Larson and the action/area dillemna

[Josh <IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>]

I agree with most of what Gary argues in his post.  Our only disagreement
is over the "topics that limit the action = unlimited harm areas" argument
(sorry about the quatations that was a paraphrase).

Currently we specify harm areas which only limit the direction of the plan in
relation to the harm area (it must have an effect on the harm area). This is
not an exclusive constraint.  As I argued in the post Gary is referring to
- the harm area is not limited by a harm area topic. The example I gave was
the environment topic....I claim a decrease in pollution advantage and then
any other advantage that the plan that decreases pollution, in any way, would
allow...My argument is that the advantages from the plan are always as
unlimited as the literature allows regardless of the topic harm area.  I guess
what I am saying is that predictability does decrease tha multiplier.  The
way I explained it in the last post was that the initial circel is still
smaller....In other words, given a action limiting topic you have
a better chance of having a hit against the plan and harm area topics have no
more or less chance to limit the advanatages claimed by the plan. Josh

Joshua B. Hoe


e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
all info will be changing soon.

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: Larson and the action/area dillemna
• From: RACE --- <race@midusa.net>

---

• Prev by Date: GEHRKE, TREATIES AND LIMITS
• Next by Date: Pat is kooky
• Prev by thread: GEHRKE, TREATIES AND LIMITS
• Next by thread: Re: Larson and the action/area dillemna
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page