Mike O. accused Bruce A. of dishonesty. I don't recall Bruce making any serious factual errors, other than broken promises. (In particular, the promise that he would defend Regular-Champion's result in any scenario... he has been silent on its "rich party" failure and its "truncation" failure scenarios). To the best of my recollection, Bruce hasn't engaged in Disorderly Discussion; he simply ceased claiming (in EM, at least) that Regular-Champion is a better method than Smith//Condorcet. If Mike is aware, however, that Bruce has continued to advocate Regular-Champion in other forums without addressing the criticisms posted in EM, I'd consider that a more significant allegation of Disorderly Discussion, and with someone of Bruce's intellect an indication of possible intellectual dishonesty. I appreciate a number of the things Bruce has contributed. My favorite: With a small modification of Arrow's "Independence from Irrelevant Alternatives" axiom (i.e., the members of the Smith set shall all be considered relevant), it's not impossible for voting methods to satisfy all the modified-Arrow criteria. ---Steve (Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED])
