[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Subject: Re: OK, that seems to have worked.
Posted by HMG in Mass on February 26, 2003 at 10:40 PM:

In Reply to: OK, that seems to have worked. posted by Ronald on February 26, 2003 at 9:06 PM:

Now that you mention it, perhaps I should change the wording. (m)

This line was written in reference to the below post.

"04) I would suggest the following: A) have the cutoff values list in ascending order, B) don't overlap or omit (leave gaps between) any cutoff values, and C) supply only the end range cutoff values (do not enter both the begin and end range cutoff values)."

Perhaps, I should re-write it now?

Would this make more sense?

"04) I would suggest the following: A) only supply the END (high) range of cutoff values (do not enter both the begin and end range cutoff values) and B) list the cutoff END values in ascending order."


: Thank you!!

: That makes no sense from what I read in the instructions. ;-)

: Ronald



Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name: (required)
E-Mail: (optional)

Subject: (required)

Comments:

  Optional Link URL:
                 Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Forum FAQ ] [ The WG New User Public Forum! ]