answer further. I don't say that you
should answer arguments when you think that it's obvious to everyone
that my criticism of them wasn't valid, or if you think it's clear to
all that you're right.

But just try to remember that _saying_ that isn't enough. If it isn't
really obvious that you're right, or that your arguments were unfairly
criticized, and you don't try defend them, then your refusal will
merely look like what it is: Evasion. Maybe you didn't defend them
because you couldn't.

As for which it is, that's for others to judge. And no, your claims
about the matter don't decide the question. When both sides of an
argument have said all they intend to, then others can judge for
themselves which position is well-defended or isn't.

I shouldn't have to explain all this, but it's in answer to your
complaint that I often criticize other people's arguments for
positions with which I disagree--How rude of me :-)

And if you think that I actually "dismiss" (as I defined that word
above) people's arguments or feedback , then can you cite an instance
of that? Or is that just more of your usual vague, unsupported,
referentless expression of personal opinion?

Look, I try to answer all arguments, and if I missed fairly answering
one, then I'd like to hear about it and answer it properly. But the
difficulty is that that would require you to be more specific about
what the argument was, and how my answer was a "dismissal", as defined
above, instead of an answer.

If you want to say that there's something wrong with how I answer
arguments or "feedback", then say so,and be specific.

You see, that's your main defining problem. Vagueness, sloppiness.
Statements need to be justified, but, first, their meaning, and what
they refer to needs to be specified. You don't even do that.

Ground rules are important, necessary. Fully specify what you mean,
and exactly what instance it refers to, and then justify your
statement.



Richard says:

,
We (the participants here)

[endquote]

Richard presumes to speak for the participants as a whole :-)


Richard continues:

 ...don't want to waste time arguing with you
about fully supported statements -- such as those on Wikipedia -- that
are backed by lots of academically published articles.

[endquote]

Such as what, in particular?

Is there some particular fully-supported statement, maybe on
Wikipedia, fully backed by lots of academically published articles,
that contradicts something that I say, or which I contradict?

Are you beginning to understand what I mean by vague statements that
don't specify what they refer to?

And note that I'm not the only one to point out that deficiency in
your postings.

Richard says;

Instead, here,
we want to explore what isn't as well known.

[endquote]

Explore--is that you call what you do? :-)

Richard says:

Optimistically I hope
that you will wake up to what's going on.

[endquote]

Wake up to this:

What's going on with you is vague,unsupported, referentless expression
of personal opinion.


Richard says:

In addition, I want to clarify to readers of this forum who don't
understand all of what's going on here, that silence does not imply that
we agree with your statements and claims.

[endquote]

No, and even your failure to defend your claims doesn't, of itself,
establish that you're unable to.

You see, as I said above, when both sides of an argument have said
what they intended to, it's up to others to judge for themselves who
has genuinely supported his position.

You can stop anytime you want to, if you're sure that people will see
that you're obviously right. ...or of course, even if you're not.

As I said, maybe it will be obvious to all that you're right, and that
I unfairly criticized your arguments, which were actually clearly
valid. Or, of course, on the other hand, maybe that isn't how it will
look...

Maybe it will look as if you just can't defend what you say.

Mike Ossipoff