[EM] Markus, 16 March, '05, 0603 GMT

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you claimed that you proposed "the wv Condorcet class of
methods" (25 Feb 2005). David Gamble asked (25 Feb 2005)
whether you really proposed "winning votes" (wv) methods
first. You replied (26 Feb 2005): "I'd proposed the wv
Condorcet methods, and wv Condorcet methods were popular,
long before you [= Markus Schulze] joined EM, and long
before you defined Schulze's method [in 1997]."

I replied that it cannot be said that you proposed wv
methods in general because you didn't propose a general
concept. It might be true that e.g. Schulze(wv),
Tideman(wv), and Heitzig(wv) happen to satisfy some of
those criteria you considered important in 1997; but
they also violate some of these criteria; for example
they violate your "Generalized Majority Criterion" (GMC).

Now you claim (11 March 2005) that there was no
"justification for your [= Markus'] claim that my
criteria apply only to MinMax". You claim that the
fact that Schulze(wv), Tideman(wv), and Heitzig(wv)
violate GMC was not a feasible argument because you
don't promote GMC anymore. You write (16 March 2005):
"GMC is not a criterion of mine. GMC was a criterion
of mine. But it hasn't been for a long time. As I've
said, I no longer use GMC."

However, to decide whether you really proposed the wv
Condorcet class of methods in/before 1997, we have to
look at those concepts you used at that time and not
at those concepts you use today. The fact that you don't
use GMC today, has nothing to do with the question which
concepts you used in/before 1997.

I suggest that you shouldn't always change the subject
line. I have the impression that your habit always to
change the subject line is one of those reasons why you
usually forget the topic of a discussion very quickly
and begin to spam mailing lists with endless repetitions
of off-topic mails.

Markus Schulze