Brad McFall

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]

OK, you win.

Tranquility collapses in shock.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Tranquility collapses in shock.

---

**********************Mammuthus grins as he understands two posts in a row

TB: all I can think of to say is:

Moose notices that Brad has the most recent replies up, for the top 8 topics on the active topics list.Moose afraid to open any of above mentioned topics.Moose bumps "Brad McFall" topic instead.Moose

LOL it actually appears that he is using one of the many Jargon Generators that are available via the web.Hehe, try this one out...Just a moment...------------------
LogicaLunatic
http://www.objectivity.tk

Oh, stop bickering

It really does take effort to come up with such incomprehensible nonsense. Brad's posts are clearly meant to confuse.

I am sorry. To be punctual they are not. I am attempting to read and write within the topic divisions that is all. If you think that web categories enable a non-confusing reading then I will have a non-confused writing but such especially in c/e context is not so. I will try to show you this by finding about what you posted and I will let you know me.

This is NOT "jargon" generation but continual disciplined reading on and off the web. The lastest instantiation of a confusion arose because it was desired to know without any evil if the two axes I had in mind did or did not take the same geometry. Biologically I KNEW this was misrepresented or confusing to students as Will Provine ONLY related any substance in this materially to Phase-Transitions. Wolfram's New Kind of Science offers a biological alternative. This said nothing of tiling to infinty. It was not meant to confuse. What IS confusing is using ONLY infinite componentability when infinite division is possible and for that I AM guilty of over wording something that *may* be much simpler. I prefer to see the "ugly all" before I narrow to a beautiful mind. I apologize that you do not hold necessarily the enthusiam and excitment I got from Humphreys apon seeing** his Starlight and Time VIDEO for it verily cleared up much of the reasons I started my first journal (not on the web) decades ago. I was concerned to know how an organism could grow bones in a space that BOTH was increasingly entropically & expanding post big bang. At that time all I imagined was the centrioles could sense gravity waves. But I certainly determined then( late 70s) that Dawkins memes and genes were NOT compared to GOD. Of course I have learned the hard way that not even this is allowable as a comparison so instead I stick to baramins vs common descent lineage for the 1/2 enternity I put science to task ...I know Wolfram does not hold to this first notion of entropy I had. The interesting thing that I am discovering is that my physical ideas may be all wrong which gives even potentially more explanatory power to biology than I had thought previously (for instance, aforesaid, I had thought that speed of light had to constrain location of places of organisms (precisely as Wolfram has (also) suggested) but now with FRENCH BIO-Math Collet infinity at least at the axiomatic level and the by proof and defintiion proposition contigent acceptance) working out WOlfram program it is possible to get results beyond WOlfram in the more traditional mode of doing science (by finding laws in math)).I never used the one-gene one-enzyme notion to read any biology. If you can not do this(,) don't try.

Just read his posts in a Yoda voice and they make more sense. Try it.

{Message withdrawn by edit}Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-31-2002]

Ad, I[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-31-2002]

Brad, as a perennial lurker who has just hit the ground running, can I express my support for the grandeur of your vision? It must be frustrating to have so many strands available to you and have to try to pass them on. I keep tottering on the brink of understanding, but then you are off and running. I`ll keep mulling if you keep writing. Just strew a few more clues for us,huh?