[EM] [CES #8972] Score Voting and Approval Voting not practically substantially different from Plurality?

[Jameson Quinn]

I suspect it may be a matter of social norms. I grew up listening to
theoretical physicists argue (my mother is one). They love a good fight,
and the kind of language Stephen used here is actually consistent with a
deep underlying respect in that context. I've certainly also seen contexts
where it would be unutterably rude. On the internet, it's probably best to
err on the side of assuming good faith.

Jameson

2013/6/25 Benjamin Grant <benn at 4efix.com>

> OK, I will totally eat this one if that’s true, if there was no hostile
> intent.  But it sincerely appears to me that there IS hostile intent, and
> passive aggressiveness.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> **·         **Benn doesn't seem to be able to distinguish****
>
> **·         **People like Benn apparently still don't get it.****
>
> **·         **Benn also does not seem to recognize****
>
> ** **
>
> If I am wrong, then I unreservedly apologize to all. But it’s hard for me
> to see this as utterly benign, as opposed to sneakily hostile.****
>
> ** **
>
> Maybe I am totally off base here – maybe being impugned in the third
> person in front of oneself is completely socially acceptable.****
>
> ** **
>
> It just doesn’t seem like a nice intent to me.****
>
> ** **
>
> -Benn Grant****
>
> eFix Computer Consulting****
>
> benn at 4efix.com****
>
> 603.283.6601****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* electionscience at googlegroups.com [mailto:
> electionscience at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jameson Quinn
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:46 PM
> *To:* Benjamin Grant
> *Cc:* electionscience at googlegroups.com; EM
> *Subject:* Re: [EM] [CES #8970] Score Voting and Approval Voting not
> practically substantially different from Plurality?****
>
> ** **
>
> Benn, Warren did cross a line with you, and you were entirely justified in
> calling him on it. But on a list like this, with half a dozen people
> actively participating in each thread, it is really hard to decide whether
> to address people in the second or third person. I understand that after
> the incident with Warren you are naturally a little bit touchy, but I think
> that Stephen was arguing in good faith, and you should try address his
> arguments' logic and not their language.****
>
> ** **
>
> My humble opinion-ly y'rs,****
>
> Jameson****
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Center for Election Science" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>  ****
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "The Center for Election Science" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to electionscience+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130625/f5fe8db0/attachment-0004.htm>