[EM] Re: Condorcet Criterion for plurality.

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Markus said:

>Dear participants,
>
>it is clear why Mike Ossipoff is unwilling to understand that
>plurality can be defined on preferential ballots

Mr. Ossipoff wrote--

I don't know whom you're replying to, Markus. You're not replying
to me, and you apparently didn't read my previous message about this.
You post replies without reading or understanding what you're replying
to, just as you expound on academic criterion compliance determination
without understanding it and without being able to define the
procedure you're talking about.
---
D -  Perhaps Mr. S and Mr. O can write to each other direct regarding 
definitions, etc. (and see if they can agree on anything jointly) and save 
the rest of us from having to delete their attacks on each other (which take 
up some valuable bandwidth on the internet).