[EM] SARC definition improvement

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (14 Sep 2000):
> I don't know how to say it more clearly: You haven't shown
> that the criterion's wording is ambiguous. All we have is
> that you & Bruce claim to misunderstand it. Unless you can
> show an ambiguity, then your misunderstanding is your own
> fault, not that of the criterion. That's what I meant. That
> demonstates a certain desperation in your effort to find
> criticism. 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.

There is only one way to check whether your wordings of the
lesser-of-two-evils criteria are clear or ambiguous: You
should name a person --except for Steve Eppley and yourself--
who you believe that he has understood your wordings of the
lesser-of-two-evils criteria and who is willing to answer
questions. I will ask him a few simple questions about your
wordings. If he is able to answer these questions properly
without additional help, then I will withdraw my claim that
your wordings are ambiguous.

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