Dear Authors, Dear GodParents,

   I am quite happy with the analysis / changes / responses - was following 
gg+X and ggMET GMSB analyses for a while and I am comfortable with the 
analyses.

   The ggMET GMSB draft is in a very good shape - I took a quick look at 
the version 0.2 and have few minor comments/suggestions, please see below.


Best Regards,
                     andrey

================================================

Andrey Loginov's comments to the draft v0.2 of ggMET paper:
http://hepr8.physics.tamu.edu/elee/ggMetPRL/ggmet_prl_v0.2.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Text:
-----------------------------------------------------------

- define $\gamma$ before using it

==>Done.

p2

9: 
a inclusive diphoton sample -> an inclusive diphoton sample

==> Done.

12:

you say "passing one of four triggers" and refer to the unpublished
[13] (the PRL might get published earlier than the PRD). Suggest either
to omit details ("four triggers") and rephrase the sentence as

"Online, events are selected by the three-level trigger, and the
combined trigger selection[13] efficiency is effectively 100\% efficient..."

or just give more details (for instance, you can add the details in
the reference) on the four triggers.

=>Done.

13:
events.From -> events. From
 
==> Done.

13:
central, photons have... -> central photons, which have...

==>Done as rephrasing this sentense.

18:
a jet faking photon -> a jet misidentified as a photon

==>Done.

22:
partially lost -> misreconstructed

==>Done.

26:

"diphoton candidates and $\met$ -> $\gg\met$ candidates

==>Done.

29

move ($t_\gamma$) after "time of arrival" on line 28, or better define
both $t_{\gamma 1}$ and $t_{\gamma 2}$.

==>Rephrased this sentense by removing these since this looks too much details.

p3:
12-13:

"Statistical uncertainties..." - it's a trivial statement and it takes
a line, might be better to just remove it...

==>Done.

27:
productions -> predictions

==>Done.

32:

suggest to add $t_\gamma$ cuts for selecting a beam related background
sample

==>Basically non-collision backgrounds are negligible in our analysis so we tried to minimize their descriptions as much as possible. This is too much detail for PRL and "similarly" in the sentence will do it.

32:

we -> We

==>Done.

p4
Fig.1:
caption: add definition of the HT

==>Done.

p5

26:
Figure 1 -> Fig.1 (bottom). Or just add labels (a) and (b) to the figures

==>Done.

p7

Fig.3:
add CDF there (plots live their own life - good to have the
experiment's name on it)

==>We followed the previous delayed photon PRL/PRD style. We will leave this
as it is unless the GPS's specific request. See Ref. [15] in our PRL
draft.

References:
reference [13] should be
T. Aaltonen {\it et al} (CDF Collaboration)...

==>Done.

For [14]:

"For a description of how clusters of energy, for example..., are
identified" ->

suggest to rephrase the sentence to avoid cutting it in two parts by
the "for example ..." part
`
==>Followed the same style as in the delayed photon PRD. See Ref.[7] and [15]
in our PRL draft.

================================================