[r-t] Provisional records, was New methods

[Richard Smith]

Philip Earis wrote:

> The only thing I agree with you about is that your 
> proposal is not thought out. It's a stinker.

Actually, Philip, I'm surprised you think that.  Take a bit 
longer to read Ted's thoughts through.  There are few 
unfortunate choices of terminology, particularly 
'provisional' for the list of methods that don't fit into 
the framework as it stands at that point.  But broadly, as I 
interpret his suggestions, especially after reading his 
follow up replies, I think they're heading in the right 
direction.  And I think you probably would too, because, if 
I were to sum up my understanding of his proposals in one 
sentence it might very well read:

> THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE DECISIONS SHOULD BE TO CLASSIFY 
> WHAT CAN BE RUNG, NOT TO PROSCRIBE WHAT IS 'VALID'


If you can face reading the long email I just sent, do give 
it a go.  I think my suggestions and Ted's are actually very 
similar, though I've expressed them in a rather different 
way.

RAS