Reply to Markus

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus said:

you wrote (17 Apr 2001):
>Markus wrote (17 Apr 2001):
> > It isn't clear what you mean with "BeatpathWinner. Due to the
> > usual way, in which new terms are created out of old terms in this
> > mailing list, the "BeatpathWinner" seems to be the winner of the
> > Beatpath Criterion Method.
>
>No, BeatpathWinner is the name of a method, not a candidate.
>Steve and I both began using the term "BeatpathWinner" here around
>the same time, to refer to what we then believed you to mean by
>"Schulze's method".

Nope! Steve Eppley never used the term "BeatpathWinner" in this
context. He always used the term "Schulze method." Therefore it
seems that you have mixed up the Schulze method and the Beatpath
Criterion Method and that some time you began to use these terms
synonymously. Please read Steve Eppley's mails in the archive!

I reply:

The Beatpath Criterion method was always called that, except when
it was abbreviated BCM. Steve never called it BeatpathWinner. That's
why you haven't posted an archived message in which he did. BeatpathWinner 
was always used to mean Schulze's method, without
any ties in the beatpaths, and it was used for nothing else.
If you disagree, then post an archived message that supports your
claim.

In any case, I've repeatedly defined BeatpathWinner here, and
so it's odd that you now ask what I mean by it.

BCM was called by another name, though. I said it was equivalent to
my DCD, and so I used those names interchangably.

Markus quotes some postings in which Steve calls it Schulze, but
did I say that Steve never called it that? There was a time when
he was calling it BeatpathWinner.


Markus said:

In so far as Steve Eppley never promoted the Schulze method,
there is also no real reason why he should have introduced
a new term for this method.

No real reason why not either. I wasn't promoting BeatpathWinner
by any name, but I was the first to use that name.

Steve didn't always call it BeatpathWinner. There was a time during
which he did. He never called BCM "BeatpathWinner". He never called
any other method BeatpathWinner, nor did I. I repeatedly defined
BeatpathWinner on EM. I hope you now understand what it is.
It's what you call "Schulze's method", but disallowing ties in the
beatpaths.

You know, Markus, I wonder if you got "Schulze's method" from
an article, and then claimed it as your own. I'm not saying you
did, or that you didn't. But some of the tendencies that you've
exhibited, like when you were arrogantly claiming that you'd
introduced us to beatpaths (you later admited that you didn't)
certainly don't rule that possibility out.

Mike Ossipoff


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com