[EM] Markus, 23 May, 0500 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus Schulze--

It makes a big difference whether someone (1) made an
error, was pointed to this error, and then stopped making
this error or (2) made an error very many times, was
pointed to this error several times, wrote each time
"Thank you for pointing me to this error. I made this
error because I mistakenly believed that ..." and then
each time continued making this error.

You are the latter case. That's why I say that you use
your claim, that you hadn't understood the Schulze method

I reply:

I said that I didn't know (and still don't know or care) what Shulze's 
method is, and that I used to mistakenly believe that it was BeatpathWinner. 
And that I hadn't heard of CSSD when I devised SSD.

You continue:

as an "argument" for claiming that you "devised" the same
method ("SSD", "CSSD", "BeatpathWinner") independently
of me.

I reply:

That isn't an error. It's a fact. I devised SSD and CSSD independent of you. 
But no, I never said that I devised BeatpathWinner independent of you. And 
when I found that you posted CSSD before I did, I said so. So the statement 
that I devised SSD and CSSD independent of you is not something about which 
I said or would say "Thank you for pointing me to this error. I made this 
error because I mistakenly believed that ..."

Aside from that, I was the first to post an SSD definition to EM. I told you 
why your supposed SSD definition isn't one.

You continue:

By the way: You had understood the Schulze method
sufficiently to observe that "SSD is equivalent to
Schulze's method" when you proposed SSD.

I reply:

At that time I mistakenly believed that "Schulze's method" meant 
BeatpathWinner. So if I said that SSD was equivalent to Schulze's method,  I 
meant that SSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. Yes, I understood 
BeatpathWinnrer, and have never claimed that I didn't. What I've repeatedly 
said was that I hadn't heard of CSSD. Yes, CSSD is equivalent to 
BeatpathWinner, but I had heard of the BeatpathWinner definition, but not 
the CSSD definition. You keep referring to Schulze's method, which isn't one 
methoid, according to what you said last month, but is rather an umbrella 
family of methods. Your meaning would be clearer if you would instead 
specifically name the particular "Schulze method" version that you're 
referring to.

You continue:

I don't know
what you claim to have not understood about the Schulze
method.

I reply:

It's meaning. That's what I didn't understand about Schulze's method, 
because I thought that it meant BeatpathWinner. Now I don't know or care 
what Schulze's method means. The other thing I claim that I didn't know?:  I 
hadn't heard of CSSD when I and Steve devised SSD. By the way, I also point 
out that CSSD is not SSD.

But I've been saying those things for some time now, and only an imbecile 
would keep asking those questions.

You continue:

But it is obvious that this has nothing to do
with the question whether you "devised" SSD independently
of me.

I reply:

The fact that you didn't devise SSD has everything to do with the fact that 
I devised SSD independent of you.

And, incidentally, the fact that I hadn't heard of CSSD when I and Steve 
devised SSD means that SSD was not devised as a variation on CSSD, or based 
on CSSD. But even if it were, SSD would still be an Ossipoff-Eppley method, 
not a Schulze method, because CSSD is not SSD, and you didn't devise or post 
SSD.

Now, that should close that subject.

I'd said:

>I fully admit that I didn't know then what you meant by
>"Schulze method". And, as for your posting of CSSD, I
>hadn't read it, and therefore didn't know what count
>rule you were describing. So yes, I hadn't heard of CSSD.


The very first time that the term "Schwartz Sequential
Dropping" (SSD) was being used was on 18 Feb 2000 in a
mail by you. Already in that mail, you wrote that "SSD is
equivalent to Schulze's method".

I reply:

At that time I mistakenly believed that "Schulze"s method" meant 
BeatpathWinner. What I meant, then, was that SSD is equivalent to 
BeatpathWinner. It is equivalent to BeatpathWinner only when there are no 
pairwise ties. I've acknowledged that error many many times: SSD is not 
equivalent to BeatpathWinner when there are pairwise ties. And "Sculze's 
method" doesn't really mean BeatpathWinner. I've acknowledged that error 
too. Are you aware that you keep repeating the same thing that I"ve been 
answering again and again? That's why I say that there is something wrong 
with you.

You continue:

Therefore, it isn't quite
clear what you now try to achieve by saying that you
didn't know the Schulze method.

I reply:

Maybe you're referrng to the fact that I was mistaken about what you meant 
by "Schulze's method". Or maybe you're referring to the fact that I hadn't 
hard of CSSD at the t ime when I and Steve devised SSD. What am I trying to 
achive by saying those things? Just the statement of those things. The 
former explains why I said that SSD is equivalent to Schulze' s method, when 
I meant that it is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. The latter justifies my 
statement that SSD was not devised as a variation on, or based on, CSSD.


********************************************************

You wrote (22 May 2005):

>I've never claimed credit for Schulze's method. I don't
>even know what it is.

Again: The very first time that the term "Schwartz Sequential
Dropping" (SSD) was being used was on 18 Feb 2000 in a
mail by you. Already in that mail, you wrote that "SSD is
equivalent to Schulze's method". Therefore, it isn't quite
clear what you now try to achieve by saying that you don't
know the Schulze method.

I reply:

Are you aware that you're repeating what you just finished saying? For the 
answer to it, see what I have just said, directly above.

You say:

You wrote to Russ Paielli that the Schulze method was an
"Ossipoff method"

I reply:

Wrong. I never said that the Schulze method was an Ossipoff method. I no 
longer use the term "The Schulze method", and so I wouldn't have said that. 
I said that SSD is an Ossipoff method.
Saying that doesn't mean that knew what Schulze method means.

You continue:

and that those who promote the Schulze
method without your explicit permission don't have "any
pride or self-respect"

I reply:

I never said that about Schulze's method. I said it about wv, of which 
Schulze's method is just a subset. And I said it about SSD, which was first 
posted by me, not by you.

Further, I didn't say "Those who promote...". I was referering to one 
individual who was, and probabaly still is,  using material originating from 
me after I'd requested that he not do so.

You continue:

(14 May 2005). If this doesn't mean
to claim credit for the Schulze method, then what does it
mean to claim credit?

I reply:

Since I introduced wv, that means that Schulze's method is nothing but a 
subset of what I introduced. But I haven't _specifically_ claimed credit for 
Schulze's method. Only for wv as a whole, of which Schulze's method is a 
part. And for SSD in particular. But I don't mean to make a big deal of the 
fact that I first posted SSD, because it's true that SSD differs only 
slightly from CSSD.

You say:

Please forward that mail where "Norm criticized SSD for its
lack of clone independence in small committees"!

I reply:

As I said, I don't keep e-mail that far back. But why would I lie about Norm 
saying that??

You continue:

As far as
I remember correctly, you "devised" CSSD because I, and not
"Norm", "criticized SSD for its lack of clone independence
in small committees".

I reply:

You remember wrong. Yes, you had criticized SSD because of its lack of 
clone-independence in small committees. But I didn't devise CSSD then. 
During the Debian electoral reform committee discussion, Norm did likewise. 
I didn't devise CSSD when you criticized SSD for its lack of 
clone-independence in small committees. I devised CSSD when Norm criticized 
SSD for its lack of clone-independence in small committees. I did so because 
that was a very relevant criticism at the time, since we were discussing 
what method would be best for the Debian organization's voting, in elections 
that might not have lots of voters. That was why I devised CSSD.

You continue:

But I would also like to know what
"Norm" wrote about that.

I reply:

"Norm" wrote that SSD is not clone-independent in small committees.

If you want his exact words, I no longer have e-mail from that year.

You continue:

Again: The very first time that the term "Schwartz Sequential
Dropping" (SSD) was being used was on 18 Feb 2000 in a
mail by you. Already in that mail, you wrote that "SSD is
equivalent to Schulze's method".

I reply:

At that time, I mistakenly believed that "Schulze method" meant 
BeatpathWinner. So, if I said that SSD is equivalent to Schulze's method, I 
meant that SSD is equivalent to BeatpathWinner. Actually, SSD isn't 
equivalent to BeatpathWinner unless there are no pairwise ties.

You continue:

Therefore, it isn't quite
clear what you now try to achieve by saying that you made
no reference to any method of mine.

I reply:

Are you sure that I said that I have never made reference to any method of 
yours? When I called BeatpathWinner "Schulze's method", I was referring to 
it as a method of yours. I've never claimed that I've never referred to a 
method of yours.


You continue:

Well, you wrote that you don't forward interesting off-list
mails (even when they could support your claims) because Norm
told you, more than 5 years ago (!!!!!), not to do this.

I reply:

I didn't say that Norm told me not to forward the Debian electoral reform 
committee's discussion to EM. I said that no one on that committee ever 
suggested, or even considered, forwarding that committee's discussion to a 
mailing list.

You ask for a copy of Norm's e-mail objecting that SSD isn't 
clone-independent in small committees. I'd be glad to post it if I still had 
e-mail back that far.

You continue:

I suggest that everybody of this list should post a mail to
you in which he writes that you should now forward those
off-list discussions that you had in the past and that
could be of interest for this mailing list and that Norm
had told you not to forward.

I reply:

If I still had the e-mail from that committee discussion, most likely the 
other members of that committee would give me permission to post the 
discussion to EM. Of course I'd have to ask for that permission, and would 
have to get that permission before posting that discussion to EM. However,  
I don't keep e-mail that far back.

Norm didn't tell me not to forward it to EM. Posting committee discussion to 
mailing list hadn't occurred to any of us.

I'd said:

>Markus, this shows that you're all confused, and that you
>haven't a clue what you're saying or what you're quoting.
>The thing is-is, this is a prime example of Markus'
>carelessness about the accuracy or inaccuracy of his
>statements.

You say:

Already in another mail, I pointed to the fact that the set
of candidates who can be elected according to Steve Eppley's
beatpath criterion is _not_ the same as the "set of
BeatpathWinner winners". Therefore, I would be very happy
if Mike Ossipoff stopped using these two terms as if they
were synonymous terms.

I reply:

What two terms? I used Steve's name for the Beatpath Criterion. I don't use 
"BeatpathWinner Criterion" and "Set of BeatpathWinner Winners" as one term.

In an earlier posting, last month, I said that they were the same. Then I 
agreed that they were not the same. Since that time I have not said that 
they were the same, or implied that they were.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/