matt welland wrote: > Ah, yes I can see the error. Some poor and ambiguous English on my > part. I intended to group the "irrelevant and pointless" and apply > it to the word "discuss". Sorry about that.
I guess I understood that, no need to apologize. > > > > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and > > > > > pointless to discuss. ... I still think you are wrong, and I put a question to you fair and square: Is it your intention to imply that the individual vote is irrelevant? Is that what you think, or not? -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 416-699-9528 http://zelea.com/ matt welland wrote: > On Mon, 2011-08-29 at 04:28 -0400, Michael Allan wrote: > > matt welland wrote: > > > I did not say that a "vote has little meaning", I said that it is > > > meaningless to discuss the individual vote! Those are two vastly > > > different things. > > > > Well, I think what you said is wrong. Here is the original version: > > > > > > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and > > > > > pointless to discuss. ... > > > > This implies that the individual vote itself is irrelevant. I wish to > > clarify your intention on that point: are you saying that the > > individual vote is irrelevant > > Ah, yes I can see the error. Some poor and ambiguous English on my > part. I intended to group the "irrelevant and pointless" and apply > it to the word "discuss". Sorry about that. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
