daniel radetsky Sent: 11 January 2008 03:01
On Jan 10, 2008 2:05 AM, James Gilmour
to put correct this defect we have no option but to sacrifice
something else, e.g. later no harm.
I'm not sure later-no-harm is a good thing in the first place.
Ok, so that's your opinion. As I have
Daniel,
--- daniel radetsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On Jan 10, 2008 7:46 PM, Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plenty of incompatibilities have been proven at least with rank ballot
methods.
Well, there you go.
I doubt there's good reason to be optimistic about getting
