Brad McFall

"Thereafter Heaviside, Fitzgerald, Lodge and Hertz reduced the vector potential to a mathematical subsidiary variable by assuming what is known as the Lorentz condition. However, the A field still remained as a repository of energy in the electrotonic state."This may be the OBJECT of any mistakes Nordenstrom may have made with respect to creating BCEC's without considering if migration is not a heritble means to increase some mechanical governance of magentoelectric (not electomagnetic) via blood circulation onto a multigolgi target(THERE YOU CUT THE TAPE HERE FOR NOW) for I have only THOUGHT electricity to BE the disturbance and not produced disturbances as in thought in some virtual reality programming.I think Weyl mispoke when he said "our present physical knowledge leaves us even more uncertain about the equivalence or non-equivalence of positive and negative electricity. It seems difficult to devise physical laws in which they are not...alike; but the negarive counter part of the postively charged proton remains to be discoved." Weyl then went on to "argue" for the same in equilibria.BCEC-biologically closed electric circuit.I unlike Bill Clinton do not think about the irreversible finger of the poet. My mind however is another story.It seems possible that gap proteins and "multi-polar"vesicles (my own construct) could support claim against the current use of electromagnetic theory in computer science however one must first deal with Feynman's claim that EM equations only work in inertial reference frames
in biology
but because of pharmecetutical $, biology has not demanded this of its best theorists such as Lewontin etc.Rose thought it a tragedy if it only took dough to get people well, well instead they took the baby out with the bath and tried to involuntarily against will will people sick who were actually trying to do the work.Some how this will become a head line, how or when or even who if not me I do not know. Best BRad.

Hell, this board sounds really cool to me. It seems that I arrived to the right place finally. I was in several forums so far, but withdrew after some time, because I couldn't stand some people's selfrighteousness, lack of tolerance, xenophobia, patological conservatism, agressivity etc. Nothing of that just mentioned seems to plague this board. Glad to see that.
Now - what I must to do to earn a thread dedicated solely to myself?

This is my final reply to Crashfrog who took issue with my use of an undiscussed quote of Matchette which I did not include yet yet types, "This very nodal point,and the associated mind activity enables us to enrich our conception of divergence, recursively, so to speak. For we may now order our differing divergences along the scale of the appearence, or emergence of mind as a realtive observable."

​

I will deal with the algorythmic reality of recursion at a latter date and in time,thread, and topic. The frog may be correct about LISP but I hop this frog doesnt give any more lip- tongue how(ever? To) watch a frog hop into glass is not pleasent ya know!

​

So let me say something that is SO clear any attempt to fain ignorance will be ignorance itself. If this is not satisfactory I suggest the FrOG and other knowsaywhaters watch Charlies Angels and wait till B.Mac Calls them.

​

I will claim, assert and insist that Mendels "element" (the English translation of a German word) IS IS IS IS IS IS (did I say "is"?Did Bill Clinton NOT say "is"?) Matchette's Zero-Atom Unit. No ifs and or buts about it but that ands Mayr's claim that it is close enough to our concept of the gene to be read as a gene IS NOT TRUE. That's it. That's the barrier. Break it all you like but (do) not say tis I who always comes back incomprehensible for there is nair clairty beyond Xis Y. I also say Y is not Z's context. There is plenty for a carrer here but this should not line the pockets of psyche studies BECAUSE THEY LET THESE KINDS OF LANGAUGE MACHINES OUT in the 60s or so the IT people think today on a bottom line. I was not one of those. So there is ONE more thing to get straightened out but this should NOT be taken as endorsing the "Brad is too hard to follow crowd" yet it is likely to posses some more outwork in the futurefeature. That is that, I think there was a conversion since Matchette's time or else he had (something in my case as if projections were really possibly) misunderstood when he wrote, " This alienation of the spirit from the guiding influence of the Absolute manifests itself in the organic and functional disorders of ill-health - the precursors of death n.b. Here, in fact, lie the roots of the newly discovered truths of psychosomatic medicine-...now are seen to be resident within states of the mind, rather than the introduction of chemical agents; what amounts to the decrease in the divergence of the ailing mind, as we have pointed out."

​

It is by thiniking of this rather than x,y,&z that Crashfrog and others commenting about me have erred on the mental side. That is sad. It is a waste of time, talent, and tension. What had happened was that the newly discoverd drug treatments in medicine were confused with my critique of Gould (in short) instead treatment of the "chemicals" ("dont worry 'they' are just chemicals and "they" are out of balance")occured but THERE WAS NOT as Matchette said "treatment" of the mind unless paying me off with disability $ is said (so)(NOT!).

​

The Matchette paragraphy immediately before the one I supplied to Crashfrog DOES however speak in a current voice, it said, "That the point of divergence in which mind first appears as an observable, the "nodal" point so to speak, divides the relative into two domains, continuous the one with the other nonetheless. These two are the 'psychic', in which Mind is observable; and the 'non psychic' in which Mind is not yet observable relative existence. It thus appears as a stage, a level in the development of realative existenets which begins with the intially divergent Zero-Atom unit."Lawdog was correct that the appearence of heel nipping is a bit much. I have been immune sans Randy because of the difficulty of my posts. That is all that had saved me from Lawdog's fate. Why Randy did not understand me still evades me but it is not my job to treat the chemicals in someone elses mind by balancing my own. It is however rather necessary to stop psychosomatic "warfare" if such occurs. Also evolutionists use of "emergence" may be found to be only ideological on this basis. I have not followed up that possiblity. You free to do so.

Discussion of Brad is becoming disruptive at at least 1 topic elsewhere.I suggest said discussion be done here, or at Is Brad McFall a fruitcake or what?.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

I have a hypothesis.I saw on the history channel about 2 years ago about a Russian man that had unlimited memory. His name escaped me... probably forever.According to the program, many many many scientists tested him over and over for like 30 years and they ended up concluding that his memory simply had no limits. He was able to remember everything about everything about everything.The program went on to say that some people might think he had a wonderful gift and that he must have done something noteworthy for himself. In reality, his life was a complete failure. He was never able to have a conversation with anyone at all. Whenever he tried to talk with someone, every word the other person said to him would trigger him to remember everything that ever remotely related to each and every word. Every moment of his life flashed through his head over and over all the time.The sad ending of his story. He ended up working for a circus, and even then he had trouble with his job. There were just too many things that came to him everytime he saw something or heard something. He died a poverish and lonely man.Brad's posts, although not as extreme as the Russian man I described, seem to follow in the same path. It would seem that he is very knowledgable about a wild range of fields. If you read his posts carefully, most of them make no sense at all. However, if you stop trying to relate each sentence with the original topic, ... well... they make even less sense. However, well... ok... actually...Ok, I can't really confirm my hypothesis, since I'm having a lot of difficulties understanding a lot of his words.To those that are the Brad McFall experts and semi-experts, could you tell me if this is even close?Is it possible that the reason he is having trouble communicating with the rest of us is because every word that came to his mind about the original topic reminds him of a kazillion other things completely unrelated to the topic?

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

I'm no Brad expert, nor semi-expert, but: Yes, it is entirely possible. In fact, this very idea came to mind when mark24 attempted to get Brad to put an end to the name dropping in the All about Brad McFall thread. I suspect that the reason Brad uses names instead of a clarification of the process that he associates with it, is that there is simply too many thoughts coming to him in a short time span, like the Russian guy that you describe. Brad may feel like there is no way he can get all of his ideas down on paper, without some shorthand manner of referring to processes, and, evidently, he likes using names.If only Brad actually took mark24’s adviceUnfortunately, now that I think about it, even if Brad did agree to at least attempt to do this, I doubt that he would be successful. In all probability, rereading his own post would generate more ideas in his mind, and what we’d have is simply more name-dropping, and absolutely no clarification. Perhaps the only way to verify this would be to have Brad write up a post, post it, then have him proofread it and post it again. If what we see is even more convoluted than the first (more name dropping, etc.), then it lends a bit more credence to the Brad McFall is like the Russian guy hypothesis.In fact, rereading mark24’s post in that thread (#41, by the way), he raises an important question: I believe that Brad has mentioned that he has two children. Perhaps he’s writing it for them? I get this from post #65 in All about Brad McFall, Who knows, maybe Brad hopes they’ll posses the ability to decipher his posts (maybe it's genetic?) and glean meaning from them. Why he would post his thoughts on a public forum versus writing it down for them in a nice, thick notebook is beyond me, however. Not that his input isn’t appreciated. Just my musings.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker