Dear EM subscribers,
I just joined this list to reply to a post regarding me and my website http://ElectionMethods.org. Some of this post may be off-topic, but I am replying to a post that went off-topic regarding me, so I feel that I should have an opportunity to reply. [I haven't figured out how to reply directly to a message in the archives, so I am initiating a new message.]
Several years ago I found Mike O. on the web, and I emailed him with a question about IRV and why he opposes it. We had some correspondence, and he persuaded me that IRV is not what it is cracked up to be. I was impressed with Mike's knowledge, intelligence, and dedication to this important topic, so a few months later I proposed that we set up a website on the topic. He would be the "domain expert" and I would be the webmaster and editor/writer. He agreed, and ElectionMethods.org was born.
I realized very early that he and I were on opposite sides of the political spectrum. However, I figured that we should keep partisan politics and ideology completely off the site anyway, so I figured we could "agree to disagree" on politics. We consciously avoided discussing politics, and we got along well with regard to the content of the website. I thought it was actually a testament to the website that two individuals of opposite political persuation could cooperate so harmoniously on a website about something so fundamental to democracy.
Well, it couldn't last forever. I don't remember exactly when it happened, but a few months ago we started talking politics. Not just "garden variety" politics, mind you, but really bizarre stuff. Mike put forth the notion that the Bush Administration was behind the 9/11 attacks.
At first I thought Mike was suggesting that Bush had merely "allowed" the attack to occur because he thought it would help him politically. I didn't think that was likely, but I was willing to consider the possibility. I then soon realized that Mike believed more than that. He believes that Bush or his aids actively organized the attacks. He also believes, for example, that the WTC was wired with explosives that were detonated on cue to make the WTC collapse.
Wait, that's not all. Mike is convinced that that a US missile, rather than an airplane, hit the Pentagon. Why? Because he read a book by a Theologian that says the hole in the Pentagon was too small for the airplane to have penetrated, and not much of the airplane was left outside the wall. I referred him to sites that debunk this claim, and I told him that most of the airplane probably just burned up in the massive fire, but his belief was unshakable. When I asked him where the airplane (and the people in it) went if it didn't hit the Pentagon, he said it could have simply flew out over the ocean and ditched.
I told Mike that such a massive conspiracy would not only be incredibly risky, but any net benefit to Bush was highly questionable. Had Bush been caught in such an act, not only would he be hung by the gonads, but the Republicans could plan to be out of power for the next 50 years! Beyond that, the attacks took something like $1,000,000,000,000 (that's a lot of zero, folks!) out of the US economy, which severely damaged the economy and nearly cost Bush the election. Yes, Bush did gain some political "capital" as a result of the attacks, but the downside to the economy was huge, and presidential elections are usually a referendum on the economy. But I digress.
Well, at that point I started to wonder what sort of person I had hooked up with, but I decided to just ignore it and keep the website as is. Then we started talking about the war in Iraq. Now, I respectfully disagree with the position that the war is unjustified and too costly in terms of lives and dollars, but I have no respect for the notion that the US is in it for purely immoral, "imperialistic" reasons. Guess what Mike believes. He believes that the people of Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in power. He also thinks that the US is torturing Iraqis as bad or worse than Saddam and his regime ever did. And apparently Mike's committment to democracy doesn't extend to the Iraqi people. I guess he thinks they have a "right" to live under the thumb of a murderous tyrant who gets 99.96% of the vote (and the other 0.04% are tortured to death).
But even that wasn't enough to end our collaboration on the website. It turns out that Mike is also convinced that Bush stole the 2004 election by means of rigged voting equipment with no paper trail. Now, I agree completely with him that we need paper ballots, and I even wrote an article at the website about it that has been there for years. Furthermore, I am even willing to consider evidence that the machines were rigged. But I was absolutely amazed that Mike is certain it happened when even the Democrats aren't making that claim. That was the straw that made me realize what sort of person I was dealing with.
Mike and I had some nasty email exchanges. (I have only met him once in person, by the way, and it was years ago.) I got frustrated with his apparent lack of connection with reality, and I wrote some really nasty things to him and about him. I probably shouldn't have written those things, but I am not apologizing -- at least not yet.
Things got really nasty when Mike ordered me to "take down the website" or, as he put it in his post to this group,
"I've asked Russ to either take down his website, or at least remove from it my articles, and anything there that has its origin in any suggestions or comments that I'd sent to Russ."
Well, Mike does not have the authority, either legal or moral, to order me to take down the website that I spent so much time developing. The website was my idea to start with, I own the domain, I wrote most of the material, and we certainly had no agreement that the site would "come down" as soon as he demanded it.
Also, the notion that I have no right to use any ideas I got from him is delusional. Because I learned about the deficiencies of IRV from him, does that gives him the legal or moral right to silence me on the matter? Of course not. But he apparently thinks it does. Then again, what would you expect from someone who believes ...
I think I have the right to leave the site as is, with no changes whatsoever. However, I told Mike that I would voluntarily remove the highly technical stuff that he sent me, which I have done. I also gave him the option of freezing the site as it appeared, with both our names, even though we can't stand each other anymore. I did this as a voluntary gesture of fairness to him, but he scoffed at it and childishly demanded once again that I remove everything that I had ever learned from him on the subject. But I could have learned most of it elsewhere, of course. Mike is hardly the only person in the world who knows about the problems of IRV and the benefits of Approval voting.
He also wrote this in his earlier post to this group:
"Over the years, Russ's website has been an ongoing embarrassment on EM,
because Russ has often reworded my definitions in a way that is ambiguous or means something different from the wordings that I'd sent to him."
This is gross distortion. Here's how it worked. Mike would send me his definitions and other material, and I would edit them for readibility. His text was often convoluted and garbled. I spent a lot of time improving his text. Yes, there were a few times when I inadvertantly changed the meaning of something. But I always asked for his approval. Usually I would get his approval before posting, but sometimes I would get a bit careless and post it first and ask him to review it on the site. He was virtually always apprised of new postings and revisions. His claim that I made significant revisions without his approval is simply wrong.
This message is already very long, so I will leave it at that. That is my side of the story. I don't intend to get into a long discussion about it.
Regards, Russ Paielli
http://RussP.org
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
