[EM] Markus, 12 Mfarch, '05, 0315 GMT

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Markus--

I'd said:

>I've used that term, but it has no role in defining my
>criteria, and so It gives you no justification for your
>claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax (whatever
>MinMax means).

You say:
:
Well, you introduced your concept of "majority-rejected"
candidates in 1995 to motivate MinMax(winning votes).

I reply:

I wasn't aware that I'd advocated a method referred to me as MinMax. In '94, 
I proposed PC and Smith//PC.

I explained that proposal  by pointing out that those methods are more free 
of need for preference-concealingl defensive strategy than non-wv methods 
are. That's as true now as it was then, though additional wv methods have 
been proposed, and Condorcetists now additionally advocate 
BeatpathWinner/CSSD, SSD, SD, and RP.

You continue:

You now claim that there was "no justification for your
claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax". Well, I don't
know which "criteria" you are talking about.

I replyi:

...whichever ones you thought could only apply to MinMax.

You continue:

You used your
concept of "majority-rejected" candidates to motivate MinMax
(winning votes) in 1995.

I reply:

I didn't "motivate" MinMax, though I did propose PC and Smith//PC, and told 
why they were better than anything other than wv.

You continue:

You didn't use your "strategy free"
criteria (which have been introduced by you in 2000).

I reply:

>From the very start, from the day when I proposed the "single-winner 
committee", which became EM, and from the first day that I proposed wv 
methods, I pointed out that the wv methods were much more free of need for 
preference-concealing, favorite-abandoning, defensive strategy than other 
methods are.

And very soon after my proposal of wv, I began using criteria that were 
early versions of SFC, WDSC, and SDSC.

The matter of what year it was when I introduced the latest versions of the 
majority defensive strategy criteria is hardly relevant to the matter of 
whether or not I proposed wv.

Nor is the fact that I'd used the term "majority-rejected". "Majority 
rejected" was never a criterion, and was never the main justification of wv. 
As I said, the main justification of wv has always been its much greater 
freedom from need for preference-concealing, favorite-abandoning, defensive 
strategy.

You continue:

I didn't say that I don't know what "CSSD" or "BeatpathWinner"
means. I said that (in so far as both terms refer to the same
method) I haven't yet understood when you use the term "CSSD"
and when you use the term "BeatpathWinner".

I reply:

...and I don't understand what you mean when you say that. But that's ok. 
Let's agree to disregard that statement.

But, since you know what BeatpathWinner means:

Does BeatpathWinner meet the criterion that you recently posted to EM as 
your version of SFC?

Mike Ossipoff


Markus Schulze

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963