Damn, I've got to stop postponing and forgetting these things.
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 06:08:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I suspect we've also agreed that the Condorcet winner (if there is
> > one) should always win. And we seem to have agreed that the winner
> > should be from the Smith set
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 10:02:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Actually, if you're talking about a properly formed A.3(3) vote, where
> > > you're voting on option A and independent option B, there should be
> > > on the ballot:
> > > Yes on A and B
> > > Yes on A, no on B
> > > Yes on B no on
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:45:34AM -0800, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> I would like to be able to vote on this also.
Branden> Too bad, so sad, you already resigned, goodbye.
Branden> --
Branden> G. Brand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> No, I have not resigned. I almost gave up and wrote an email
> "quitting" and then thought better of it and "unquit". My feelings
> are very hurt over this.
I've seen at least two messages where you said you resigned.
Can you please make up y
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>> No, I have not resigned. I almost gave up and wrote an email
>> "quitting" and then thought better of it and "unquit". My feelings
>> are very hurt over this
* Karl M. Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001204 12:41]:
> I've met almost none of you. You are dealing with a stranger who is
> potentially "unstable"...
Err, Karl, statements such as these aren't great to put into mail list
archives, particularly when you are doing the whole job search thing. :
>>"Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>>> No, I have not resigned. I almost gave up and wrote an email
>>> "quitting" and then thought better of it and "unq
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single option that
> pairwise beats every other option, it should win (assuming there's no
> supermajority requirement, and quorum is met).
That's a relatively weak criterion, all things
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:03:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single option that
> > pairwise beats every other option, it should win (assuming there's no
> > supermajority requirement
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single option that
> > > pairwise beats every other option, it should win (assuming there's no
> > > supermajority requirement, and quorum is met).
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:03:25PM
I'm back from vacation now...I've read the other posts, but I'm
probably not going to respond to them (too many to process all at
once...) So I'll just pick up here.
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single option
Damn, I've got to stop postponing and forgetting these things.
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 06:08:50AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I suspect we've also agreed that the Condorcet winner (if there is
> > one) should always win. And we seem to have agreed that the winner
> > should be from the Smith se
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 10:02:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Actually, if you're talking about a properly formed A.3(3) vote, where
> > > you're voting on option A and independent option B, there should be
> > > on the ballot:
> > > Yes on A and B
> > > Yes on A, no on B
> > > Yes on B no on
> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Branden> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 08:45:34AM -0800, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>> I would like to be able to vote on this also.
Branden> Too bad, so sad, you already resigned, goodbye.
Branden> --
Branden> G. Bran
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
> No, I have not resigned. I almost gave up and wrote an email
> "quitting" and then thought better of it and "unquit". My feelings
> are very hurt over this.
I've seen at least two messages where you said you resigned.
Can you please make up
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>> No, I have not resigned. I almost gave up and wrote an email
>> "quitting" and then thought better of it and "unquit". My feelings
>> are very hurt over thi
* Karl M. Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001204 12:41]:
> I've met almost none of you. You are dealing with a stranger who is
> potentially "unstable"...
Err, Karl, statements such as these aren't great to put into mail list
archives, particularly when you are doing the whole job search thing.
>>"Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes:
>>> No, I have not resigned. I almost gave up and wrote an email
>>> "quitting" and then thought better of it and "un
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single option that
> pairwise beats every other option, it should win (assuming there's no
> supermajority requirement, and quorum is met).
That's a relatively weak criterion, all thing
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:03:25PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single option that
> > pairwise beats every other option, it should win (assuming there's no
> > supermajority requiremen
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single option that
> > > pairwise beats every other option, it should win (assuming there's no
> > > supermajority requirement, and quorum is met).
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 05:03:25P
I'm back from vacation now...I've read the other posts, but I'm
probably not going to respond to them (too many to process all at
once...) So I'll just pick up here.
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:32:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The Condorcet criterion says that if there's a single optio
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 11:20:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > My point of view is that these two are essentially equivalent: in the
> > > N+1 style of voting, a person who thinks that the option isn't the best
> > > would vote for "further discussion".
> > Well, they might do that, yes. Or el
23 matches
Mail list logo
