[EM] Another false quote made by Mike

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (20 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (20 June 2000):
> > The intention of your recent mails isn't clear to me. I want you
> > to remember that it is Steve who started claiming that you had
> > an example "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate
> > even though no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which
> > beat it pairwise." Therefore you should attack Steve and not me.
>
> Steve was correct. I had indeed posted that example, some time
> previous. You, not Steve, claim that I said on May 13 that
> my Tideman bad-example is possible, with the pairwise defeats
> as written. It's just you who are the liar.

If you had changed your opinion about the possibility of an example
"showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no voter
preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise" then why
did you never write this to this mailing list? The possibility of such
an example was a hot topic in those days.

By the way: I still haven't found that mail in which --due to Steve
(23 Feb 2000; 11 May 2000)-- you post an example and claim that "the
Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no voter preferred
it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise." It would be
advantageous if Steve (or somebody else) could forward this mail.
Otherwise there would be the danger that we discuss ad infinitum
a claim that has never been made.

******

You wrote (20 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (20 June 2000):
> > Even on 11 May 2000, Steve claimed that you have an example
> > "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no
> > voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise."
>
> So what? Apparently Steve didn't know, as I didn't know, whether
> or not the Tideman bad-example was possible with rankings.
> But that isn't the same as saying that I claimed that my
> Tideman bad-example was possible, on May 13, or that Steve said
> that I made such a claim.

When Steve and you claim that you have an example "showing the
Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no voter preferred
it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise" then it is clear
that this includes that Steve and you claim that this example is
possible. The reason: An example that is not possible cannot show
a problem of a given election method. Do you agree?

******

You wrote (20 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (20 June 2000):
> > Mike wrote (20 June 2000):
> > > Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > > > Even in your 19 May 2000 mail, you wrote that you don't know
> > > > whether it is possible or impossible to create an example
> > > > "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though
> > > > no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it
> > > > pairwise."
> > >
> > > Here you're being asinine in 2 ways:
> > >
> > > 1. Even if I'd said that it's possible to create such an example
> > >    , that wouldn't mean that I'd said that my Tideman bad-example,
> > >    itself, with its vote totals as written, is possible with some
> > >    set of rankings.
> > >
> > > 2. Since when is saying "I don't know" if such an example is
> > >    possible the same as stating that such an example is possible.
> > >
> > > So, I said that I don't know if such an example is possible, and
> > > you interpret that as meaning that not only is such an example
> > > possible, but also, in particular, my Tideman bad-example is
> > > possible.
> >
> > You are misquoting me. "Or whould we use the impolite word?"
>
> So now you're saying that you weren't attempting to use the
> May 19 quote to somehow justify your claim that I claimed on
> May 13 that the Tideman bad-example is possible. Well certainly
> no rational person would try to use that May 19 quote for that
> purpose. But if that wasn't why you included that quote, then
> one can only wonder what was your point in including that quote,
> when I myself have been asserting that I didn't know whether or
> not the situation in question was possible.
>
> Markus wrote (20 June 2000):
> > I wrote that you wrote in your 19 May 2000 mail that you don't
> > know whether it is possible or impossible to create an example
> > "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even though no
> > voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise."
>
> I've been telling you that I didn't know about that. So what's
> your point telling me that?
>
> Markus wrote (20 June 2000):
> > I didn't write that you said in your 19 May 2000 mail that your
> > "Tideman bad-example, itself, with its vote totals as written, is
> > possible with some set of rankings."
>
> You included that May 19 quote as if it somehow supported your
> claim that you aren't a liar. As if it somehow supported your
> claim about what I said on May 13. I'm the first to agree that
> that May 19 quote, where I said I didn't know one way or the
> other, doesn't support your position at all. But it was reasonable
> for me to infer that you were attempting to use it for that
> purpose. Since you included it in your argument that you didn't
> lie, it's reasonable to infer that you were trying to say that
> that quote supported your position. But let's just agree that
> your use of that quote, where I said I didn't know, didn't make
> any sense.
>
> Markus wrote (20 June 2000):
> > Mike wrote (20 June 2000):
> > > Markus wrote (19 June 2000):
> > > > Mike wrote (19 May 2000):
> > > > > Is that situation impossible because it isn't possible to
> > > > > supply a set of rankings for it? Of course, aside from that,
> > > > > of itself, it the fact that no one ranks A over B doesn't
> > > > > meant that A can't have a strong beatpath to B. And the fact
> > > > > that someone ranks B over A doesn't mean that B has a strong
> > > > > beatpath to A. But maybe it's that that situation can't be
> > > > > created by a set of rankings. I don't know.
> > >
> > > Must I read it to you, Markus? I said "I don't know".
> >
> > I never claimed that you wrote something different in your
> > 19 May 2000 mail.
>
> Why you posted
> 2 quotes in which I said I didn't know, when I myself have been
> asserting that I didn't know, isn't at all clear. Where you're
> a liar is where you said that I claimed on May 13 that my
> Tideman bad-example is possible. All of your quotes of where
> I said that I didn't know--I don't disagree with those quotes,
> though one can only wonder what could be your point in quoting
> those statements that I didn't know--when I myself have been
> asserting that I didn't know.
>
> Markus wrote (20 June 2000):
> > Again: I wrote that in your 19 May 2000 mail you wrote that you
> > don't know whether it is possible or impossible to create an
> > example "showing the Schulze method preferred a candidate even
> > though no voter preferred it to the Tideman winner which beat it
> > pairwise."
>
> And only you know what your point could have been in quoting
> a statement that in no way supports your claim that you aren't
> a liar in regards to what I said on May 13.

I quoted your 19 May 2000 mail to demonstrate that the question
whether it is possible to create an example "showing the Schulze
method preferred a candidate even though no voter preferred it to
the Tideman winner which beat it pairwise" was still a hot topic
on 19 May 2000.

It would be advantageous if you read my mails before you
shout "Liar!"

Markus Schulze
schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
schulze at math.tu-berlin.de
markusschulze at planet-interkom.de