All about Brad McFall.

Hi Brad. This is a reply to your post here as I didn't want to continue off topic in that thread.Just to make myself a little clearer (how ironic, huh?), I wasn't meaning so much for you to slow down specifically in your reply to me, I just meant to slow down a little in general. Incidentally, overall, I did find your last reply more comprehensible than usual. Thank you. I think this is part of the problem, and it does correlate with what I tend to witness in your posts. When reading your words, I sometimes get the sense that you have about a million thoughts in your head that are all trying to come out at once. This is why I suggested that you may need to slow down a little, even perhaps to the point of singling out one issue and focusing your thoughts on that. Yes, this is perfectly understandable. I realize that you have limited time to put your thoughts in writing and this makes it difficult. That's why I think you may need to break it down a bit. It would be far more beneficial for you to get even one single point across coherently than to cram every thought you can into your hour of internet time, and have everyone pass it by because they can't understand it. Just to explain myself a little, I hope I haven't given you the impression that I "blame" you, or that I'm upset with you, or anything else of the kind. It's just that I feel a little bad for you. I hope that doesn't sound patronizing or anything; all I mean is that the effort you go to often seems to be somewhat wasted. You obviously have a lot to say but I think that, more often than not, all that ends up happening, as a result, is that your posts are largely ignored.Admittedly, I'm guilty of this myself. I didn't start posting here until fairly recently but I've been reading EvC for a long time (just at a guess, I would say at least two and a half years). Despite this, I'm afraid I gave up reading your posts long ago, for no other reason than I simply couldn't understand them, and I fear that perhaps others do the same. No, not at all. We all make typos, that's quite alright. Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that your spelling is not the problem. As I said before, I think it is more the way everything tends to get crammed together. I think that if you tried to conceptually "thin out" your posts a little, that would help.Also, I see that happy_atheist made a suggestion in this post. I agree; paragraphs are our friend.Failing all of this, you might try not actually posting your replies immediately. Instead, use your online time just to read the forum and take in everything you wish to reply to (and perhaps even print it out for reference, if you're able), and then compose your replies in your offline hours when you can take your time and aren't pressured to think on-the-fly. You can then post them at your leisure.This may put you slightly behind the rest of the posts but it will be well worth it if you can get your points across to others in a way they can understand. Also, you needn't do this for all replies. Perhaps you could try replying to just the "light" topics while you're here and saving the "heavier" ones for later when you can give them the necessary thought.These are all mere suggestions, of course. I'm just throwing ideas out there in the event that any of them may be helpful. I'm not so much concerned that you're clear for other people's sake, but for your own. It seems a shame that your points often fail to get across because of people's inability to comprehend your posts. And I'm not saying it's all your fault either but I do think you need to work on it a little.Anyway, I didn't mean to go on so much about this. I hope that nothing I've said here came across as offensive. That was never my intention.For example, my comment about "feeling bad for you" wasn't meant to be condescending in any way. It's just that I have fallen into the unfortunate habit of scrolling to the next post whenever I see your name and I get the distinct feeling that I'm not the only one who does this. I apologize. I shouldn't do it, and it's nothing personal; I just have so much trouble understanding what you say.In any case, I hope you didn't mind me proposing a few ideas. Perhaps some of them will be helpful to you.

I'm afraid I haven't read this exchange between you and Snikwad but I understand your point, none the less. It is often necessary to give more than a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Just remember a couple of things when elaborating on an answer; try and stick to that one specific point, and don't elaborate too much.One of the problems I have with your posts is that I find your train of thought very hard to follow. For example, in some cases you will appear to be focusing on a particular point and then suddenly, sometimes in mid-sentence, you will be somewhere completely different. That is to say, completely different from my perspective. There may be a connection, and perhaps it is obvious to you, but I'm afraid it is simply lost on me.Other times, I simply can't follow your train of thought at all. For example, this reply to jar. The only part of it that I can make heads or tails of is perhaps "not necessarily with child". RAZD had mentioned that the model in the image jar posted was pregnant when the photograph was taken. So I figured this must be a reference to that fact.Aside from that, I can honestly say that I haven't the slightest idea what the post is about. I've read it about ten times now and I simply cannot extract any meaning from it.Incidentally, I'm not asking you to explain that post; I'm just using it as an example. I'm relieved to hear that. Thank you.I know I'm far too paranoid about these things, but at times I can't help but worry that you'll feel as though I'm "picking on you" or being disrespectful or whatever.But as I've said before, I'm really only thinking of you, on this matter. Ultimately, it makes little difference to me or anyone else whether or not people can understand your posts, but obviously, it would make a significant difference to you. I'm glad that my attempts to help are received as they're intended.I will admit that once again, your reply kind of lost me. So I thought I'd try a slightly different approach; I tried selecting a portion of your post and rewriting it. I did my best to change as little as possible but still write it, grammatically, as I would have.I hope you don't mind me doing this; my goal was simply to see if the overall meaning would be any clearer to me with more familiar grammar and punctuation. Of course, this required me to determine, in advance, what each sentence was saying, so in the end I may be way off, but let's see.Your original: My rewrite: So did I manage to capture the essence of what you were saying?If so, that's good, but I'm afraid that even reading my own version doesn't make it completely clear to me. It makes it more clear than before, but a few spots still lose me, I'm afraid.I should also point out that I chose that particular segment because, aside from the very first paragraph, this was the one I had the least trouble understanding. You're quite welcome. Well, if there is one thread that I thought came up a little short, it was my discussion of higher dimensions, Dimensional Discourse. It's there if you're interested, but I must confess, I'm almost afraid to ask you to reply. It's a confusing enough concept, as it is; I have serious doubts as to whether or not I could handle your perspective on the topic.Again, I intend no offense; I'm just being honest. Hopefully, there are still no hard feelings.

Heh, Brad does tend to have that effect, doesn't he?Don't worry, TC; I'm working on him.

Hmm...I'm afraid you lost me again, but let's see... If you mean that you will be writing your reply offline, please take your time. There is no hurry; the most important thing is that it is comprehensible.Try performing a test on your prospective posts; read them out loud and ask yourself if they sound anything like what you would say in person at, say, a lecture. Well, I certainly wouldn't do that. I never insult anyone (at least, not intentionally), unless of course they deserve it.But seriously, I'm far too easily hurt myself, so I generally try to avoid heated topics. I even had my doubts about addressing you on your posts; I wasn't sure how you'd take it. You seem fine with it, though (at least, as far as I can tell). I already understand the "fundamentals" of dimensions; it is some of their logical conclusions I wish I could truly comprehend (such as four dimensions and higher). I am not familiar with the math but I understand the 3D analogues (within reason). You mean in the paragraph of yours that I rewrote? If I actually changed its intended meaning, that wasn't what I was trying to do. On the contrary, I was trying to determine its meaning. Unfortunately, even reading my rewriting doesn't really do that, I'm afraid. Is this a reference to your post in the Coffee House? If so, don't worry about explaining that post to me; I was only using it as an example.As I said, the most important thing is for you to make your points clearly, even if you only discuss them one at a time. It would be far more beneficial (to you, most of all) than squeezing a thousand points into a single post that nobody can comprehend.Good luck composing those replies. Remember, read them aloud.

What is it they say about genius and insanity?But seriously, I don't think Brad is an idiot, either. In fact, he strikes me as reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent. I honestly think his only real problem is translating his thoughts into writing. That's why I suggested he try reading his replies out loud before posting them.

Snikwad, where is the exchange that Brad is referring to? Is it back in this thread, or another one? Just wondering.EDIT: Thanks for the accolade, Snikwad.I'm not sure how long you've been reading EvC, but I'm sure that many people here would say I'm tackling the impossible. Still, I've always liked a challenge.This message has been edited by Tony650, 08-30-2004 12:42 PM

Hi Brad. I thought I'd better let you know that I wasn't actually debating anything with you; I was just discussing your writing style, method of posting, etc.I just wanted to make that clear since a large part of your post seemed to discuss another topic (or other topics). I was only concerned with helping you makes your posts a little clearer. I hope you didn't think I was arguing these other topics. I think reading your messages out loud before posting them is a good test of clarity, in general. Oh boy. Well, if you do, I will try to understand, but please do write with clarity in mind. Don't concern yourself with "completeness"; I would much rather you focus clearly on one point than many points at once.Also, feel free to take all the time you need (either on or offline), and try the reading aloud test. Hope these things help. Good luck!

Ok, thanks. I would've asked Brad but...you know. Well thanks again! I've been reading EvC for about that long, or perhaps a little longer, myself. By the time I finally posted, I was well and truly familiar with all the regulars like Percy, moose, schraf, Mammuthus, Mike, crash, Ned, Rrhain, etc. I also remember some old regulars who aren't around any more.It was actually kind of an odd feeling when I posted for the first time; obviously nobody here knew who the hell I was but I felt like I already knew all of them. I'm sure there are other lurkers who feel the same.Anyway, I was also familiar with Brad and long ago stopped trying to read his posts. But as I said, I feel kind of bad for him. He seems to go to a lot of trouble and I honestly think that, for the most part, it just isn't worth his while; I really don't think many people can be bothered giving his posts more than a quick "pan down" any more.So, now that I actually post here, I thought the least I could do is try to help him a bit. He seems to have become little more than the butt of an occasional joke (I've done it myself a few times), and from what I've seen, he usually takes it in fairly good humour, but still...Anyway, am I attacking the impossible? Probably. But hey, I never let a little thing like impossibility stop me before!

Perhaps, but I would imagine you've conversed with most of the people I can think of, off the top of my head. Some posters that I haven't seen for some time would be ConsequentAtheist, Zhimbo, Rei and Quetzal.I was going to say TrueCreation, as well, but TC has been around in more recent days, just not as often.Your profile says you registered in December 2001. That's probably somewhere in the area of when I first started reading the forum. I don't recall exactly but I didn't become particularly familiar with the posters for some time anyway. By the time I was I think you were well and truly a regular here, so I doubt I can think of too many people that you haven't "gotten your noodle around."

As for post 125, I'm afraid I'm lost again. I recognize a couple of names but the rest just went over my head. Are we talking about dimensions now?

Hi Brad. I think so. But I'm not sure I understand the relevance to the topic of dimensions.Out of curiosity, did you ever see the thread that I started? I'm speaking specifically of the mathematical concept of higher dimensions. My interest is purely in gaining a greater understanding of spaces/bodies with more than three physical dimensions.For example, I have a great interest in things like the properties of 4D primitives. I have spent years trying to comprehend the true structure of a tesseract, but despite understanding its properties and the principles of its construction, I've never succeeded in visualizing it. This is just one example, of course. There are others.I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Brilliant!I'm...stunned! Somehow I missed this, too. But damn! Brad: The man of mystifying messages, the man of perplexing posts, the man...ok...sorry.The point is who'd have guessed? Here's the guy whose words so frequently go over our heads and after all this time we find out that he's quite the lucid poet! Who'da thunk it? Maybe Brad should speak in poems all the time; we might understand him better.Good stuff, Brad! I'm impressed! If you have more I'd love to see them.Thanks for bringing this to my attention, berberry.

Oh, you didn't write it? Damn, I liked it, too. Oh well, sorry about the misunderstanding. Thanks for the correction. Not specifically, but don't let that stop you. Others may still be interested if you wish to post more. I was interested because I thought you wrote it and, frankly, I find you fascinating.Anyway, no harm done. Thanks for clearing that up.

Hi Brad.Please don't let anyone put you off posting here. I can't speak for anybody else but I like you and find you quite interesting. You may well be the single most unique poster on EvC, and I think that fact, alone, makes your contributions here worthwhile. Hey, that's great, Brad! Maybe we'll finally be able to get inside that extraordinary mind of yours. All the best with your class. Hope you do well. Now there's a Top Ten list I'd like to see: Top ten things said by Brad McFall on EvC forum.P.S. Did you see my...er..."tribute" to you in the EVC forum: a play thread? If you missed it, it's message #26. I'm actually interested to see if you can make any sense of what I wrote. I may have unwittingly said something in your language.And you know... no offense and all that. It's meant in good humour.

I'm somewhat of two minds myself. On the one hand, I'd like to get inside Brad's head a bit as he seems to have plenty in there worth sharing. On the other hand, I think part of what makes him "Brad" is the cloak of mystery that surrounds him. I admit that part of me doesn't want to see that go.