Mike, if you don't have anything new to say, please stop repeating yourself.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] On Behalf Of MIKE OSSIPOFF > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 9:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EM] James, 4/22/'05, 0220 GMT > > James-- > > You said: > > There are plenty of valid reasons to repeat a statement on EM > more than > once... > > I reply: > > Yes, that would be different. > > But, without those special reasons, repetition of already-answered > statements wasn't serving a purpose. If you felt that my answer was > incorrect, or needed criticism, then you should have > addressed that answer, > rather than merely repeating the statements. > > You continued: > > to > communicate them to someone who doesn't seem to be aware of them or > understand them yet > > I replyP > > But what about to someone who has already agreed to them > several times? > > You continued: > > , to rephrase or modify them as a response to an > argument, to rephrase them in an attempt to clarify, etc. > > I reply: > > But you weren't really rephrasing them. > > But you're right, that I should just not even comment on > things that have > already been answered, and should only reply to new statements, or to > comments that speak to things that I've said. > > You continued: > > For > example, in my last strategy message to you, I replied > directly to your > argument that the burying strategy is not a "new problem" in > Condorcet-efficient because it only causes the same > "undesirable results" > that exist in non-Condorcet-efficient methods without the use > of strategy. > > I reply: > > But I'd said that you can define "new problem" how you want > to, and that for > that reason I'd rather avoid that term. So I only wanted to > talk of certain > undesirable results that are the same whether caused by > "burying" or by IRV > on its own. > > You continue: > > It is a multi-part counterargument that focuses on differing kinds of > undesirable results > > I reply: > > Yes, and there's an answer to that. I wasn't going to start > it now, but let > me just say that you can't elect a Condorcet loser unless you > fail to elect > a CW, and you can't violate preference Pareto unless you > violate majority > wishes. Your worse results tend to be things that can only > happen when my > undesirable results happen. > > Your goals are just a lot more modest than mine. Where I want > to elect the > CW, you want to elect anyone but the Condorcet loser. Where I > want to avoid > violation of majority wishes, you will settle for only not > violating Pareto. > There's nothing wrong with being willing to settle for less. > You probably > voted for Kerry, didn't you. > > Mike Ossipoff > > _________________________________________________________________ > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan > from McAfeeR > Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
