[Proj] Re: Graduated equidistant...concluding comments

[Michael Ossipoff]

Strebe says:

Your "equidistant elliptical" is Apianus II.

I reply:

Fine. I never claimed priority for it.

Strebe continues:

Your "graduated equidistant"
doesn't really have a name; it's just the equirectangular projection with
standard parallel set to need.

I reply:

Call it what you want. It's useful for what I described.

I didn't refer to my first posting because I was sure that I'd early 
mentioned the sinusoidal as a compromise with those who want equal area.

But at no time did I become an advocate of equal area. I always referred to 
the sinusoidal as a compromise with someone else who wants equal area.

So then, apparently the first time I mentioned the sinusoidal as a 
compromise in these postings was in reply when you said that you considered 
equal area necessary. That was when the possible need for such a compromise 
became obvious to me.  But the fact that I began suggesting the sinusoidal 
as an equal area compromise only after someon expressed need for equal area 
does not mean that I was inconsistent, or that my own preferences "evolved". 
You wanted equal area, and I then suggested a compromise with equal area and 
the linearly interpolable positions property (though I hadn't named or 
precisely defined that property yet).

Strebe continues:

Hence I'm going to ignore your aspersions of "falsities"; they
carry no credibility.

I reply:

I cited a few other falsities. And the claim that my preferences "evolved", 
and that I displayed inconsistecy, when I merely offered an equal area 
compromise when hearing a demand for equal area is itself a falsity. One of 
the several that I mentioned.

Milchael Ossipoff