Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

[Frank Solensky]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> Frank,
> 
> This is goodness. Can I ask that you publish the *method* before
> you publish any results? I have seen various attempts to
> tackle this in the past, and they have all given results that
> are very hard to interpret and whose meaning depends very much
> on the method used. I think we could react to the numbers more
> rationally if we discussed the method first.

Sure thing.

Would it make sense to spin this off as a separate list?