<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>It's necessary to send this reply in parts, because of a comuter
problem.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Warren says:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or
any theorem as usual</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I reply:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Members: Note Warren’s flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which
he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on
what to do about him? If it isn’t a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2
alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the
already-established Approval method to choose a voting system.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two
definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it that
was intended to get rid of ambiguity.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course I’ve provided definitions of all four of my methods.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are
unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally unbiased.
Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution. Weighted Bias-Free
is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the distribution is
accurate).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It isn’t entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or
provide.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Warren continues:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>, while also failing to answer my question Warren says:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or
any theorem as usual</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I reply:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Members: Note Warren’s flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which
he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on
what to do about him? If it isn’t a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2
alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the
already-established Approval method to choose a voting system.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two
definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it that
was intended to get rid of ambiguity.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course I’ve provided definitions of all four of my methods.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are
unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally unbiased.
Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution. Weighted Bias-Free
is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the distribution is
accurate).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It isn’t entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or
provide.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Warren continues:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>, while also failing to answer my question Warren says:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike Ossipoff in the thus-named post failed to provide any definition or
any theorem as usual</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I reply:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Members: Note Warren’s flame-war-style angry tone. The same tone with which
he began his correspondence with me on this subject. Shall we take a vote on
what to do about him? If it isn’t a simple up/down vote, and has more than 2
alternatives, then I recommend BeatpathWinner. But we could use the
already-established Approval method to choose a voting system.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But, to answer his statement, actually I did provide a definition. Two
definitions of bias: The universally-accepted one, and a modification of it that
was intended to get rid of ambiguity.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Of course I’ve provided definitions of all four of my methods.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Theorem? I told why, by that popular definition of bias, my methods are
unbiased.. (Cycle Webster and Adjusted-Rounding are unconditionally unbiased.
Bias-Free is unbiased with a uniform frequency distribution. Weighted Bias-Free
is unbiased to the extent that its approximation of the distribution is
accurate).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It isn’t entirely clear what theorems Warren wants me to refer to or
provide.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>to be continued</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mike Ossipoff</DIV></BODY></HTML>