<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Paul said:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>>>, and what most people on this list do is
switch criteria<BR>>>from a post to a reply to an objection to their
post.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>Mike replied:</DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>
<DIV><BR>>The meaning of that sentence isn't quite clear. But it suggests
that people <BR>>switch criteria. I don't know about that. People seem quite
consistent about <BR>>what criteria they prefer. Some like LNH, and they seem
to not switch to <BR>>saying they like something else better. I've
consistenly expressed <BR>>preference for methods that meet the defensive
strategy criteria, FBC, SFC, <BR>>GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT size=2>Well, I meant it to be clear. The most recent exchanges
I've had on this list were when I replied to something specific related to one
specific criteria, and was dragged into a long (and tiresome) debate by someone
who replied "but that doesn't apply to" (pick any of the things it wasn't meant
to apply to nor was ever claimed to apply to).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Just from reading threads and trying to keep threads straight,
I find it very difficult to follow because that is a common
occurrence.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Maybe the veterans are used to it, but they also say "you
should've checked the archives" and for the reason I mentioned the archives
aren't all that useful, since the pertinent information is usually buried in an
off-topic reply. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>My point was an observation, not a criticism.</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>