[EM] Bill & our definitions

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Bill said:

>CC doesn't say anything about requiring "fully specified" preferences.

I skipped over this part (because I figured I already knew what a "sincere
vote" was, but apparently not:)

I reply:

No, apparently not. But that didn't stop you from expounding on the list 
about something that you hadn't read about.

You thought that you knew what a "sincere vote" was? What, then, did you 
believe that a "sincere vote" was? What did you think that sincere voting 
meant in Approval, and how do you think that your sincere Approval voting 
definition would make Approval pass our CC?

I assume that you did have a definition of sincere voting in Approval, 
because you say that you thought that you knew what "sincere voting was".

But finding our definition of sincere voting apparently didn't help you 
much, because you're still saying that Approval passes our CC.

You're still doing what you were doing when you started posting: You're 
telling us how it is, without bothering to take a good look at what you're 
talking about first.

Check these things out thoroughly before you start expounding. If you've 
read the material carefully, and still have questions, then that's fine. But 
when you haven't read it, and are just throwing sloppy errors around, that 
doesn't help. And if you have objections, or disagreements, then I'd hoped 
that you'd learn by now to express your objections a little more 
tentatively, because, so far, your objections have been mistaken.

Bill said:

It still looks like Approval satisfies CC, under the same sort of
interpretation given for MC.  (At least as these two criteria are depicted

I reply:

It would probably better to go by our definitions, instead of your "sort of 
interpretation", when handing down your ruling about what meets our 
criteria.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. 
http://wine.msn.com/