Re: Facade discussion

[WFreitag@aol.com]

Andrew wrote:

>Walt,
>
>I'll work on a response to your latest posting over the next week or so.
>
>Andrew
>andrew@interactivestory.net

Looking forward to it! 

I just noticed that the posting I sent was not the final version I intended 
to send. Most of the differences are minor. I'm not going to send it over 
again, nor worry about the many spelling errors and wording glitches where 
it's clear what I meant, but let me briefly mention a few points that should 
have been corrected...

- I garbled the clear distinction you made between recoveries and 
transitions. Everyplace I mentioned recoveries, I actually meant transitions.

- I wrote, "Even in the middle ground, you need supply lines back to one or 

the other [attractor], or both." This is actually a highly debatable point. I 
won't withdraw it, because it might be defensible, but I'm not certain of 
that.

- In my closing list of questions, question 2 is superfluous as worded. You 
made it clear that you do intend behaviors to have reactive variablilty of so
me sort. The question should instead focus on what sort. (And I still think 
it's interesting to speculate that your overall approach might not actually 
require such variability.)

- Walt