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.
*If* the archives show you were mistaken? Read the link I supplied. *I* pointed out myself, in my very first post on the subject, that the method had been proposed before. But even if I hadn't, I still did not and would not claim that the proposal was original without at least attempting verify that it was. The very notion that I would do such a thing is an insult to my character -- and I think you know that.
Mistakes are understandable, but not when you are making damaging claims about another person's character. Before you make a claim like that, you are obligated to verify it. That's just common-sense ethics. Otherwise you risk making an ass of yourself, which you did.
If you are willing to admit you were wrong, both factually and ethically, then I am willing to forgive and forget the matter. However, I doubt you are big enough to apologize even when you are caught red-handed.
I did not read the rest of your post. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
