Single Comment

Joyce is sort of rapping out poorly-thought-through ideas of his about what planar may mean. For example, inappropriately under the wrong article again Joyce is referring to material of Gilman's ''M&B13: Straight and Crooked Movers.'' As far as I know ''planar'' is attempted to be defined here in 2004 since it is not in CVPage Glossary. Joyce's extensive last comment again rudely and clumsily at Gilman's glossary belongs over here, if you would, sir. Gilman's first appraisal here says, ''I am sorry I cannot be more encouraging, that this variant adds little to the existing range of 3-D variants.'' Then in follow-up over 3 years later, Gilman changes his rating giving 'Good'. I too have not studied G. Smith's idea for a new class of pieces, planar, very much at this article yet and base my provisional 'Poor' on comments of Joyce and Larry Smith for fuzziness of definitions. I will study this CV in July and re-appraise possibly changing 'Poor', since I am what Jeremy Good calls as close to conscientious critic as appears within CVPage. We need seriously to consider adaptation of category ''Planar'' of Gavin Smith as well as inclusive ''Multi-path'' of mine to both separate systems of Betza and Gilman. ''Multi-path'' as a term precedes ''planar'' apparently by a decade.