[EM] 3 questions for Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Here are the questions that I'd like to (re)ask:

1. I asked you what you think you it means to meet a criterion
   that refers to some candidates by letter designations.

   You still haven't answered. If you don't know what you think
   it means to meet a criterion, then I'd say that casts a whole
   lot of doubt on your statements about whether a criterion is
   ambiguous or ill-defined.

2. Though you said why you thought WDSC & SDSC were ambiguous,
   and were answered (Also, refer to the last sentence in question
   number 1). But when you claimed that SFC & GSFC were
   ill-defined, I asked you to tell us why you think that they're
   ill-defined. You haven't answred that either.

3. When I told you that the defensive strategy carry out your goal
   of protecting sincere voting, you said that they don't because
   they're ambiguous (Refer to the last sentence in question
   number 1, and to yesterday's message from me in which I
   answered your 2 questions). But in any case, if you don't
   like my criteria for protecting sincere voting, I have asked
   you what criteria _you_ like better for that purpose. You
   haven't answered that either.

Basically, it would seem that you got a little ahead of yourself,
and made some statements that you can't justify.

Do you agree or disagree with my statement that if we protect
voters from the need to vote insincerely, then we don't need
to concern ourselves about making sure that their insincere voting
won't succeed, or making sure that their insincere voting isn't
protected?

Those latter 2 goals you seem to have copied from the same academic
authors about whom I've been saying certain impolite things.

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.