From: sonic@bearpit.cray.com (Curtis Swanson)
Subject: Rambling analysis (was Re: Voting Analysis)
Reply-To: sonic@bearpit.cray.com (Curtis Swanson)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:04:25 CST

In article <1992Nov19.152704.25430@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com 
(Eric Postpischil) writes:
|>In article <1992Nov18.174618.5593@walter.cray.com>,
|>sonic@bearpit.cray.com (Curtis Swanson) writes:

|>>>I stated my thesis clearly; it is the last sentence of the article with
|>>>which I initiated the "Voting Analysis" thread:

|>>>	I merely wish to prove that there is at least one
|>>>	situation in which it is an intelligent
|>>>	choice, for some people, not to vote.

|>>Yup, you did.  I acknowledged that fact while noting its limitations and
|>>other possible flaws other's had noticed.  You ignored my followup.

|>As you say, you agreed with my thesis.  I therefore saw no call to
|>respond.  I certainly had no interest in rebutting your agreement.  If
|>you have agreed with my thesis, my point is proved.

Yes, it does seem foolish to rebut an agreement but it doesn't stop you 
from acknowledging it, as a courtesy to your debators.  And my agreeing 
with your thesis in no way proves it; it's just another opinion on the 
matter.

Also, there have been other points raised that you haven't responded to:
Does this mean you agree with them?  I can only assume agreement from 
you in regards to all the points raised in this discussion (and, by 
extension, all other discussions) based on your previous actions and 
explanations of them if you do not deign to respond.

|>> It still is an extremely narrowly defined situation and probably not
|>> generally applicable.

|>While the situation might be narrow, I disagree that it is extremely
|>narrow.  But it is not intended to be generally applicable, although
|>with the number of people who speak of voting for the lesser evil, I
|>question whether it does not apply to more people than realize it.  It
|>is intended to be applicable to some people, whom I know exist.  You
|>have agreed to this, so the point is proven:  There exist people for
|>whom not voting is an intelligent choice.  One cannot logically conclude
|>that a person who does not vote has made an unintelligent choice.

Nor can one conclude that an intelligent one was made either without 
sampling and extrapolation.  It could be more generally applicable than
what I think.  I just carry a cynical opinion about non-voter's motives
(I believe that most lean toward apathy rather than disgust - and yes, I
do draw a distinction).

|>>>That is an ad hominem attack; it is irrelevant to the discussion.

|>> . . . This discussion has never stayed on track, what with
|>>the wanderings of most everybody involved . . .

|>First, varying subjects of discussion are not the same thing as ad
|>hominem attacks.  Even if the discussion wanders, ad hominem attacks are
|>irrelevant, inappropriate, and rude.

Sorry, it seemed that you were responding to the introduction of an analagy.

|>Second, I have kept the "Voting Analysis" thread on track; one and only
|>one voting situation has been discussed in this thread.  If you have
|>some question about how some specific point is relevant, please present
|>the exact material you wish clarified.  I will defend the thesis I
|>presented, and I will explain as necessary.

Well, it seemed to me that your positions varied somewhat as points were
raised and positions argued.  I have tried to point out inconsistancies
where I found them and then seen changes in your arguments of those points.
In your previous post (Re: And again, Voting Analysis), you write " I did 
not deny that the sample from group X is needed, . . ."  Had you written
that a month ago, a lot of points would never have needed to have been
raised.

|>> . . . (you especially).

|>It serves no good purpose to criticize authors.  If you have specific
|>material whose relevance you do not perceive, I will attempt to clarify
|>it for you.  But I have done you no harm, so there is no call to be rude
|>to me.  I request that you observe proper etiquette and refrain from
|>making comments about authors.

Please note that I did not exclude myself from the "wandering" list.  I was 
just making an observation based on things I explained above.

|>                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
|>                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
|>                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com

Sigh.  I think I'm going to let all this rest (assuming something worth
discussing fails to come up).  Time to concentrate upon other things....

***  Curt Swanson  ***  sonic@romulus.cray.com  ***  IOTTMCO  *********
Bad opening line #106:
     "Say, you own the 'Buns of steel' video, don't you?"
***  Warning: This signature expires on 30-NOV-92!  *******************
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa