Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 121 of 393 (755379)
04-07-2015 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 6:57 PM


TAD writes:
Dubreuil, what is your experience in the industry of TV? Do you have any? Have you been trained in writing or producing scripts? Do you have some related expertise to help support the many assertions you are making about the way TV shows are constructed?
Dubreuil writes:
No.
That's what I thought. Some of us have extensive industry experience -- enough to know you're barking in the wind here.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 6:57 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 122 of 393 (755382)
04-07-2015 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 6:57 PM


Only the first two minutes are mostly quantised
Please define what you mean by the word quantised.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 6:57 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 123 of 393 (755407)
04-08-2015 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 6:57 PM


Chance itself also wasn't the cause as calculated with the probability mass function. It is true that this doesn't exactly demonstrate the presence of ID, but it points to something unknown, a force or bias that creates nontrivial structures out of chance/nowhere.
Wow, you're saying that there's a process other than chance involved in the production of Star Trek scripts? And there was I thinking they were produced by randomly picking words out of a dictionary blindfold. But now I've heard your theory it makes so much more sense.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 6:57 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 393 (755419)
04-08-2015 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 3:52 PM


It eliminates a the possibility of a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution? If so, then there should be a few episodes that doesn't fit with the pattern out of chance. That hasn't happened. A pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^2 could be created by rules or chance or both, but not a pattern with 1:10^7.
Hurray! You've finally proven that TV shows are not actually made like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-5OABcNfX0&feature=youtu...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 3:52 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 125 of 393 (755427)
04-08-2015 12:01 PM


ThinAirDesigns writes:
That's what I thought. Some of us have extensive industry experience -- enough to know you're barking in the wind here.
If you claim that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then you should name them. If anyone else, who has enough industry experience, claims that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then he or she should name them. If anyone claims that there are mistakes about the mathematics, then it should be named. That's how discussions work. Not: "You are dumb, I'm omniscient".
Theodoric writes:
Please define what you mean by the word quantised.
Quantization - Wikipedia
Every appearance is added to a row of appearances according to the rules you find in Message 28. For example an episode like 4x08 is not longer composed out of visual and audible information, it is reduced to row of appearances:
*P.Al, *P.Pi, *P.Al, *P.BW, *P.Al ...
Like this it can be compared with every other row easily. In the paper in Appendix A you can find this row of appearances for every episode.
RAZD writes:
How about 3 invisible pigs?
I forgot to comment this part. It was not looked after pigs. There were three persons: Jesus, God and the Bible. They all appeared as P.Ya. This resulted in a residual uncertainty of 1:10^3: Message 39.
Cat Sci writes:
It eliminates a the possibility of a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution? If so, then there should be a few episodes that doesn't fit with the pattern out of chance. That hasn't happened. A pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^2 could be created by rules or chance or both, but not a pattern with 1:10^7.
Hurray! You've finally proven that TV shows are not actually made like this:
You are really no one you can discuss with. I asked you a direct question three times in a row: Message 90, Message 95, Message 111. And you refused to answer this questions three times in a row: Message 91, Message 96, Message 124. I suggest you stop commenting here if sarcasm is the only language you know.
Regardless, a short comment about this point for everyone who is interested in it (not you):
There are random effects and random preferences by the hundred persons that were involved in it. This effects changes the appearances randomly. Even if only every fifth time a change occurs, then the pattern would still fit not more then 35 times and the residual uncertainty would be 1:10. I suggest you don't comment anymore unless you have acquired the necessary knowledge of math to understand the argumentation. You have to understand that you can not reject the mathematical part of the paper with your scorn and derision. It takes an thorough review and enough time to estimate a scientific paper. For the other persons the paper was sent to before, it took about a month to review the paper and write a comment. Don't assume you are able to reach a final opinion about this within a few days. Even if you have all the necessary knowledge of math it takes more than just a few days to estimate a science paper of this size.
Edited by Dubreuil, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-08-2015 12:12 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2015 12:35 PM Dubreuil has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 126 of 393 (755428)
04-08-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 12:01 PM


Dubreuil writes:
If you claim that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then you should name them. If anyone else, who has enough industry experience, claims that there were mistakes about the quantisations, then he or she should name them. If anyone claims that there are mistakes about the mathematics, then it should be named. That's how discussions work. Not: "You are dumb, I'm omniscient".
Your mistakes have been named multiple times and you simply ignore them.
For instance, you claim that the involvement of chance precludes other natural explanations. You've been called on the illogical nature of this claim multiple times. Humans creations include patterns, conscious and subconscious. TV shows are no different. It's logical to conclude that the constraints of TV shows would force even more patterns into the mix.
There's a reason that no one will publish your "research" -- it's flawed from the start.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 127 of 393 (755429)
04-08-2015 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 12:01 PM


You are really no one you can discuss with. I asked you a direct question three times in a row: Message 90, Message 95, Message 111. And you refused to answer this questions three times in a row: Message 91, Message 96, Message 124. I suggest you stop commenting here if sarcasm is the only language you know.
That's fine. You can add me to list of people who have rejected your paper because it has no merit.
You have to understand that you can not reject the mathematical part of the paper with your scorn and derision.
You need to be able to understand how to communicate well enough to explain you paper in English.
I asked you to explain yourself in plain English without reference to your own paper and you were unable to.
This stuff about it being to complicated to discuss is bullshit.
We've had plain English discussion here about things that are way more complicated than the stuff in your paper, like the Big Bang and 4D cosmology and quantum mechanics and genetics and micro/macro-evolution.
Hiding behind a smokescreen of "you're just not smart enough to understand what I'm saying" is only going to cause more people to reject your work.
If you really want to discuss what's in your paper, then talk English. Forget the quantizations and mathematical stuff and use words.
Or don't, IDGAF.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 2:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2015 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 128 of 393 (755449)
04-08-2015 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
04-08-2015 12:35 PM


ThinAirDesigns writes:
Your mistakes have been named multiple times and you simply ignore them.
For instance, you claim that the involvement of chance precludes other natural explanations. You've been called on the illogical nature of this claim multiple times. Humans creations include patterns, conscious and subconscious. TV shows are no different. It's logical to conclude that the constraints of TV shows would force even more patterns into the mix.
I have not ignored them. You have ignored my answers. I already have refuted all the arguments you named. You have not yet answered to this counterarguments.
conscious human behaviour is not a cause: Message 64
unconscious human behaviour is not a cause: Message 64
the constraints that were named until now are not a cause: Message 78
ThinAirDesigns writes:
For instance, you claim that the involvement of chance precludes other natural explanations. You've been called on the illogical nature of this claim multiple times.
It was claimed but not reasoned. I will make it easy for you to give reasons for that claim.
1. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution?
2. Do you agree that a coincidental contribution will change the row of appearances?
3. Do you agree that a change in the row of appearances will cause the pattern to not fit sometimes?
4. Do you agree that if the pattern doesn't fit that often, then the pattern will have only a low residual uncertainty like 1:10^2?
It was claimed that the involvement of chance precludes a pattern with a residual uncertainty with 1:10^7 because: 1.->2.->3.->4.
Answer this four questions and you actually made a first step to justify your claim.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
There's a reason that no one will publish your "research" -- it's flawed from the start.
Not even in your opinion that makes sense. You stated that the pattern exists (because of constraints). From Message 111: "Even in this case the results would be remarkable. That there is one significant pattern in every told story hasn't been shown before. That this pattern also holds a reference about a triune God is also remarkable. This wasn't criticised yet.". You say the pattern is there, therefore I proved an actually existing pattern and it is not flawed from the start. You can't say that what I have proved is right and therefore it's flawed.
Cat Sci writes:
You need to be able to understand how to communicate well enough to explain you paper in English.
I asked you to explain yourself in plain English without reference to your own paper and you were unable to.
This stuff about it being to complicated to discuss is bullshit.
We've had plain English discussion here about things that are way more complicated than the stuff in your paper, like the Big Bang and 4D cosmology and quantum mechanics and genetics and micro/macro-evolution.
Hiding behind a smokescreen of "you're just not smart enough to understand what I'm saying" is only going to cause more people to reject your work.
If you really want to discuss what's in your paper, then talk English. Forget the quantizations and mathematical stuff and use words.
You probably refer to:
From Message 82: "Well I asked you to explain it in plain English without reference to your paper and you were unable to do that. So apparently even you do not understand the sciences in this paper."
I explained it with equations in Message 14. I don't say it is to complicated to explain it in plain English, but it would take an enormous amount of time. I first had to teach you basic probability calculation, the explanation in Message 14 was seemingly to complicated for you, and then more modern mathematical stuff. The intraclass correlation test was first introduced only 40 years ago and is more complicated. I'm not used to teach to persons that have no mathematical background and I wouldn't look forward to it. At the beginning it was said: "Amusingly there are many people here with PhD's in the appropriate fields" and "You'll find there are people here prepared to listen, understand, and critique.". I don't want to spent the rest of my life with explaining mathematics to laymen. I prefer to wait until one of the persons with a mathematical background show up and want to give a critique. That was the only reason I agreed with a "review" at all. Scientific laymen are really unable to review a science paper, they don't understand the content. Maybe you can find someone else to explain you the mathematics, but I really don't have the vast amount of time that would be necessary to teach you the maths background. This is a restricting factor and anyone who doesn't have at least a slight knowledge about the mathematical background can not take part in the discussion. I don't have the time to explain maths to everyone. If there is no one left here to discuss with because of this, then it can't be changed. But I still will answer easy questions of understandability, like in Message 122 from Theodoric. They can be answered quick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2015 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2015 2:40 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 133 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-08-2015 4:54 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 134 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-08-2015 5:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 129 of 393 (755455)
04-08-2015 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 2:14 PM


I don't want to spent the rest of my life with explaining mathematics to laymen. I prefer to wait until one of the persons with a mathematical background show up and want to give a critique.
I have a Ph.D. in math. However, it seems superfluous to check your calculations when everything else you're saying is nonsense. If you figure out that the total number of human legs is 18, based on the premise that the world population is six and that every person has three legs, then it's not your arithmetic that's your problem.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 2:14 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 130 of 393 (755459)
04-08-2015 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 6:57 PM


still not clear here, so let's try again
re
RAZD writes:
Can you envisage an introductory "teaser" segment that does NOT include a "person" appearing in the opening seconds?
A new event wouldn't be triggered until a person appears
In other words, "no" -- because you just don't include them in your pattern ... that data is ignored.
That's like counting cars that pass on the street, and not starting until a red car appears ...
Full quote from Message 117:
There can be simple rules. From Message 95: "in the first 5 seconds a person appears". The probability was calculated for it happening solely by chance. The results showed that the pattern was not created solely by chance. That concurs with your opinion.
Can you envisage an introductory "teaser" segment that does NOT include a "person" appearing in the opening seconds?
Can I take it from this that the first part\element of your "pattern" is: "a person appears" (which sounds a lot like stage directions imho).
A new event wouldn't be triggered until a person appears
So you only start the "pattern" when a person appears. In other words, "yes" the first element is "a person appears" ...
RAZD writes:
Well I for one am still having some trouble figuring out what your pattern is, as it seems you have made your discussion of it very complex, imho.
Let's pretend that I am very simple minded, a doddering old man or a young child, and you are trying to explain to me what the pattern is: use words and try to be as explicit as you can be.
Every appearance will be quantified. A pattern like this can emerge in 4 different episodes:
*P.Pi, *P.Ri,....................*P.LF, *P.Wo, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.Tr, *P.Da, *P.Ya
*P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.LF, *P.Wo,...............................*P.Da, *P.LF
*P.Ya,............................*P.LF, *P.Tr,..................................*P.Da, *P.Ya
*P.Ya, *P.Ri, *P.Ya,.........*P.LF, *P.Wo,...............................*P.Da, *P.LF
This is rather obviously a distinct pattern. It can be divided into different parts called "events"
E1: *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Ya can appear, no one else
E2: *P.LF can appear, no one else
E3: *P.Wo, *P.Tr can appear, no one else
E4: *P.Da can appear, no one else
E5: *P.LF, *P.Ya can appear, no one else
with E1->E2->E3->E4->E5
Thanks, I do now begin to see a pattern with this clarification. The way I see it now is that the pattern is this:
Event 1: appearance of ∈ {P.Pi, P.Ri, P.Ya}, singly and/or with multiple interactions between them,
Event 2: appearance of ∈ {P.LF}
Event 3: appearance of ∈ {P.Wo, P.Tr}, singly and/or with multiple interactions between them,
Event 4: appearance of ∈ {P.Da}
Event 5" appearance of ∈ {PLF, P.Ya}, singly and/or with multiple interactions between them,
Is there more, or is this the total "pattern" you have detected?
So am I correct that each of the following sequences of appearances would fit this "pattern" ...
  1. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  2. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  3. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  4. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  5. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  6. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  7. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  8. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  9. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  10. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  11. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  12. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  13. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  14. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  15. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  16. P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  17. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  18. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  19. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  20. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  21. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  22. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  23. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  24. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  25. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  26. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  27. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  28. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  29. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  30. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  31. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  32. P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  33. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  34. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  35. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  36. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  37. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  38. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  39. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  40. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  41. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  42. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  43. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  44. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  45. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  46. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  47. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  48. P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  49. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  50. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  51. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  52. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  53. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  54. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  55. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  56. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  57. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  58. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  59. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  60. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  61. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  62. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  63. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  64. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  65. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  66. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  67. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  68. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  69. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  70. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  71. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  72. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  73. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  74. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  75. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  76. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  77. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  78. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  79. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  80. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  81. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  82. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  83. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  84. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  85. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  86. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  87. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  88. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  89. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  90. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  91. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  92. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  93. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  94. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  95. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  96. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  97. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  98. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  99. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  100. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  101. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  102. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  103. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  104. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  105. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  106. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  107. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  108. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  109. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  110. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  111. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  112. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  113. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  114. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  115. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  116. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  117. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  118. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  119. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  120. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  121. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  122. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  123. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  124. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  125. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  126. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  127. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  128. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  129. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  130. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  131. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  132. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  133. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  134. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  135. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  136. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  137. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  138. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  139. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  140. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  141. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  142. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  143. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  144. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  145. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  146. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  147. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  148. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  149. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  150. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  151. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  152. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  153. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  154. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  155. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  156. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  157. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  158. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  159. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  160. P.Pi - P.Ri - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  161. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  162. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  163. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  164. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  165. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  166. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  167. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  168. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  169. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  170. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  171. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  172. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  173. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  174. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  175. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  176. P.Pi - P.Ya - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  177. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  178. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  179. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  180. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  181. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  182. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  183. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  184. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  185. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  186. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  187. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  188. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  189. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  190. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  191. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  192. P.Ri - P.Pi - P.Ya - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  193. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  194. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  195. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  196. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  197. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  198. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  199. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  200. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  201. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  202. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  203. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  204. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  205. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  206. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  207. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  208. P.Ri - P.Ya - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  209. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  210. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  211. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  212. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  213. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  214. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  215. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  216. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  217. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  218. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  219. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  220. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  221. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  222. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  223. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  224. P.Ya - P.Ri - P.Pi - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  225. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  226. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  227. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  228. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  229. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF,
  230. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya,
  231. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  232. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
  233. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF
  234. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya
  235. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya
  236. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Wo - P.Tr - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF
  237. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF,
  238. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya,
  239. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.LF - P.Ya,
  240. P.Ya - P.Pi - P.Ri - P.LF - P.Tr - P.Wo - P.Da - P.Ya - P.LF,
... and that this list is not complete? (note that two of your examples are not included:
*P.Pi, *P.Ri,....................*P.LF, *P.Wo, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.Tr, *P.Da, *P.Ya
*P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.LF, *P.Wo,...............................*P.Da, *P.LF
and that this would expand the number of templates by a factor of 2 or 3 (or more)
Please confirm or clarify.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added variation to list that were missed -- there are others I have omitted for brevity ... :rolleyes"

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 6:57 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 4:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3042 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 131 of 393 (755471)
04-08-2015 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by RAZD
04-08-2015 2:59 PM


Re: still not clear here, so let's try again
RAZD writes:
So am I correct that each of the following sequences of appearances would fit this "pattern" ...
RAZD writes:
... and that this list is not complete? (note that two of your examples are not included:
RAZD writes:
and that this would expand the number of templates by a factor of 2 or 3 (or more)
Yes, it all fits with the exemplary pattern E1 to E5. The actual pattern E1 to E15 is shown in table 4 on page 5.
E1 would be:
Event 1: appearance of ∈ {P.Al, P.BW, P.Da, P.LF, P.Pi, P.Tr, P.WeC, P.Wo, P.WSA, M1, M2, M5, M6, M7, M13}, singly and/or with multiple interactions between them,
and
∈ {P.Al-, P.BW+, P.Tr+, P.WeC-}
RAZD writes:
So you only start the "pattern" when a person appears. In other words, "yes" the first element is "a person appears" ...
It can also start with M1, M2, ..., M14 at E1, E3, E4 or E5.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2015 2:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2015 5:37 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 393 (755472)
04-08-2015 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by New Cat's Eye
04-08-2015 12:35 PM


Hiding behind a smokescreen of "you're just not smart enough to understand what I'm saying" is only going to cause more people to reject your work.
Lol! Like an excuse is actually needed to reject numerology out of hand. How about "Life's too short..."
The tone of this discussion ought to seem very familiar to another fairly recent "paper presentation" by a rejected author. Remember that guy who was expecting an honorary degree based on work he could not get published?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2015 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 133 of 393 (755473)
04-08-2015 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 2:14 PM


Dubeuil writes:
"Chance itself has not created the pattern and any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance."
All of your squirming doesn't make the above any more logical. Natural forces don't just take a hiatus when chance is also involved. Chance and natural forces are simply two inputs into a given outcome.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 2:14 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 134 of 393 (755475)
04-08-2015 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Dubreuil
04-08-2015 2:14 PM


Dubreuil writes:
I don't want to spent the rest of my life with explaining mathematics to laymen.
Since your basic premise is flawed, who gives a RA about the math. Math requires good inputs and without them all is lost. You admittedly have no experience in the TV broadcast business and thus have no clue how patterns arise in that industry.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Dubreuil, posted 04-08-2015 2:14 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(10)
Message 135 of 393 (755487)
04-08-2015 6:48 PM


Interim Summary
Let me try and set out the problems in your work as I see them.
(1) Inappropriate use of statistical methods
Statistical methods are good for sorting out signal from noise, causation from randomness. But you are for some reason trying to do something else: to sort out a signal from a signal, and an intelligent cause from an intelligent cause. To apply statistical methods, you have to assume that the known intelligent cause is in effect a random process, and that the known signal is in effect noise. This is not going to work, or to convince anyone.
Why not work with a sequence that is in fact randomly generated? Try tossing a coin a hundred times, but first pray to your "triune god" that it should always come up heads. When you can get that to work, let's talk.
(2) The Sharpshooter Fallacy
Calculating the odds of you finding the patterns you did in fact find is the wrong calculation. What you need to do is to calculate the chances of getting any pattern that you'd have found equally impressive.
By analogy, suppose a guy prays for a miracle and then draws four cards from a deck, and they come out as a 5, 6, 7, 8, in that order. "A miracle!", he cries, "what are the odds of that!" And he calculates the odds and they are indeed quite long. But he'd also have been equally impressed if it had been 2, 3, 4, 5, or 2, 4, 6, 8, or all the kings, or all the 7s, or his birthdate, and so on. What he should be calculating are the odds of him getting anything that would make him shout "A miracle!" These odds against this are much shorter.
(3) Hindsight and bias
You got to decide yourself what would fall into what category. There's no reason a priori why we should class Romulans with the color silver, or that lack of knowledge should be classed with the number 4. You didn't decide on this classification scheme before you'd ever watched Star Trek, did you?
You then get to decide for yourself what things fall into these categories. I just looked on YouTube for full episodes of ST:TNG. As you know, YouTube represents every video with a representative still picture. In every one I could identify something black. Do you have a rigid objective criterion for when this counts as P.BW?
This is a problem. Given the latitude to create arbitrary classes ad hoc and to decide for myself what falls into those classes, I could prove any number of things similar or indeed identical according to my classification scheme.
(4) The theological / statistical problem
Finally, as I have pointed out, this isn't remotely evidence for a triune god, because we have no prior expectation that this is the sort of thing he'd do.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dubreuil, posted 04-09-2015 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024