[EM] Paul Kislanko reply

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Paul Kislanko said:

For every example that meets such-and-such criterion

I reply:

Actually, for determining criterion compliance or noncompliance, what we 
want is _failure_ examples, not success examples. As already explained to 
Chris, an example in which a method doesn't fail a criterion proves nothing 
about whether or not that method meets the criterion.

Paul continued:

there is a fairly easy
way to come up with a counterexample that shows a failure to meet a
different criterion

I reply:

I believe that it's already common knowledge here that no method meets every 
criterion.

Paul continued:

, and what most people on this list do is switch criteria
from a post to a reply to an objection to their post.

I reply:

The meaning of that sentence isn't quite clear. But it suggests that people 
switch criteria. I don't know about that. People seem quite consistent about 
what criteria they prefer. Some like LNH, and they seem to not switch to 
saying they like something else better. I've consistenly expressed 
preference for methods that meet the defensive strategy criteria, FBC, SFC, 
GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up — fast & reliable Internet access with prime 
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1