>Mike ends his piece with a lovely bit criticising the agenda >of "academics" (he doesn't have to go "all academics suck!" to prompt >a response). I quoth- > > > But I don't say that Craig's above-quoted attitude is original with > > him. Maybe Craig has just explained why the academics generally > > don't seem interested in the standards that concern actual voters. > > > > But though I may not agree with the priorities or goals of most > > academics, I wouldn't insult them by counting Craig among them. > > I merely mean that he may have copied their style and jargon, and > > verbalized their values more frankly than they usually do, in > > the above quoted statement by Craig. Catchy, you're too sensitive. All I said was that maybe Craig has exaplained why academics generally aren't interested in the standards that concern actual voters. That's a criticism of their agenda? > I feel that sometimes people >feel that in order to achieve theoretical greatness they have to go "out >in the wilderness." David, you tend toward dramatic ways of saying things. I'm interested in dealing with certain concerns that are important to lots of voters, and by which they seem dominated & cowed. I'm sorry if it offends you when I say that the professors whom you respect so much aren't interested in those concerns, for the most part. I don't care what dogmas you subscribe to. But why does it upset you if not everyone shares your loyalty to those dogmas? As for your reading list, I'd suggest Weber & Merrill as the people to read, for Approval. Weber & Myerson have written interesting articles on tests for comparing methods. UUCC is a simplification based on Myerson's corruption test. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.