Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Even subjects like general relativity and quantum mechanics can be made clear in principle in just a few sentences. Discussions here can go on for months, there is time. Please explain your research. You'll find there are people here prepared to listen, understand, and critique.
When you're replying to a message, look at the links in the column to the left of the message reply box that you're typing into. Click on the help link for dBCodes. It will explain how to use dBCodes like [img], [list], [table] and others that will help you in your presentation of information.
You don't actually want to remove all white space, else this:
<table> <tr> <td> This is row 1, col 1 <td> This is row 1, col 2 <tr> <td> This is row 2, col 1 <td> This is row 2, col 2 </table>
I think all you really need to do is remove all vertical white space, which yields this:
This is row 1, col 1
This is row 1, col 2
This is row 2, col 1
This is row 2, col 2
Are there easy ways of removing vertical white space? If you're typing into a message box, removing vertical white space from a lengthy table might be a significant task. I'm not very familiar with Notedpad or Wordpad, but taking a quick look at them they don't appear to have a way to remove vertical white space. It's easy in Emacs, I don't know about other editors.
One alternative to consider is to do all your table markup in normal HTML, then replace <table>, <tr> and <td> with [table], [row] and [col]. Even Notepad and Wordpad can do this.
Have you changed it in the last few years? IIRC it was all whitespace.
I'm not sure if you're asking about changes to the way I handle [table] or <table>, but I can't think of any changes to either one.
The impetus for [table] was to eliminate the need for removing vertical white space, making tables easier for everyone, and especially for those who usually just type directly into the message box, or who might use simple editors like Notepad or Wordpad.
If the other participants here are anything like me then they see in you someone who is arrogant with an undisguised contempt for other people's intelligence. Unsurprisingly, people find this off-putting. I think that an approach that was absent the arrogance and demeaning attitude would yield a better outcome. There's nothing complicated about your math and most people here have no problem understanding it. People are telling you that your underlying assumptions are unsound and your analysis flawed, and you need to engage with this feedback instead of merely repeating yourself and referencing your "paper," which somehow managed to avoid any proofreading.
I sense there may also be a language problem. Is English a second language for you? If so that might explain your apparent unawareness of how you're coming across.
I'd like to encourage participants to remain focused on the topic. It appears to me that the claims in Dubreuil's paper are being questioned on three levels:
Underlying assumptions concerning the randomness of Star Trek Next Generation openings.
Data gathering techniques, specifically the identification of "events".
The conclusion that the results, if valid, imply a triune God.
In case anyone is wondering, no thread has ever been deleted at EvC Forum. Even the spam threads you see pop up every now and then are not deleted - they're merely moved to a hidden forum called Spam Threads.
For those interested in a little more detail, the forum software doesn't actually have the ability to truly delete threads. If a moderator or administrator were to delete a thread, all that would really happen is that the software would set a delete flag causing the thread to no longer appear in thread lists. The same is true of messages. In other words, anything deleted can be restored. There's no expunge capability at the current time.
@Admin: Until now I limited my insults to words "Dr Adequate" already used to offend me. But I want to use other words to offend him, if he maintains his offensive behaviour. Is there somewhere a guide that explains to me how to properly offend other offensive persons here? I'm not used to do this yet, but I want to learn it.
Do not try to take moderation into your own hands. Please leave moderation to the moderators.
I do think Dr Adequate was raising appropriate questions, such as why we should expect God to reveal himself through the episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation rather than through healing miracles. You first claimed in Message 136 that God isn't expected to perform healing miracles, which I think most people would consider a rather bizarre claim, and then in Message 141 and Message 143 you broadly mischaracterized Dr Adequate's points, even comparing him to a young earth creationist. Ever since then Dr Adequate has waxed remarkably sarcastic, but I interpreted it as attempts to influence you to finally address his points.
I think it would be fair to ask Dr Adequate to again characterize the arguments he felt were left unanswered. I'll be here to insure that discussion remains civil.
I'm not a theologist. Ask theological questions to a theologist. I don't know what God prefers to do, if he exists. And I can't give evidences for anything God would hypothetical prefer to do. But I agree that God must be a bizarre being if he exists. How stated before, he leaves innocent babies in Africa to die. This is not a forum about religion, it's about science (EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design). And I see no reason to engage in this absolutely bizarre religious discussions which completely lack evidences.
I have to say that this is the most unexpected statement I could imagine from someone who wrote a paper that includes the phrase "triune God" in the title, and that includes a section called "Testing the pattern for a triune God" that concludes, "That God, Jesus and the Bible always appeared as P.Ya is an unique intrinsic characteristic of the pattern."
If there are sections of your paper that people should be ignoring then you should be very clear about that.
The tone of the conversation becomes increasingly hateful, and I don't want to read such hate messages.
I've been carefully monitoring this thread and I see nothing hateful from those debating with you. If anything they've been mocking, and deservedly so. I'm still waiting for an answer for how you could start a thread about a paper with "Triune God" in the title and then in discussion completely disavow any discussion of God. You give no indication of comprehending that you've assumed rather than demonstrated what you're calling residual uncertainty, or that your events are inherently arbitrary and full of your own personal biases and inclinations, or that your "patterns" are so ill defined as to match almost anything.
There is also obviously on one familiar with information science.
Please refrain from making other participants the subject of your discussion. There is nothing particularly complicated about your math. There are few people here who couldn't understand it. The only thing complicated in your paper is your arcane system for classifying events.
You hate me? I hate you too.
No one hates you. Stop behaving immaturely. People are telling you you're making no sense, and because you're showing no sign of understanding this feedback and are ignoring it people have turned to mocking you.
I have rethought my decision about stop commenting here. I will give it second chance, but only with clear rules I will observe for myself.
Do whatever you have to do, but the only rules that count are the Forum Guidelines, and the only people allowed to enforce them are moderators.
I still see no reply to my Message 186. You don't have to reply to it if you don't want to, but I would like to see you begin to try to address at least some of the contradictions and fallacies people think they have found. You only bring problems upon yourself when you begin ignoring people as they will inevitably become more and more extreme in their expression in an attempt to obtain a response. I think you're embarking upon a course that is unlikely to bear fruit. As moderator I'm here to help facilitate discussion, and I'm trying to help you, but you don't seem to be following any of my advice.