[EM] Markus' error: What "B" means.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Russ & EM list--

Markus's & Bruce's misunderstanding of WDSC & SDSC, whether
that misunderstanding is genuine or not, has as its basis
an unstated misunderstanding (genuine or otherwise) about
the meaning of "B".

Here's what I claim is the meaning of "B" that we all accept:

When used in a definition, "B" means:

Whatever 1 particular candidate you choose to be the 1 candidate
who shall be referred to by the letter designation "B", for the
purposes of that definition, provided that that candidate isn't
referred to by any different letter designation in that
definition.

For the meaning of "A", substitute "A" for "B" in the above
paragraph.

[that concludes my claim about what "A" & "B" mean]

I want to emphasize that the above isn't s definition that
has to be written with my criteria definitions. It's the
obvious & universally accepted meaning for "A" & "B" in a
definition. Usually we don't need to write it, because it's
universally understood.

Markus, do you believe that "B" has a different meaning that
conflicts with or contradicts the above meaning? In particular,
do you have a meaning for "A" & "B" that justifies your claims
about criteria ambiguity?

If so, would you tell us what you think "B" means?

If not, then look at it this way and you'll understand it:
After you choose what candidates to call A & B, and if there's
a majority who prefer A to B, then WDSC & SDSC say something
about what that majority can do. Surely you understand now that
WDSC & SDSC say nothing about what anyone else can or cannot do,
and that WDSC & SDSC don't specify any conditions regarding how
anyone else votes.

Lest it seem that my criteria are difficult to understand because
Markus & Bruce (claim to) misunderstand them, and because I've
been forced to spell out what "B" means, let me point out that
when someone wants to, that person can insist on asking similar
questions about any definition, demanding definitions that are
thorough, explicit & unambiguous, and wordy, to a degree that
would never be acceptable for public use. So I hope Markus won't
now tell me that I should drop WDSC & SDSC because they're too
complicated, after he's made it necessary for me to answer
his unnecessary questions and spell out universally understood things
that would never have to be spelled out when talking to the public.

Markus, as I said we appreciate & welcome your criticisms of
the defensive strategy criteria, but if you don't tell us better
criticisms than you have been, then you're just wasting our time.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.