All about Brad McFall.

Hi Brad. Ah, I see. Well, no problem. When this thread reaches the magic number you're free to start a continuation. I, for one, look forward to it. Actually, I seem to recall you posting links to audio of yourself, and I was, quite honestly, astonished by what a clear speaker you are. No problem. Glad I pointed you towards it then. Heh, I did, didn't I? Well, that thread just provided me with the opportunity. I've wanted to parody you for a long time. Not to be mean or anything, I just thought it'd be fun (and it was ). Really? That's a shame. From what I've seen he was brilliant.And speaking of clear speakers (as I did above), I really enjoy listening to him; he was a very polished speaker indeed! Some time back, sidelined gave me a link to an audio clip of Feynman in this post (and if you're reading this, sidelined, thank you very much indeed ). Well, I'd never actually heard him speak before and found him to be both educational and entertaining to listen to. So I went to the bother of tracking down more Feynman media and found this page containing four videos of him lecturing at the University of Auckland, of all places! So near, yet so far.Anyway, I very much enjoyed the lectures. Not only interesting, but fun. Feynman appears to have had a rather quick wit about him.It's been quite some time since I watched them but one thing I can roughly recall is the answer he gave to the question "When we look at an object, do we really see the object or just the light?" I don't have an exact quote on hand but, from memory, his answer was something like this: "Well, this is one of those annoying philosophical questions that most people have no problem with. Even most philosophers, sitting, eating their dinner, have had no problem accepting that, even though they may only be seeing the light from their steak, it is still sufficient evidence of the steak's existence, through which they are able to manipulate it to their mouth. The philosophers that haven't been able to accept that have fallen by the wayside through starvation."Well, I probably killed the humour a bit but it sounded funny when he said it. Heh, it seems that you did what I predicted you would; made sense of something I never intended to make sense. I wish I could take credit but, I assure you, any point you thought I was making about Gould was purely accidental on my part. Yes, some people may not have got the reference as he hasn't been around for some time (that I've seen). But I've been a lurker on EvC for years so I'm quite familiar with Rrhain's infamous *blink*. Anyway, I was trying to work out how to end the parody and that was all I could come up with. You mean you can make sense of what I said? I really wasn't trying to make sense; I was just trying to string words together in a way resembling your unique style (to an admittedly exaggerated degree). Heh, I suppose if the end result made some sense to you then I must have done something right. Argh! I should have known I wouldn't be able to slip that by you. I've seen you mention all of the others before, but that was the one name I didn't take from your posts.I saw you mention Gladyshev and had no idea who that was so I did a search and came across this page, on which I found the following... So that was my entire justification for adding "Schneider" in the statement "...though I doubt that Gladyshev nor Schneider would agree..." Again, I wasn't really trying to make sense; I was just looking for excuses to draw the parody out, and one more name is one more name. Well, I may have been "perfectly correct" but it was, yet again, entirely accidental on my part. Heh, same to you, pal. Good to catch up with you again.