[EM] I want to apologize for the cordialilty-lapse.

[Michael Ossipoff]

Anyone offering criteria should welcome criticism of them, without anger, 
just as I’ve been doing. But sometimes something that you weren’t expecting 
takes you by surprise, and you lose your temper.

BC is a criterion, more than it’s “Schulze’s method dressed-up as a 
criterion“. That’s because, if “Schulze’s method” were a criterion, it would 
be met only by one method. A narrow criterion indeed. BC, on the other hand, 
is met by a set of methods (including, but certainly not limited to, 
“Schulze’s method”.

But, though BC, even in its name, is called a criterion, I don’t use it as a 
criterion, in the sense of offering it as something that I claim that you 
should want methods to comply with. That’s what FBC, SFC, GSFC, WDSC, and 
SDSC are. They’re worded so as to tell why you’d want their guarantee.

BC is for my own use. I don’t offer it as a criterion. That’s why Benham 
caught me off-guard when he told me that BC, which I’d been using, isn’t 
useful.  I hadn’t recommended that Chris use it. Though I was ready for 
criticism of my criteria, I wasn’t ready for criticism of how I, personally, 
determine compliances. It would be different if Chris had raised a 
validity-point about the compliance-determination. That’s why, as I said, 
Chris caught me off-guard, and I lost my temper. Before that, there hadn’t 
been anger when I replied to objections and criticisms about my criteria. So 
I apologize that something hitting me from a different direction caught me 
off-guard and  caused me to lose my temper.

Mike Ossipoff