Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2017 12:55 PM
346 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,749 Year: 25,355/21,208 Month: 982/2,338 Week: 103/450 Day: 27/34 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To and in re to Brad McFall
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3827
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 1 of 13 (39544)
05-09-2003 1:57 PM


Brad, the adminstrators of this site do wish that you continue to be permitted to post messages here.

That said, your messages do tend to have a significant disruptive effect.

Brad, might it be best, that you confine your postings to topics that you youself started? There are a bunch of them. You can supply links to the messages you are replying to.

Feedback by any and all welcome,
Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2003 12:47 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-05-2004 3:12 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 2 of 13 (39602)
05-10-2003 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
05-09-2003 1:57 PM


?
If you look under each person's name I have done MORE than an adequte attempt to respond to questions asked of me while others have not. This disruption is ALL The other way. I KNOW WHAT I TYPE others only guess I guess. If people bother to look into what I ALREDY said this wouldnot be a problem. If you wish to censor something else I dont know what that is. I exist and so do you.

You want me to do MORE work link within every link I do to some other of my OWNED links? If this extra work that I must do is what you intend let me know so that I really understand what you are requesting.

I do not post a whole bunch all at one time anymore and I only post once a day. If a rupture of c/e talk creates a deal for the bad side of madonna why not me too. Bad is good? IS that what you said?

NO ONE TAKES ME UP IN BIOGEOGRAPHY where I can put A NY biologist under the sound of the vacuum cleaner. Now that is not my fault that the others wish to only respond to the more religiously oriented posts.

really I can stay but lets make it a policy for everyone else be more explict (eveyone can post ONE NEW PARAGRAH) if they link it to a past one so that others dont have to search for past work or else maybe the stature of this board has indeed slummped.

Does the screen enable me to SEE what posts there were responses to that I have not responded to that go further back than 1 page? If so I will first answer all of those before working on others' posts but AFTER That IF people still refuse to engage me then I will have not choice but to use the topic divisions of the board and other contributions. If you want less info flow I doubt that is your goal. Bless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-09-2003 1:57 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 04-05-2004 4:03 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded
 Message 10 by PecosGeorge, posted 02-18-2005 3:44 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3827
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 13 (97916)
04-05-2004 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
05-09-2003 1:57 PM


Bump and replay
quote:
Brad, the adminstrators of this site do wish that you continue to be permitted to post messages here.

That said, your messages do tend to have a significant disruptive effect.

Brad, might it be best, that you confine your postings to topics that you youself started? There are a bunch of them. You can supply links to the messages you are replying to.


Brad, I suspect that you will achieve better conversations with others, if you confine yourself to topics you yourself have started. You can still quote and link to messages elsewhere.

At www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=21&t=45&m=8#8 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=21&t=45&m=8#8">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=21&t=45&m=8#8, I presented the listing of the topics you have started. As this listing was compiled on 8/4/03, it is probably a bit out of date, but annyhow, here it is again:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=2&t=39&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=2&t=39&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=2&t=39&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=4&t=4&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=4&t=4&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=4&t=4&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=21&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=21&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=21&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=42&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=42&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=42&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=124&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=124&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=124&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=127&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=127&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=127&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=161&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=161&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=161&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=6&t=63&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=6&t=63&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=6&t=63&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=18&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=18&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=18&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=34&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=34&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=34&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=60&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=60&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=11&t=60&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=26&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=26&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=26&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=34&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=34&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=34&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=80&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=80&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=12&t=80&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=13&t=5&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=13&t=5&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=13&t=5&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=13&t=12&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=13&t=12&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=13&t=12&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=29&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=29&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=29&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=62&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=62&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=62&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=69&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=69&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=14&t=69&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=15&t=17&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=15&t=17&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=15&t=17&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=15&t=40&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=15&t=40&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=15&t=40&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=3&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=3&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=3&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=10&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=10&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=10&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=18&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=18&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=18&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=24&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=24&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=24&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=17&t=20&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=17&t=20&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=17&t=20&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=8&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=8&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=8&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=11&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=11&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=11&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=23&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=23&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=23&p=5
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=30&p=5 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=30&p=5">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=19&t=30&p=5

Feedback by any and all still welcome,
Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-09-2003 1:57 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 4:17 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 2751 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 13 (97936)
04-05-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Brad McFall
05-10-2003 12:47 PM


Re: ?
Brad,

Make your posts readable. 75% of them are such hard work I can't be bothered to get past the first line, let alone paragraph. If it were just me that had this problem you could reasonably say it's my poor reading & comprehension skills. But it's not me, it's everyone.

Try reading your post before submitting.

For example;

Brad writes:


As I read it Gould orginally used allopatry but it was ALL interms of speciation while he remains agnostic as to periparty,allopatry,polyplodiy. If I read him correctly he did not think that neobiology would invade the theoretical space he felt he opened for paleobiology by not needing to NAME the intermindable number of boundaries the resolution problem migh exascerbate. It is clear that as he thought Fisher's argument about species selection was "impotent" in the face of PE that he acknowdeges the differnt kinds of TIME I asked in question to you but still there is not way to COUNT objectively. My feeling like Gould has a "dominant stasis" feeling is that the form-making (including that preserved in rocks) can be better geometrized statistically such that conclusions that do not rely on his unsymmetrical relation of levels of selection can be arrived at. I have not done this as of yet. I hope this helps. I would perfer naming where Gould insists on statistical differences but that does not address the use of the distribution itslef which I think requires NOT using all of these DIFFERNT notions of time at the same stair step.

I am familiar with Goulds writing which means I can kind of get the drift, but others aren't, that post will be utterly impenetrable to them.

What, for example is this about?

If I read him correctly he did not think that neobiology would invade the theoretical space he felt he opened for paleobiology by not needing to NAME the intermindable number of boundaries the resolution problem migh exascerbate.

I honestly couldn't even rewrite that sentence to make sense, I just don't understand what resolution-based-boundaries-that-exist-in-theoretical-space you are talking about. An extra explanatory sentence & it could be perfect. You write like you expect someone to already understand what you want to say, without realising that you actually have to communicate it first. I think if I put my finger on it, your posts are in need of more explanation & less techy name dropping (generally speaking).

If you're not a lawyer, you missed your calling Seriously, I mean this to be friendly advice.

Mark


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2003 12:47 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 5 of 13 (97940)
04-05-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
04-05-2004 3:12 PM


Re: Bump and replay
I don't think this is fair to Brad or people who read his posts. There are people here that I can chose not to read or respond to ... that is my choice. I would not want to say that those people should not be allowed to post.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-05-2004 3:12 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 04-05-2004 4:42 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 9 by berberry, posted 02-18-2005 3:20 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 2751 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 13 (97945)
04-05-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
04-05-2004 4:17 PM


Re: Bump and replay
Abby,

Agreed.

What I find frustrating with Brad is that he clearly does understand the subjects he posts about, if he can be prodded to be a bit clearer then we all gain, Brad included.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 4:17 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 5:38 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 7 of 13 (97950)
04-05-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
04-05-2004 4:42 PM


Re: Bump and replay
The trick I find is parsing the sentences. They are heavily weighted by qualifiers that appear to get in the way. I do have to work at it, especially bringing the qualifiers back in. To me Brad is being very specific when he does that and that in a way is refreshing.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 04-05-2004 4:42 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3827
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 8 of 13 (186587)
02-18-2005 3:12 PM


Bump - Considerations of focusing Brads output
I think I've made my statement upthread, so I won't repeat myself.

Members may also wish to consult the What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic) topic.

Adminnemooseus


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 02-18-2005 3:45 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
berberry 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 1853
From: vicksburg, mississippi
Joined: 11-29-2003


Message 9 of 13 (186588)
02-18-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
04-05-2004 4:17 PM


Re: Bump and replay
RAZD writes:

quote:
I don't think this is fair to Brad or people who read his posts. There are people here that I can chose not to read or respond to ... that is my choice. I would not want to say that those people should not be allowed to post.

I agree entirely. I think Brad has done better lately, but he clearly has some communications difficulties that get in the way of him making his points. Some of us enjoy reading his posts anyway. I think it would be unfair to place restrictions on him. So long as he isn't making any personal attacks against anyone I can't see why anyone should be so offended by him that they would want to limit his posts. He isn't hurting anyone.


Keep America Safe AND Free!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 4:17 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 4428 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 10 of 13 (186594)
02-18-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Brad McFall
05-10-2003 12:47 PM


Re: ?
I'm not an expert in your field, and not in a few others either. But I do like to read your posts, regardless of the technical terms. They please me, because it pleases me to know there are folks who know such stuff.
In every case, when the heart is full, the mouth runs over, your passion is evident.
And thank you for it all.
So, don't go away, but mayhaps just string yourself thinner? For your sake.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Hey, Albert, I agree!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Brad McFall, posted 05-10-2003 12:47 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 11 of 13 (186595)
02-18-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Adminnemooseus
02-18-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Bump - Considerations of focusing Brads output
Is this some kind of "second warning"?
I dont get it? If I dont have the privelge of working into other peoples work there is no use for me to post here as it IS by interactions with others that I GAIN. If all I wanted was to work on my own work then I could just write a book and not contribute to EVC. I have for instance an EQUIVALENT thought to the one you recently up on creationism BUT ON EVOLUTION that I GAVE to will PRovine. I have not entered into fine evolutionary details not becuase I cant but because it is so difficult to be able to keep up with all the evo posters here. Since there are less creationists I can keep up with them.
Which posts in particular are/were "disruptive" Surely you cant be speaking about any in the past weeks since I have gained newer technolgoy and could, so to say , "up the ante"?

I said that I would be happy to stick to the heavy material introduced in the post you cited but it was others who still wanted to work in the thread that I linked to.

I cant get it if that is what you are talking about for I could have posted this picture BACK when I was first talking about it with Mark But I didnot have the means to do so.

And as for my ability to communicate- well it worked just fine with DBLevins last nite. If we can not show how people are MISUSING thoughts then all this EVC becomes is help for high school students learning science.

Please say again in no uncertain terms as saying see above isnt clear to me that I MUST ONLY refer to my own threads.

I would be happy to only work from them if people were really going to join in, but when I see people with good intentions making it harder for new comers to learn some simple things it twists my head. I dont like simply looking the other way. Look- I might not have posted after Sylas last nite but I guessed that it was very important TO post I did and what WK posted after validated to me the need.

I see you posted this today so I really am at a loss if this is an admonition for me to only post in my on starters and if so is this only you who said it?

ok now i see

quote:
Focusing Brad et all - Topic closing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought poorly of this topic when it was first started.
Also, such as through the Croizat Track / Wright's Isolation by distance topic, I would like to get greater focus on Brad's output. It's my opinion that neither Brad nor the various involved topics are well served by having Brad scatter his input all over the place.

Brad - let's try to get your statements focused into a certain limited number of topics.

This topic closed.

Adminnemooseus


I guess I understand. you can ignore the above but I leave it for first impressions. I agree it would have been better if everyone just kept it under the thread you opened. That is where I was going to post some things that came up in the old one except that others perfered the latter location. All is well. BEst BRad.Of course if in channeling my output you did mean that I AM PROHIBITED from now on from posting in other people's work then you WILL need to say THAT again as I WILLNOT CONTINUE to post here at EVC if I am not free to post where I may. I have been annoyed at Crashfrog for quite sometime now and have been honing in on Shepard's lingo so I could take the frog on but I am not really interested in the less helpful kinds of posts here just as this is probably what admins are sensitive to.

Ok Moose, here's the skinny on this latest brainfart.
I will try to keep my output focused to a "certain limited number of topics" when it comes to those posts that are developmental and I will not try to simply fish in other posts unless I am fairly confident I have something to contribute that will help out. I have never resorted to simply posting to someone JUST to upset them and I dont intend on starting that. There may be times when I will need to post "around" because there IS a certain limited interest in subject matter here compared with EvC in general. If that is OK you can take this post with tonight's salt and pepper. I dont want to see Buzz mad either.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-18-2005 16:36 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-18-2005 3:12 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by berberry, posted 02-19-2005 2:23 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
berberry 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4 days)
Posts: 1853
From: vicksburg, mississippi
Joined: 11-29-2003


Message 12 of 13 (186683)
02-19-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brad McFall
02-18-2005 3:45 PM


Re: Bump - Considerations of focusing Brads output
This entire post of yours to the moose is pretty straightforward and easily grasped, Brad. I'm beginning to notice something: when you post on a non-scientific subject you are usually not difficult to understand, but when you post about science or creation you zoom past everyone here and probably no one but God can understand you.

I'm glad that you're having communication with Gladyshev and I'm also glad to hear that he apparently understands you. But as often as not, the rest of us here at EVC don't undertand you. I think it might have something to do with the fact that most of us have not made science or math our life's work. We simply don't have the level of knowledge that you have.

This is not something I would suggest to just anyone, but in your case I wonder if it might help if you tried talking down to us? In other words, try thinking of the EVC crowd as a bunch of jr. high school kids who desparately need tutoring in science and math. Your job here is to teach us about your ideas in a way we 7th and 8th graders can easily understand.

Let's take a look at a section of a typical paragraph of you describing something that apparently - based on my reading of earlier posts in the thread - relates to evolution (from this post in your 'My Understanding' thread):

It may be about infinite divisions OR in bashing logical empricism in some sense it may ONLY be about consrutive infinites which Wolfram has offered us the tool of. For me, BEFORE S. Wolfram was I was reading about the tension in Galielo of Muslim and Greek origins. I do not know if the Chinese already "thought" this. Ecosystem Engineering is the "Doable" part where I am attempting "contra"Muller not to use genetic engineering in th myopic protocol of crop enhancemnet but rather turing agricuture into biomass productivity.

We kids haven't yet read anything by Wolfram or Muller, nor has our teacher ever mentioned those names. We have heard of Galileo and some of us may remember that he once said that the earth went round the sun. Our teacher has shown us China and the Middle East on a map, and one day not long ago we saw a film about Hong Kong. To a fairly limited degree, we can understand words like 'ecosystem' and 'engineering'.

This may sound silly, Brad, but I'm serious. When you start referring to complex concepts and dropping the names of specific researchers, scientists, philosophers, etc. you lose us.

Try to focus on explaining whatever idea you're trying to convey without worrying about explaining where the idea came from or why it occurred to you. Just get the point across and if we can understand it we'll ask questions about it.


Keep America Safe AND Free!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brad McFall, posted 02-18-2005 3:45 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 02-19-2005 12:56 PM berberry has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 2588 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 13 of 13 (186772)
02-19-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by berberry
02-19-2005 2:23 AM


Re: Bump - Considerations of focusing Brads output
BB
Look below ( this is what I want to say) and NOW since that is too hard I have to figure out how to write it “down” but during the time it takes me to do that the content becomes less timely. Are you really suggesting I will get other people to read this stuff if I just posted a bare thing about what I define a kind to be and have left it at that that others would read it? I have said from the evolutionists side why the concept of kind is not dealt with properly at EVC , but it has been ignored. I repeated myself, it was ignored as well. Now like in the “where did the creos go” we started TO SEE some creation influence the admins took that one. And so now that I define WITHIN THERMAL evolution what the creationist after the kind demonstrably could be if I was not the only creationist (I AM NOT OF COURSE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR ALL etc) do you think that evcboard would turn upside down?? Nope they would still speak of me as Nash!
__________________________________________________________________

Fourier said,
“This diversity of temperature interests us still more, if we consider the changes which succeed each other in the envelope itself on the surface of which we dwell. Those alternations of heat and cold which are reproduced every day and in the course of every year, have been up to the present time the object of repeated observations”

So it behooves us to respond with how many days it might take organic matter to repeat this observation if clay evolved in the topological condition of the thermal evolution of higher levels of selection. This is not against Gould’s view except the class of less individuality where the ‘evolution as evolution might be a potential rather than a probably discrete event. There will probably be posts against the idea of clay evolving any thermal effect as well as clay NOT evolving any biomatter but I will ignore these contributions for now. I shall explain how these can be handled by my difference of infinite divisions OR empric criticms as per the thread (my idea hypothetically) if it need be. But we probably would have the Fouirer “repeated observation” if that was true in which case there WOULD be more than me talking about “thermal” evolution and not “evolution” in the sense that Faraday spoke of evolution in the sense of “issuance”.

But none of this matter directly if the question is what is the AFTER the kind. As this would all be “after” that. Percy has said or seemed to say that Mendel’s use of parent or hybrid is immaterial to common understandings but lets say – WE CAN DEFINE- a like kind that must exist AFTER its kind – then it does matter if it was quartz/feldspar vs clay that gave beyond Newton’s island crystal the translational reality from before to after this kind kind.

There is no doubt that Mendel attended to NUMBERS in his work and that subsequently a RATIO was debated as Genetics got more sophisticated.

Now I am going to define THE CREAIONIST KIND or BARAMIN

I will start by saying that it is trivial to associate the genetic number of Mendel to the total set of natural numbers. I will use the equivocalness of Mendel’s use of words “parent” and “hybrid” to EXIST in this set (by definition) and I find the baramin (that kind which can only exist to itself) to BE Mendel’s developmental binomial as van de Waerden decomposition of the natural numbers in to a finite number of classes as divided by the subsets of natural numbers on finding the granted “arbitrarily long arithemetic progression”. In other words what makes it necessary that kinds can only reproduce AFteR their kind is a result of the causality of the “aribitrarily long arithemetic progression” on the other number of finite subsets of the classed total list of natural numbers.

That is what is missing from current evoltutionary theory and one can read in the literature evolutionists not appreciating the the difference made in the creationist literature as to whether the after”” referred to God or the Kinds.
“A famous theoremof van der Waerden (Nieuw Arch. F. Wisk. 15 (1927) 212-6) asserts that, if the natural numbers are subdivided into a finite number of classes ( in any manner whatsoever), at least one of these classes contains arbitrarily long arithemetic progressions. This result suggests many other interesting questions, most of which have only been partially answered.” In SEQUENCES VOL I 1966 by Halberstam and Roth: Oxford at the Clarendon Press. ( If I am not mistaken I think I now understand how Freeman Dyson got away with making a book titled “infinte in all directions” but let me stay on the positive side please.)

In a recent post I have suggested how this phenotypic subsetting might be related to point set density but this sharper DEFINITION of Mendel’s Binomial AS the Baramin denotation erases Cracraft’s criticism of creationism and establishes a new way to think about sequence relations in genomics that did NOT originate from within evolutionary theory sensu stricto but by means of e/c criticisms OF current evolutionary theory c/e wise.

How this all relates to thermal evolution in Faraday’s sense is an actually real question but will continue to go unanswered as long as my contributions are taken negatively or “just brad’s”.
_________________________________________________________________

Yes I would like to make this easier to understand but if Baramins ARE divisions of the natural numbers AS sets, it is hard to say just what evos here missaid as it becomes possible to subsume evolutionary theory within my broad perspective as if it was true.

I am aware r'althor has asked me nicely more than once but you see I have to do almost twice as much work to explain the creationist position on par with the evos and this is only actually possible for me to do so by name dropping and moving on where no one knows much as I wish I didnt do it. Hold on RT, im getting back to you.

#########################
you see berberry, SPLx didnt give me the time to even get to work out an easier to read version. As soon as I get "pissedOFf" I have no inclination to try to make what I had already said easier to understand. I wouldnt have gone further but SPLx said something about my kids mama. If she wanted a lunatic that is fine but that I need help from them- well that is wrong. I need to help the kids not yet my parents at all! Besides my parents dont want any from me anyway- so where is the evc time to do it right and normal order? I think Moose's attempt to keep all this diversionary stuff limited is a good one. It's just sorry that SPLx thinks baramins are diversionary. I think what Percy said ontologically is questionable even while epistemologically operational.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 14:22 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by berberry, posted 02-19-2005 2:23 AM berberry has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017