[EM] Re: Subcycle methods of 1996

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I checked those links to my postings about subcycle methods, and in one of 
those postings, I referred to myself as the "proponent" of one of the 
subcycle methods.

So, from that, it could be said that I was proposing the method, in a sense. 
But I was using "proponent" in a much weaker sense than I now do. I wasn´t 
proposing the subcycle methods in the sense that I now use "propose". I was 
applying the word "proponent" to anyone who mentions a new method for 
evaluation.

I wasn´t suggesting subcycle rule 2 for use, because it was a new and 
un-evaluated method.

I clarified in that same posting that I was mentioning subcycle rule 2 
tentatively, pending determination of its faults. I said that it was my 
responsibility to find its faults, but that information from others about 
that would be welcome too.

The criteria that I mentioned in those postings were later replaced with 
better criteria. It later turned out that the goal of the subcycle methods 
could be met by other methods that don´t violate Pareto.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/