[EM] Markus, I'll clarify your answer

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (4 March 2005):
> In one posting I said that there are several possible reasons why you say
> my criteria are undefined:
>
> 1. They aesthetically displease you.
> 2. They're non-traditional, and you're a loyal follower of tradition.
> 3. You can show that they're ambiguous in their wording, or that there's
> a situation in which
> they're ambiguous in their answer as to whether or not some method
> passes or fails.
>
> In a recent e-mail you said that the criteria are undefined because one
> [traditionally] doesn't define criteria mentioning preferences. Criteria,
> you said, [traditionally] may only mention votes, which you call "cast
> preferences".
>
> So that's why I say that you've answered my question about why you think
> my criteria are undefined. The answer is answer number two: You believe
> that my criteria are undefined because they're non-traditional, and
> you're a loyal follower of tradition.

Well, you haven't even answered my question which model you use. Your
2 March 2005 mail ("[EM] Kevin, 2 March, '5, 1425 GMT") suggests that
you use the resolute model. (The "resolute model" says that for every
possible profile the winner is determined in advance.) However, your
3 March 2005 mail ("[EM] No, Random Candidate doesn't meet FBC (as of
now)") suggests that you don't use the resolute model.

Markus Schulze