[EM] Markus, 19 March, '05, 0230 GMT

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (19 March 2005):
> MinMax is a term that I didn't use then and 
> don't use now, due to its ambiguity.

Well, the term "MinMax" is less ambiguous than
your term "Plain Condorcet", since this method has
absolutely no resemblance to Condorcet's proposals.
Actually, I prefer the term "Simpson-Kramer".

*********

I wrote (17 March 2005):
> You proposed wv, but only in connection with the
> MinMax tie-breaking strategy.

You wrote (19 March 2005):
> Wrong. PC was not the only method that could use
> wv or margins. Smith//PC too could use wv or margins.

With "MinMax tie-breaking strategy", I mean the
suggestion that the winner is the MinMax winner
of that set from the method is to choose
(e.g. Smith//MinMax, Copeland//MinMax).

*********

I wrote (17 March 2005):
> You didn't propose wv in general, since GMC isn't
> satisfied by other wv methods than MinMax(wv).

You wrote (19 March 2005):
> Markus, this is why I eventually start asking
> if something is wrong with you. I just finished
> pointing out to you the following (among others
> things): I introduced and proposed wv years before
> I defined GMC. Therefore you aren't making any sense
> when you try to say that GMC has bearing on what I
> meant when I introduced and proposed wv. What Markus
> is doing here is repetition of what he said before.
> copying, re-use, recycling and repetition of statements
> that have been rebutted in the message to which Markus
> (maybe thinks that he) is replying to. But Markus isn't
> replying. Markus is monologing. It doesn't matter what
> I say. It doesn't matter if I point out why Markus's
> conclusions don't make any sense. Markus will just
> keep on repeating what he likes to repeat.

I can only comment on how you motivated wv at the EM
mailing list. Here, you used GMC from the very beginning.
And GMC was one of your main arguments for using wv.

I cannot comment on how you motivated wv in private mails
to other people than me (especially when you don't forward
these mails).

*********

You wrote (19 March 2005):
> At the time when I introduced wv, there were only
> 2 methods known on EM that could use wv or margins:
> PC and Smith//PC.

Of course, that means that my observation that
"you proposed wv only in connection with the
MinMax tie-breaking strategy" is correct.

Markus Schulze