intelligent design, right and wrong

Parasomnium,I have to agree with Crashfrog here. Slam-dunking bored 14-year-olds with no discernible scientific background may be as sporting as beating infants at chess, but there's no real entertainment to be had raking the mentally ill over the coals.In the past, I've made light of Brad's thread-killing abilities as well as his habit of name-dropping. His desperate logorrhea makes for reading that's either comical or poignant, depending on your degree of empathy. Brad may be incoherent, but his participation here is tolerated even if rarely understood.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Hi Para,I don't want to seem like I'm piling on you with everyone else (although I really am ). Brad has been around evcforum probably since near its inception. Both Moose and Percy claim - although I can find little support for it - that they can occasionally discern valid, highly erudite bits in Brad's posts. Being that they are the forum equivalent of supreme beings, far be it from me to question that assertion. OTOH, he rarely derails active threads - most of the time he lights off one post, then disappears from the thread if no one responds. Often, the threads in question are what could be described as "dead" or long-ended discussions that he resurrects, again, for one post if no response is forthcoming. My observation here is that Brad-baiting is actively discouraged by the Los Jefes Supremos. If you want to beat up someone only slight less incoherent, you are more than welcome to jump in with Syamasu on any given thread. Doesn't even matter if you have no knowledge of the subject matter - neither does he...If it helps, think of Brad as a sort of forum mascot. Or as the kind of harmless, a bit eccentric uncle that no one in the family ever talks about in polite company. Puts it into perspective. No disrespect intended, Brad.FWIW, I think Crash was a bit harsh. You had no way of knowing. Almost all of us have responded to Brad at one point or another. You're just lucky he didn't answer you with one of his famous 5,000 word essays.

Point taken, Mr Hambre. Whereas he wanted me to take him as he really is, in my naivet I took him for what he really wasn't.One more thing, Mr Hambre. You might at least have warned me not to sip my tea while reading your sentences. Now I have tea all over my keyboard. Thanks.

Thanks, Quetzal. I'll keep it in mind. Uncle Brad, eh?Oh, and I'm glad I finished my tea altogether when I read your post.

My admittedly sketchy information is that Brad suffers from a mild but profound form of schizophrenia not too dissimilar in external manifestation from that suffered by John Nash of Nobel Prize and A Beautful Mind fame. His ability to express himself clearly varies over time, but over the past 12 months I believe I have noticed a trend toward improved clarity as measured by ability to stay on topic, fewer run on sentences, fewer drawing connections between random unrelated concepts, diminished stream of consciousness style, and so forth. Strangely enough, this has happened concurrently with increased earnestness, impatience and insistence.Moose has been kind enough to follow my lead on this without objection. My feeling is that Brad finds on-line forums to be a beneficial outlet for his need to express himself, and he hasn't so far proven a disruptive presence. In fact, I find his steady improvement heartening. Anyway, please feel free to engage Brad in any way you please as long as you follow the forum guidelines. In fact, if Brad is willing, it would be a fascinating thread to discuss Brad's "issues" with him, and maybe he can confirm whether my admittedly third-hand diagnostic information is correct. I don't want to invade Brad's privacy, but maybe he'd find it interesting, too. Brad?------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Its all water over the duck or in this case the cats back. yeah, I dont mind but the accusation of health are misplaced and EVC is not the forum to discuss this faliure with the Cornell Faculty.I have pretty much figured IT all out on my "sybatical" from EVC and other boards. It took a lot of time with trying to decide if I was going to teach you all how Gould intends to "grow" Mayrs grown underbelly in the light of the genic selectionism that is represented here but I have come to an understanding in my issue no matter how you prefer to slice it for the time being and it had to do with Gould's claim about "nonlinearity" support against Dawkins, Williams etc. I was able to recognize what drove the exitence of Simon Levin's applied math in biology once again as did while I was a student a determined a case of Dawkins grave or vechile which NEED NOT BE accounting but this would take more than one tissue to paste in the thought that actually is about THEORY in biology. I do not have the faintest idea if the details, which is here is more dominated by the molecular than my own preference for whole organisms, will design on what I have figured out, suffice it to say it makes calling me a mental case simply the aforesaid difference of reading and read READing but I leave that to the difference of opinion inter thread alia. And if you really must know what is inbetween my time at Cornell, the claims about my thought process, and the present is my knowing that I had no idea what a "statistical refinement" could even be thought of as. I will start to talk about MENDEL if you think that this has some relevance to this particular thread else one here will have to wait till I get bored on the other sites I post at as I had started back at other places first. EVC has however helped me to grow in my thinking being a more stable repository and for that indeed I am grateful. Percy and Mose I kNOW have steped back for me. And if this reentry here does nothing than affirm Percy's request sans the diagnosis I will move on with you all once again. Para as you read I would side with you before hambre or Crash but the difference makes not an iota issue for me. I still had not blinked. Best and later. bRAd