[r-t] Extension

[Graham John]

Eddie wrote:

> The C.C.'s classification of its 'Twin Hunt methods' is inadequate and
> (again as I've tried to point out) based on a lie, or at best a false
> interpretation of how these methods work and are constructed. There is
> nothing 'old fashioned' about this.

It is easy to criticise, but suggesting satisfactory alternatives is not so
easy. All I can suggest, Eddie, is that you propose your own set of
definitions that solve the problems you perceive. At least then we can say
whether we like those definitions better. 

Graham