|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total) |
| |
Contrarian | |
Total: 894,014 Year: 5,126/6,534 Month: 546/794 Week: 37/135 Day: 14/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: To and in re to Brad McFall | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3959 Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
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,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 4303 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3959 Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
quote: 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 Feedback by any and all still welcome,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 4465 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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;
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?
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 Mark "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 675 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 4465 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 675 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3959 Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
RAZD writes:
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PecosGeorge Member (Idle past 6143 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 4303 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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: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. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-18-2005 16:36 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
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):
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 4303 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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, 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. 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. ######################### This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-19-2005 14:22 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022