Brad McFall

Yes Brad is a mystery nearly as challenging as the topic of this board.Sometimes Brad's posts almost make sense for a few lines and then suddenly they go haywire again. (Hi Brad ).He uses the language of a vast number of fields that I am also interested in but uses it better than I can. It is only in fields I have specifically made myself an expert or semi-expert that I can out-jargon him.Regardless of the field of topic he seems to know the names of researchers and their models. Crucially these are usually fields where I can't immediately verify the names off-hand. I often suspect that he doesn't understand what underlies them but I simply can't tell!He frequently tries to use classic physical sciences exlanations to explain life sceinces phenomenon. And yet he claims to have studied primarily life sciences I think.Here's evidence that he does actually respond to us:* When I challenged him on habitual name dropping he once told me that he mentions a lot of researchers names (who most of us have never heard of mind you) becasue that is how he remembers their work.* I challenged Brad to respond in point form to 4 questions I numbered. He did actually cite my point numbers although everything else only half made sense.* On one discusion we had about something Brad actually agreed with me about something I had challenged him on and changed his tune for the next few posts (I think to do with the importance of protein folds etc).So is Brad a hoax, a chat robot, a smart guy with an attention deficit ??? I'm not sure although he's probably the most sophisticated chat robot I've ever encountered if he is one. But I don't think I could say he quite passes the Turing test. Brad, if your out there I hope you can accept this in the spirit of puzzlement it was written in! You and I have connected a few times and it was great. Come on Brad, clue us in.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-04-2002]

^ Maybe Percy is an AI programmer and you and I are the only real people here . . . or maybe it's only you John . . .

^ I think we should just create chat-robot versions of oursleves, at least for the time we can't spend on line (sleep, vacations etc) and just let them loose. The program could intermittently post new threads with titles like 'Undeniable evidence that Elvis was on the ark/evolved from my testube'.We could pre-create all our reused answers and write a smart 'so there' generator that incorporated enough keywords from previous posts that we could get away with being accused only of being a little obtuse.And for the last time I wont open the payload doors.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-04-2002]

What could have been demonstrated without, let us say, a le sae par or two, is not without relevance or indeed precedence to the matter. As has been shown beyond doubt by Dirac, and is discussed even on the elementary school playground, we could never doubt that A PRIORI the siliconized society has made its contribution to c/e. Regardless, number theory, modulo so-called "induction evidence" has never clarified the role of epsilon in the differntiability of enzyme pathway state-curves.During my sabatical in the Kremlin it occurred to me that Lord Kelvin may have been correct, at least in passing, when he commented on the extent of correlation between FEASABILTY vs, ipso facto baseball projectile dynamics. Nevertheless my duties restrained these investigations and instead I, whilst also entertaining considerations that Korean antiquities might not be a next stop, was prompted to participate in a collaboration with Kenwick. How polystrate decay entered into this is a subject for another time as my hour is up and Anne is calling.

I had considered my episode so contibuted to have been, if not completely, perhaps to some copious degree, inaugural to the domain. As it appears you have scooped my endeavor although the datestamp field, whether Y2K compatible or not, unambiguously elucidates that your installment predated my foundational postings.

But of course Kenwick never did state specifically that decay amplitudes contributed to polystraitism, not even in his Springer-V monographs. It was said FOR him by some of the others (including Ervakld who returned my telegrams on more than one occasion) in the Forsight camp that monopole retention aided RATHER THAN hindered mutational polymorphisms. But, in as much as Maddocks influenced the reviewers, the plebs will never know of course other than what has emerged from unofficial commentaries in literature available only in Latvian, a Baltic tongue that I never mastered despite intense efforts to immerse myself in northern Slavic cultures including their courting rituals adopted from neibouring Finnish tribes in the pre-1200s. Is it opportunistic from a game theory point of view that these polymorphisms have non-Abelian generators and does this relate to the recent prime factoring algorithms from ETH and Prague (which I visited PRIOR to the marches)? That workers, "chaperoned" or not by party authorities from the enigma branch, can extract finite renomalizations from such polymorphisms is emphatically due, whether via Reimann or not, to the physicality of the underlying ersatz and does not, except in the most implicitly contradictory sense or formalism (either), establish quantum singularities as existentially plausible forms of psudeo-Maxwellian distibutions. At the conference dinner he added that, although not grandstanded in the plenary, nor expounded in the preprint other than in a footnote, hidden variables do nevertheless enforce gauge symmetries at the genomic level. That was news for me and aided the goulash and cabbage.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-29-2002]

Tranquility collapses in shock.