Markus wrote:
Please check the definitions I reply: Why? You've already re-posted it, and so now I don't have to find it in the archives. Markus continues: and stop spaming the EM archives with lengthly mails in which you only write that you haven't checked the definitions! I reply: Actually lately I've only been commenting on postings like the one I'm replying to now. It was a long time ago that I said I hadn't checked your definition, so why are you still talking about that? Markus continues: I want you to remember that you asked me for an example of a method that meets IIAC. Therefore, it can hardly be called "offensive" "blather" or "idiotic crap" when I post Random Candidate as an example and ask you to inspect this example. I reply: Correct. Your posting of the information that I asked for wasn't "offensive", "blather", or "idiotic crap". But the letter that I was replying to when I said those things was "offensive", "blather", and "idiotic crap". As is the letter that I'm replying to now. Markus continues: Why is it impossible for you to appreciate the fact that Random Candidate meets IIAC? I reply: I never said that Random Candidate doesn't meete IIAC. I said that Random Candidate isn't a voting system. But, contrary to your claim, Random Ballot doesn't meet IIAC, as you define that criterion. Mike Ossipoff Markus Schulze _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
