[EM] Markus's latest

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (19 Jan 2002):
> Markus wrote (19 Jan 2002):
> > I want you to remember that you asked me for an example
> > of a method that meets IIAC. Therefore, it can hardly be called
> > "offensive" "blather" or "idiotic crap" when I post Random
> > Candidate as an example and ask you to inspect this example.
>
> The letter that I was replying to when I said those things was
> "offensive", "blather", and "idiotic crap". As is the letter
> that I'm replying to now. I never said that Random Candidate
> doesn't meete IIAC. I said that Random Candidate isn't a voting
> system.

Unless you consider it "offensive", "blather", and "idiotic crap"
to ask how you define "voting systems", I would like to ask how
you define "voting systems."

By the way: In your 9 Jan 2002 mail, you asked me which "method"
meets IIAC. You didn't ask me which "voting system" meets IIAC.
So if e.g. a "voting method" implies the Pareto criterion due to
your definition of "voting methods", then you should have asked
which method meets both Pareto and IIAC. Otherwise you must not
be angry when the answer doesn't satisfies you.

Markus Schulze