Forest Simmons wrote: > This recent CR pairwise is meant to be simpler than Dyadic approval > via CR, otherwise probably inferior. Simpler for tabulating by hand? Or how do you mean simpler? The most complex part I can see is figuring out the biggest boundary crossed. Is that what you're trying to overcome?
- RE: CR pairwise DEMOREP1
- Re: CR pairwise Roy
- Re: CR pairwise Roy
- Re: CR pairwise Rob LeGrand
- Re: CR pairwise Roy One
- Re: CR pairwise Richard Moore
- Re: CR pairwise Forest Simmons
- Re: CR pairwise Roy
- Re: CR pairwise Forest Simmons
- Re: CR pairwise Roy
