What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic)

I think Brad might have been doing all this on purpose after all.

The issue with understand "biology by brad" is not so much that I can find my posts in many places as it is the failure of urban man to have SEEN what I already saw, in the woods, under water, flying by. Sure I should not be allowed as anyone to simply 'post away' and I was surprsied when this particular thread arose but as I will soon put some geography into the baramin thread it will be clear that even if baramins DO NOT EXIST and some of Croizat over takes creation and biology (I will be still doubting this) the spatial seperation of my material is material nature's fault not my own minds'.
Click for full size imageBecause I was able to envision this. You are supposed to imagine the background grid in the form of a cylinder (not a plane) and this is due only to publication design not reality of the cellular automata behind its construction. Wolfram found what may be the metric behind squamate head shape but the geometry would rather look like the second pic below. If someone wants to give me some recommendation on relative size of pics and formatting suggestions so as not to take to muck bad N witdth I would like the suggestion! (including how many relative to text you would like or not like from me let me know. formated img width to fix page size- The QueenThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-16-2004 09:21 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 01-03-2005 11:14 AM

Brad,First I wanted to say "thanks!" for your continued high-level posting. I've learned a lot, and so much more to learn. Through your posts I finally listened to Wolfram speak at MIT yesterday, read Wikipedia articles on a slew of names, and it was all quite enlightening. It's my first step into simple cellular automata and biological math. So THIS is a big part of where you're coming from.As for the pics, I would keep the BIG size like this, and just resize it using HTML. I assume you know how to do that, since I've read some of your posts around the web. Not that I'm stalking you though haha. Just I understand there's a lot I can learn from you.Anyway, just for your sake, I'll leave a copy/paste template you can use. Replace the "PIC" with your photo URL in two places. I think that's the best approach. If you don't make the original big size available, those who want to look closer won't be able to read it.Ben

Hey Ben, when am I going to hear about mentality/physicality?

Fair enough. I copied the text from your two messages out to local last night, to understand. I have an exam this morning, then return around 11:00PMEST. Christmas stuff... I'll probably have a post up around 1 or 2AM EST.Yesterday was my first day to do ANYTHING. I'm working on it Glad to hear you're still interested.Ben

I could have given you the tail end of the pics but instead it's time for me to leave this thread so I'll leave you with something you will not find ANYWHERE ElSe. You heard it first at EVc/e.

It looks like a map of madness.

Ah, just you wait. I was given a JAVA class for next semester even though I dont have the prereqs and ought to be in a programmatic postition to use that to figure a simulation of phenomenological thermodyanmics in VRMLHIS
http://www-winfo.uni-siegen.de/.../docs/partVH/concepts.html
story. At least I will be able to write, eventually, about the probably nonacademic x3d divisions like have already negative invasive virtual reality. The top is an attempt to figure the butterfly catastrophe in genetic variability wich seperated out might enable entropy to approach the adaptive landscape IN THE SIMULATION. That is after the new year. God Bless. See you on the other side of the Louis and Clark dropped ball.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-16-2004 09:29 PM

quote:

---

{Graphics rescaled to 100% width, and link to full sized versions added. The top one was made smaller, the bottom one larger. Probably not the most elegant way to do it, but it's the way I know. One potential problem (I think) - If another graphic in another message is causing the page to be overwide, this messages graphics will match that overwidth. See "Raw Text" for method. - Adminnemooseus}

​

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-16-2004 09:20 PM

---

Above edit overwritten by:

quote:

---

formated img width to fix page size- The Queen

​

This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-16-2004 09:21 PM

---

I had done a reformat, where I scaled both photos to 100% width, and added links to the unrescaled versions. I submitted my changes and saw the desired results. I then went and looked at the "raw text" version (without noticing AA's note) and couldn't figure out why it was different from what I had just done. Then I relooked at the (reloaded) result page, and saw that the first graphic had been rescaled, but not the second - Not what I had just done.Or something like that.Bottom line:
Moose edit posted 9:20
Asgara edit posted 9:21AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-16-2004 09:56 PM

They sure seem to be a lot of extraneous clutter, if in the (dare I say) context of your unique writing style. Besides, there must require a significant amount of extra work on your part. Also, the source attributes for the graphics seem to generally be vague. Please credit your sources - A nice "author and book/magazine/journal" mention.That said, might it not be better to instead create a quote box containing the relevant point(s) of the text graphic (with source credits)?AdminnemooseusAdded by edit - Also, I have a slow dial-up connection, and the things take a long time to load. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-16-2005 01:34 PM

I have been somewhat lacking in making the source attributions prominent. A few times I did post without them and then later put them in. I guess I should never do that. Making a quote box near each pic would be a fine recommendation. As to making a list of points, for each pic, well, I might prefer to leave that to the text itself. I would certainly write much more throughly about something if I knew people were really that interested. Sometimes by saying less I might be able to retain a larger "viewer share" since my words might detract less from what I send visually through. I dont really know. I will try the points"" thing and defintely put the attribution in quote lines or a 'qs' box if that is preferred. Let me know of any other suggested changes,please.I did not like the thumbs all going down the center when I first posted. If there was some way to string 'em along it would reduce the size my posts and enable me "declutter" them to some extent.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-16-2005 04:35 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-16-2005 04:42 PM

Aha! So you CAN write coherently!Mick

Brad reminds me of horseradish. A little embellishes the meal, and we seem to get about the right amount. When I have the time, I find it challenging to read, reread and study the post, just to see if I can decipher it. On occasion I might look up some new and interesting looking words which come up in his work. Brad, have you ever taken an online IQ test?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Here's a suggestion: write less here, but provide more in-depth writing at your own website. Include a link in the post here that says, "for a more in-depth treatment of this, visit {url}."That would allow you to address all audiences. And at your own website, you can be (hopefully painfully) detailed in your inclusion of references and allusions to cited works.Ben