Unless I'm mistaken, Russ announced RAV as a new proposal. Then, later it was pointed out (but not in a scolding way) that the method had been previously proposed by someone else.
If the archives show that I was mistaken about that, that doesn't mean that I lied. It merely means that I was mistaken. I said it only because it seems to me that Russ announced RAV as a new propopsal, and that later someone pointed out that it wasn't.
Russ says:
I still remember his pathetic lies about why he dissociated himself from ElectionMethods.org. He claimed that I had modified his definitions without his approval, which was a flat-out lie.
I comment:
"Flat-out lie". Russ feels that if he says something strongly enough, emotionally enough, to show how much he at least claims to believe it, that will convince others that it must be true.
Several people posted to EM to point out ambiguities and sloppiness in definitions at electionmethods. org. In each such instance, they were referring to Russ's rewordings of my definitions, and, in each instance, they were correct: Russ's rewordings of those definitions were ambiguous and sloppy. And, also in each such instance, when I posted my own definitions, the ones that Russ had replaced with his sloppifications, it was agreed that the sloppiness and ambiguity belonged to Russ's rewording, not to my own definition.
Russ seems to forget that he's making that claim on the same mailing list where these complaints about the sloppiness and ambiguity of his wording were posted.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
