Your opinion & share...
Latest topics
» Broken Fate Line
Today at 3:24 am by pravin kumar

» Hi this is Chintan from India
Yesterday at 2:20 pm by anandchintan14

» ALIGNMENT WITH NOW.
Yesterday at 12:44 pm by pravin kumar

» STUCK IN DEPRESSION.
Yesterday at 12:42 pm by pravin kumar

» SELF CREATED SUFFERING
Yesterday at 12:41 pm by pravin kumar

» TOOLS OF LOVE
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:55 pm by pravin kumar

» CARRY ONLY A MESSAGE
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:54 pm by pravin kumar

» TWO VERSIONS OF SELF
Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:53 pm by pravin kumar

» CHOSING PEACE
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:47 am by pravin kumar

» CONFLICT WITH ONESELF.
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:43 am by pravin kumar

» THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT LOVE
Tue Dec 12, 2017 5:39 am by pravin kumar

» ALIGNMENT WITH NOW
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:53 am by pravin kumar

» DELUSIONAL FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:47 am by pravin kumar

» Viewpoint of scientists regarding vedic sciences
Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:34 am by Vennila

» Selfishness only Harms.
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:07 am by pravin kumar

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Who is online?
In total there are 35 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 35 Guests

None

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 293 on Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:22 am
Moderators & partners

• Discover the Modern Hand Reading Forum partners:

Would you like to see your website listed?

Modern Hand Reading Forum Partners

Pointing finger: check this out!

Statistics
We have 5279 registered users
The newest registered user is Yannos31000

Our users have posted a total of 43465 messages in 4349 subjects
Recommendations

• The FREE hand reading services at the Modern Hand Reading Forum are being continued in 2015 with the assistance of Google adsense!


Pointing finger: check this out!



Google+
MAJOR HAND READING SYNONYMS
Palmistry, Palm Reading, Hand Analysis, Chirology & Chiromancy.

Learn how to read hands according the Modern Hand Reading paradigm & you can use this forum as your palm reading guide!

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 2:00 am

Patti wrote:
Yes I did describe why I colored the lines as I did - using the guidelines from the report.

You are welcome to your interpretation, but even in this post you have acknowledged that it is your opinion to compare the width of II with III and not in the report. You pat yourself on the back for your viewpoint (with no support from anywhere) and then call my opinions fantasy.

Double standard?

When someone takes the approach that their ideas are absolute fact there leaves little room for discussion.

Patti, I requested a detailed explanation... but your first line does not serve as an answer to my request (since you are still not describing any details at all).


Regarding your comment about a 'double standard'... Patti, let me put it like this:

It is only a fact that the Korean report does not describe at all how to find the point (in II-III) where the crease-parts get connected!

So, your claim that you managed to do that by "using the guidelines from the report" ... is quite unlikely, because in the Korean report there are no guidelines presented for that purpose at all.

And after saying this, don't you think it was only fair to ask for more details regarding your own observations that made you find the 'connecting point'.


By the way, this shows the nature of how you CREATE 'standards'... regarding an objective that is not described in the Korean report at all: there are no formal 'requirements' described in the article for this purpose at all!


Patti, your attempt to disqualify my arguments based on the width of the major creases is rather naieve... and could even indicate that you do not understand at all what you're talking about.

Because I think this only requires a bit of common sense: we can quite safely assume that the 'flow' of the creases is indicated by the width variations inside the creases involved!

And it is quite silly to see that you are simply disqualifying my detailed observations as 'opinions'... and after describing why I perceive your conclusion as rethorics only, you are now even suggesting that my observations are based on a 'double standard'.


Patti, I now recognize how you have 'created' your own rules for our advanced explorations (which go beyond the purposes describe in the Korean article) regarding how to find the 'connecting point' inside the II+III part of the Suwon crease.


scratch ...I can only hope that you will recognize now as well that we are talking here about a topic that goes beyond the purpose of the article.

Just like we were going beyond the borders of the article when discussing the 'extended distal transverse crease' - which concerns another topic where we had alreayd agreed that it is not covered by the Korean article.

Makes sense now?


wave

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 2:18 am

Lynn wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:
re Martijn says II must be parallel to the II part of II + III.
That's also how I read it, given their definition of 'accessory' line.

The accessory crease is parallel to a major crease i.e. I, II, and III. The Koreans do not mention anything regarding Accessory II or Accessory III being parallel to any part or all of II + III. II + III is not II and it is not III, it is "II+III".

In my opinion this too is extrapolating. Is that okay when you agree and not okay when you don't?

Thanks!

Definitions from the paper -
Suwon crease (D): II and III meet accompanied by accessory II.

Fig. 5. Variants of distal transverse crease (III). .....Accessory variant (C): III is accompanied by accessory palm creases which are parallel and more than half of the III length.


This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II

doesn't it?


Yes Lynn,.exactly: I already mentioned a few times that it's literally written in this line of the article:

"Lastly, based on variants of I, II, and III, each major palm crease was classified (Fig. 5)."

All guidelines described in figure 5 for crease III, are likewise applied on the other creases II and I.


Thanks for pointing out that you understood as well that there can only be one implication of this line: figure 5C describes two requirements that are essential for recognizing a Suwon crease.

Thanks!


PS. Now that I know that you and I agree about that point, there is one more sentence that I would like to draw your attention to:

"... while Suwon creases have accessory II, which is close to I."

I think this implicates that the II+III part of the Suwon crease is always found at a certain distance positioned away from the life line, and indirectly this confirms that the requirement that the two parts of the head line are positioned 'parallel', is essential for the recognizeing a Suwon crease.

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 2:55 am

Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?


Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either Wink ) Obviously not criteria.


No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

But I recognize how your 'reasoning' here is a direct result of where you located the connections in the Korean Suwon exmple + the example which Lynn re-introduced earlier this evening.


And it is a bit strange to hear how you are building your arguments:
Step 1 - first you make a starting point from your own assumptions - illustrated by your use of the word 'most likely';
Step 2 - and then follows one more possibility - illustrated by your use of the word 'probably';
Step 3 - in order end with a conclusion which appears to be a new assumption: that you assume that there is probably is no criterium presented at all.


While Lynn's quote does presents two clearly distinctable criteria!

And both the Suwon crease illustration and the guidelines in figure 5 can be described as confirming these two 'criteria'. Because the guideline in figure 5C is in the Korean article THE ONLY sentence that could directly serve as a definition for how to recognize an 'accessory crease'.

Though I now also would like to add a sentence which indirectly can serve for the same purpose - concering the sentence that I introduced in my last post:

"... while Suwon creases have accessory II, which is close to I."

This sentence indirectly suggests that the 'II+III' part of the Suwon crease will never be found connected with the life line.


I observe that this results in a list of at least 5 criteria for recognizing a Suwon crease:

A Suwon crease requires the presence of: (1) two head lines, with (2) the upper head line is connected to the heart line, (3) both head lines are required to be positioned parallel to each other, (4) both head lines are required to have enough length, (5) and the upper head line is not connected with the life line.

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 3:08 am

While you argue arbitrary points that are not in the report, you totally miss important criteria that is in the report.

The endings of all creases, major and minor, are determined by their 'sharpened ends'.

Your example below is actually a confirmation of the entended DTC reaching the radial edge when a PTC is present being related to a Suwon crease. The DTC tapers to the radial edge.

avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 4:08 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?


Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either Wink ) Obviously not criteria.


No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

But I recognize how your 'reasoning' here is a direct result of where you located the connections in the Korean Suwon exmple + the example which Lynn re-introduced earlier this evening.


You probably don't realize that Lynn is saying the opposite of what you are saying.

She is saying the Accessory II crease needs to be longer than 1/2 of the II part of II+III. (If you think about it, that is pretty short)

You are stating that the II part of the II+III needs to be more than 1/2 the length of Accessory II.

But, I'm glad to hear that you are both in agreement with each other.

Oh...nooo!
avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Lynn on Tue May 31, 2011 10:57 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?


Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either Wink ) Obviously not criteria.


No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

I don't see what's wrong with Patti's statement, or how it violates any requirement about length. ??

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2409
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 1:24 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?


Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either Wink ) Obviously not criteria.


No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

But I recognize how your 'reasoning' here is a direct result of where you located the connections in the Korean Suwon exmple + the example which Lynn re-introduced earlier this evening.


You probably don't realize that Lynn is saying the opposite of what you are saying.

She is saying the Accessory II crease needs to be longer than 1/2 of the II part of II+III. (If you think about it, that is pretty short)

You are stating that the II part of the II+III needs to be more than 1/2 the length of Accessory II.

But, I'm glad to hear that you are both in agreement with each other.

Oh...nooo!

Patti... obvouisly you didn't notice that I responded to your comment only.

And it is very obvious that you are assuming here something that is not explicitely said by Lynn at all. Because she only talked about 'half the length of II':

"This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II"

Which means that Lynn is only saying: the head line part in the fused line is more than half the length of II. Actually, I recognize, Lynn's word choice was probably a bit confusing by using the 'acessory' to refer the II part of the II+III.


While you assumed her that she said:

"Accessory II crease needs to be longer than 1/2 of the II part of II+III"

Which is not was Lynn described at all, because she was only 'translating' the guide from figure 5 from the III line to the II line... but she did not mention the the II+III at all!!!

EDIT:

(But I admit, Lynn's 'direct' translation became a bit confusing, because she did not explicitely mentioned that when using the words 'accessory II' in that context ... that she was not referring there to the 'accessory II' part of the Suwon crease.)

And Patti, because you didn't notice that... it no longer made sense how you started applying the length criterium on the 'accessory II' part of the Suwon crease by comparing it to the II-part of the II+III. Again, Lynn made here comment resulting directly from what is written in figure 5. And the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! Not half of the length of the II part in the II+III.



flower ... Again, I was only responding to your comment - not Lynn's comment!

(I understood what she tried to say, as she was clearly referring to the only passage in the Korean article where the length of an 'accessory' crease is discussed... in the perspective of a normal III)


Last edited by Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 1:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 1:46 pm

Lynn wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Lynn wrote:
This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II
doesn't it?


Accessory II in the Suwon is most likely a lot longer than the II part of II + III as it is probably a fairly normal PTC or head line. (but that isn't in the report either Wink ) Obviously not criteria.


No Patti, this is not 'most likely' at all:

Because your assumption here directly violates the requirement regarding: '...more than half of the length of...'.

I don't see what's wrong with Patti's statement, or how it violates any requirement about length. ??

Lynn, the problem here is that Patti 'mixes' various perspectives by taking your words out of context:

Let me explain this by detail...

In the article the requirement regarding the length of the 'accessory III' line is putten in the perspective of a normal 'III' line.

But in the Suwon crease we really need to adjust the criterium to the perspective that we are discussing, because in the Suwon crease the 'accessory II' line... can be described as the normal 'II' line...!!!

I hope this makes sense so far?


Now, in the perspective of the Suwon crease Patti is trying to put the 'length' criterium on only the 'accessory II'... but that concern the normal head line!

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave


PS. In my former post I explained how Patti made herself an assumption based on a small confusing element in your words, because you wrote: "accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II" ... but I understood that you only talking of an 'accessory II' in the perspective of the guidelines for figure 5.... and that you were not talking about the 'accessory II' of the Suwon crease!

So, we really NEED to 'adjust' the vocabulary to apply the criterium described in fig 5 to the Suwon crease... otherwise this leads to nonsense! Very Happy

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Lynn on Tue May 31, 2011 2:10 pm

No Martijn, that wasn't what I was saying!! It seems that I have misunderstood something. Martijn, you misinterpreted what I was saying, Patti understood what I was saying!! I was indeed referring to the II part of III+II.
After all, that is the only II in a suwon crease - the headline is accessory II.

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Yes absolutely, it seemed a ridiculous thing to say when I wrote it!
If they are talking about accessory creases only in the perspective of being additional to the normal creases (ie 'sister lines') that makes perfect sense - as Patti already said before.

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!! Wink

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2409
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 2:16 pm

lol!
I was well aware that Lynn meant that Accessory II was the Normal Head Line. If you actually read my words it's pretty obvious. We had this discussion earlier as to why the normal head line was called Accessory. Laughing

No sense of humor around here?

It was just funny to me that the actual words written were opposite and there was all this arguing and red letters over other minute details and this was overlooked.

(Lynn, I didn't see you had posted while I was composing this post - and I didn't get the usual warning a post had been posted) Very Happy


Last edited by Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 2:50 pm

Again, I'd like to bring up a continously ignored point that is directly from the Suwon paper.

1st page quote:
"First, major and minor palm creases were not strictly defined so that the relationships, branches, variants, and starting and termination points of major palm creases were not explicit."
"The main purpose of this study was the presentation of improved methods of analyzing palm creases, the features of which include strict definition of the major and minor palm creases and the systematic classification of palm creases on the basis of their relationships, branches, and variants
."

Page 174 2nd column:

"To define the major palm creases more strictly, the remnants (the minor palm creases) must be defined simultaneously."

"sharpened end"

I think the "sharpened end" rule is VERY important in discerning the endings of major creases.

I also mentioned last night that I thought that if II+III was to relate to II or III individually it would be in the report. So I searched the report to make sure I didn't miss something.

In Fig. 4 the relationships of II and of III of the Simian and Sydney II+III's are discussed in their separateness.

What I observed there was that all II branches are proximal and all III branches are distal in II+III.

The only III examples or variants with proximal branches relate to the sharpened ends of III in Fig. 5. <edit> It's possible that Fig. 4, Simian 5 could have a distal branch from a tapering end of II or it could be a proximal ending branch from III touching II. Simian 5 would have to be studied carefully not to confuse it with Normal 2.

My interpertation of this is that only normal and extended DTCs can have proximal branches at the radial edge with sharpened ends.

The II or PTC that is rising to meet III or DTC must also follow these rules. It must have a sharpened end or be more narrow as it approaches and meets the DTC.

Either the III DTC is ending radially with a sharpened end, or the II PTC is rising distally to meet III DTC with a sharpened end.

I applied this important rule when I colored the parts of II+III in Fig. 3.





Last edited by Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 2:59 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : clarity)
avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 2:54 pm

Lynn wrote:No Martijn, that wasn't what I was saying!! It seems that I have misunderstood something. Martijn, you misinterpreted what I was saying, Patti understood what I was saying!! I was indeed referring to the II part of III+II.
After all, that is the only II in a suwon crease - the headline is accessory II.

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Yes absolutely, it seemed a ridiculous thing to say when I wrote it!
If they are talking about accessory creases only in the perspective of being additional to the normal creases (ie 'sister lines') that makes perfect sense - as Patti already said before.

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!! Wink

Okay Lynn, thanks for explaining your thoughts + what you exactly had in mind. And great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.

But I think you have not much to worry about... because I clearly recognize how this 'new' problem for your... is a direct result of how the Korean authors choose their vocabulary to describe the Sydney line and the Suwon crease!!


Actually, you know what... there is one more thought that I did not share yet during all our discussions about the Suwon crease... but now I have found the appropriate moment to share it:

I observe that that Korean researchers have made one (little) fundamental mistake in their vocabulary!


From the beginning when I introduced the Korean article (summer of 2010) - I was not happy at all with how the Korean authors defined both the Sydney lines AND the Suwon crease:

Because there is a very strange element in their vocabulary choice, which relates directly to how they described in both definitions a NORMAL CREASE as an ACCESSORY crease...!

This 'choice' simply doesn't make sense at all!


But only now I see... that this is element that CREATES unnessary problems... and the problem that you are faced with (which you've described exellent in your post), is a clear illustration!


For, IF the researcher simply had used the following definitions:

Sydney lines = 'II+accessory III' plus 'III'
Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II'

... then we would not have been confronted with the problem that you described at all!


However, because I understand that your problem is directly resulting from this 'strange element' in the vocabulary of the Korean researchers.... I think you actually understood their guidelines properly (regarding the 'length' criterium), but now you appear to be a little bit confused - only because of the problem that you described.


Lynn, I can only hope that you recognize as well... that 'your problem' would not have existed if the researchers had not made the FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE in their vocabulary!

Thanks!


PS. Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, no I finally see that the problematic aspect of the Korean article:

They have presented formulas which may 'appear' beautiful... but both include a 'confusing element', which could even be described as a fundamental mistake:

The Korean researchers defined: Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

The Korean researchers defined: Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)


Last edited by Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 3:06 pm

Patti wrote: lol!
I was well aware that Lynn meant that Accessory II was the Normal Head Line. If you actually read my words it's pretty obvious. We had this discussion earlier as to why the normal head line was called Accessory. Laughing

No sense of humor around here?

It was just funny to me that the actual words written were opposite and there was all this arguing and red letters over other minute details and this was overlooked.

thinking ... Thanks for pointing out how you meant to present your comment, but Lynn was trying to point out a point seriously.


By the way Patti, I also see no indication that you had spotted the 'little mistake' in the vocabulary of Lynn's argument; you also assumed that I made a wrong assumption, but at that moment I had not responded to that comment from Lynn at all!


PS. In my last post I have pointed out that there is a fundamental mistake in the Korean vocabulary... and I have described a rather simple solution, which solves Lynn's (small) problem directly!

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 3:07 pm

Lynn wrote:No Martijn, that wasn't what I was saying!! It seems that I have misunderstood something. Martijn, you misinterpreted what I was saying, Patti understood what I was saying!! I was indeed referring to the II part of III+II.
After all, that is the only II in a suwon crease - the headline is accessory II.

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Yes absolutely, it seemed a ridiculous thing to say when I wrote it!
If they are talking about accessory creases only in the perspective of being additional to the normal creases (ie 'sister lines') that makes perfect sense - as Patti already said before.

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!! Wink

Thank you Lynn!!
Actually this is a great contribution (from my point of view Wink )

I agree:

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Thanks!
avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 3:16 pm

Patti wrote:
Patti wrote:...

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!! Wink

Thank you Lynn!!
Actually this is a great contribution (from my point of view Wink )

I agree:

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Thanks!

I have already described the necessary 'adjustment' to solve this problem (+ other problems!):

In one of my earliers post I have describe the following improvements for the Korean formulas:

The researcher defined: Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

The reseachers defined: Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)



PS. Patti, just mentioned that she had already discussed this 'irrationality' in the Korean article about that the researchers had decided to call a NORMAL head line: 'accessory II':

Patti wrote: lol!
I was well aware that Lynn meant that Accessory II was the Normal Head Line. If you actually read my words it's pretty obvious. We had this discussion earlier as to why the normal head line was called Accessory. Laughing


Last edited by Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 3:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 3:17 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Lynn wrote:No Martijn, that wasn't what I was saying!! It seems that I have misunderstood something. Martijn, you misinterpreted what I was saying, Patti understood what I was saying!! I was indeed referring to the II part of III+II.
After all, that is the only II in a suwon crease - the headline is accessory II.

My point is: that it in the Suwon crease it does not make sense to put the length criterium for the 'accessory II' in the perspective of the II part of the II+III... because obviously, that is not a normal 'II' at all!!!

'Capice?' ... wave

Yes absolutely, it seemed a ridiculous thing to say when I wrote it!
If they are talking about accessory creases only in the perspective of being additional to the normal creases (ie 'sister lines') that makes perfect sense - as Patti already said before.

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!! Wink

Okay Lynn, thanks for explaining your thoughts + what you exactly had in mind. And great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.

But I think you have not much to worry about... because I clearly recognize how this 'new' problem for your... is a direct result of how the Korean authors choose their vocabulary to describe the Sydney line and the Suwon crease!!


Actually, you know what... there is one more thought that I did not share yet during all our discussions about the Suwon crease... but now I have found the appropriate moment to share it:

I observe that that Korean researchers have made one (little) fundamental mistake in their vocabulary!


From the beginning when I introduced the Korean article (summer of 2010) - I was not happy at all with how the Korean authors defined both the Sydney lines AND the Suwon crease:

Because there is a very strange element in their vocabulary choice, which relates directly to how they described in both definitions a NORMAL CREASE as an ACCESSORY crease...!

This 'choice' simply doesn't make sense at all!


But only now I see... that this is element that CREATES unnessary problems... and the problem that you are faced with (which you've described exellent in your post), is a clear illustration!


For, IF the researcher simply had used the following definitions:

Sydney lines = 'II+accessory III' plus 'III'
Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II'

... then we would not have been confronted with the problem that you described at all!


However, because I understand that your problem is directly resulting from this 'strange element' in the vocabulary of the Korean researchers.... I think you actually understood their guidelines properly (regarding the 'length' criterium), but now you appear to be a little bit confused - only because of the problem that you described.


Lynn, I can only hope that you recognize as well... that 'your problem' would not have existed if the researchers had not made the FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE in their vocabulary!

Thanks!


PS. Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, no I finally see that the problematic aspect of the Korean article:

They have presented formulas which may 'appear' beautiful... but both include a 'confusing element', which could even be described as a fundamental mistake:

Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)

We all did discuss this aspect from the very beginning and complained that a somewhat normal DTC or PTC should be labelled as Accessory.

Yet, in the sense that II + III also represents a Simian without Accessories the concept works. II + III is a conjoined crease formed by both the DTC and the PTC.
avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Lynn on Tue May 31, 2011 3:20 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:Okay Lynn, thanks for explaining your thoughts + what you exactly had in mind. And great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.

But I think you have not much to worry about... because I clearly recognize how this 'new' problem for your... is a direct result of how the Korean authors choose their vocabulary to describe the Sydney line and the Suwon crease!!


Actually, you know what... there is one more thought that I did not share yet during all our discussions about the Suwon crease... but now I have found the appropriate moment to share it:

I observe that that Korean researchers have made one (little) fundamental mistake in their vocabulary!


From the beginning when I introduced the Korean article (summer of 2010) - I was not happy at all with how the Korean authors defined both the Sydney lines AND the Suwon crease:

Because there is a very strange element in their vocabulary choice, which relates directly to how they described in both definitions a NORMAL CREASE as an ACCESSORY crease...!

This 'choice' simply doesn't make sense at all!


But only now I see... that this is element that CREATES unnessary problems... and the problem that you are faced with (which you've described exellent in your post), is a clear illustration!


For, IF the researcher simply had used the following definitions:

Sydney lines = 'II+accessory III' plus 'III'
Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II'

... then we would not have been confronted with the problem that you described at all!


However, because I understand that your problem is directly resulting from this 'strange element' in the vocabulary of the Korean researchers.... I think you actually understood their guidelines properly (regarding the 'length' criterium), but now you appear to be a little bit confused - only because of the problem that you described.


Lynn, I can only hope that you recognize as well... that 'your problem' would not have existed if the researchers had not made the FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE in their vocabulary!

Thanks!


PS. Thank you very much for pointing out this problem, no I finally see that the problematic aspect of the Korean article:

They have presented formulas which may 'appear' beautiful... but both include a 'confusing element', which could even be described as a fundamental mistake:

Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)

This has confused me from the start. Six months ago on the thread where you introduced the Suwon crease, I said
" I don't understand why they are classing main headline as an accessory. ie why it is 'accessory II' as opposed to (main) II "

re great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.
erm,,, Did I confirm this? What mistake did I make in my words?
yes I am seriously confused!

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2409
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 3:23 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
Patti wrote:...

Sorry I have not contributed anything at all useful to this discussion! I thought I understood it, but it seems I am very confused!!! Wink

Thank you Lynn!!
Actually this is a great contribution (from my point of view Wink )

I agree:

As the article only talks about 'more than half of the' ... length of a full line! then we can't transfer the statement in fig 5 to a suwon crease, because II is not a full line. I don't seehow we can start 'adjusting vocabulary'. That would mean changing II to accessory II.

Thanks!

I have already described the necessary 'adjustment' to solve this problem (+ other problems!):

In one of my earliers post I have describe the following improvements for the Korean formulas:

The researcher defined: Sydney crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory III'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Sydney crease = 'II + accessory III' plus 'III', because it is simply realistic)

and:

The reseachers defined: Suwon crease = 'II+III' plus 'accessory II'
(But I would have adviced them to use: Suwon crease = 'III + accessory II' plus 'II' , because it is simply more realistic)



PS. Patti, just mentioned that she had already discussed this 'irrationality' in the Korean article about that the researchers had decided to call a NORMAL head line: 'accessory II':

Patti wrote: lol!
I was well aware that Lynn meant that Accessory II was the Normal Head Line. If you actually read my words it's pretty obvious. We had this discussion earlier as to why the normal head line was called Accessory. Laughing

Martijn,
If you choose to revise the Korean's report to fit your own descriptions - it would be advisable to make note that your version is just that, your version.
avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 3:26 pm

Patti wrote:
We all did discuss this aspect from the very beginning and complained that a somewhat normal DTC or PTC should be labelled as Accessory.

...
Sorry, I don't remember you complaining about that aspect at all.
And I am wondering... who is the 'we'?


What I remember was that everybody - including myself - experienced problems in understanding what the Korean researchers had described in their article, and those problems related to both their words and their pictures.


Last edited by Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 3:40 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
We all did discuss this aspect from the very beginning and complained that a somewhat normal DTC or PTC should be labelled as Accessory.

...
Sorry, I don't remember you complaining about that aspect at all.
And I am wonderingl... who is the 'we'?


What I remember was that everybody - including myself - experienced problems in understanding what the Korean researchers had described in their article, and those problems related to both their words and their pictures.

I answered you here:

http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t199p225-report-korean-researchers-discovered-the-suwon-crease-only-observed-in-males#9181
avatar
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 3:43 pm

Lynn wrote:
This has confused me from the start. Six months ago on the thread where you introduced the Suwon crease, I said
" I don't understand why they are classing main headline as an accessory. ie why it is 'accessory II' as opposed to (main) II "

re great to see that you were able to confirm that there indeed was a (small) mistake in your words.
erm,,, Did I confirm this? What mistake did I make in my words?
yes I am seriously confused!

Lynn, if you simply adopt the recommendation that I described for the formulas... your problem regarding how to apply the 'length' critirium is immediately solved.

I hope you will try... and report the result!

'Simples'!


PS. Yes, I see that you probably have not yet recognize how by applying the vocabulary presented by the researchers for the 'length' criterium (quotes from figur 5C):

"(C): III is accompanied by accessory palm creases which are parallel and more than half of the III length."

...directly made you write the following sentence:

"This defintion of accessory variant regarding crease III, implies that accessory II will also be parallel and more than half the length of II"


But it is crucial to notice here that figure 5C only mentions 'accessory palm creases' in the perspective of a NORMAL crease; and therefore I explained why in the perspective of the Suwon crease this criterium really has to be 'transformed'!

Because it would be 'unintelligent' to apply this criterium litterally to how the researchers defined the Suwon crease, because obiously, in their definition of the Suwon crease the 'accessory II' IS the NORMAL head line... and formally it can not be described as an 'accessory palm crease' at all, because it IS the NORMAL crease!


Please? Again, Lynn... my proposal solves your problem (+ your confusion) permanently!


___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 4:06 pm

Patti wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Patti wrote:
We all did discuss this aspect from the very beginning and complained that a somewhat normal DTC or PTC should be labelled as Accessory.

...
Sorry, I don't remember you complaining about that aspect at all.
And I am wonderingl... who is the 'we'?


What I remember was that everybody - including myself - experienced problems in understanding what the Korean researchers had described in their article, and those problems related to both their words and their pictures.

I answered you here:

http://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t199p225-report-korean-researchers-discovered-the-suwon-crease-only-observed-in-males#9181

Thanks! - Then my 'proposal' also solves your earlier complaint ... Thanks!

By the way, regarding the comment that was posted by Lynn, that is only one of the many issues that she wondered about ... I can hardly call that a complaint


Anyway, I think I have described in my earlier posts why it is NECESSARY to 'correct' this minor issue in the vocabulary used by the Korean authors... in order to solve multiple problems all at once.

___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Lynn on Tue May 31, 2011 4:17 pm

Martijn, You previously said that I think we better simply focuss on the facts as described in the article,.........
Any 'argument' that moves away from those facts as presented in the article... can fairly be described as a speculative 'opion'.


Yet now you are saying that we need to transform something that they said. Is that a speculative opinion??

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2409
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 4:27 pm

Lynn wrote:Martijn, You previously said that I think we better simply focuss on the facts as described in the article,.........
Any 'argument' that moves away from those facts as presented in the article... can fairly be described as a speculative 'opion'.


Yet now you are saying that we need to transform something that they said. Is that a speculative opinion??

Lynn, this sounds like a 'rethoric question' only

(EDIT: Regarding the comment that you are referring to, I made that comment in the perspective of the fact that Patti had started making considerations which went far beyond the contents of the article... and meanwhile she was not even willing to acknowledge the relevance of the criteria described in the article, specified to the guideline for figure 5c).


Remember... what is relevant here is that we all experienced at least some problems with that the researcher described as normal head line as 'accessory II'.


And don't you think that it would be a very sensible choice... if we can agree on the implications of my suggestion... to simply adopt that suggestion, especially since it solves multiple problems at once!

The picture below would then be the result... and it would be quite 'stupid move' (I have never used this word before)... to disqualify this 'formal' improvement - solely with 'rethorics'!


So, I observe that your 'rethoric question' might not be relevant here.
Does this make sense?

Very Happy

PS. You can study the details in this new picture by clicking here:
http://i25.servimg.com/u/f25/15/45/02/10/common12.jpg


___________________________________________
sunny

Martijn van Mensvoort
Hand researcher & psychologist in The Netherlands (Holland)
Presents: Multi-Perspective Palm Reading + the Global Palm Reading Network
avatar
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5211
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Lynn on Tue May 31, 2011 4:40 pm

Yes it makes sense to change it. All along I have not understood why they used their temrinology "accessory II" for main headline. I / we always thought that the main headline should be II and the part joined to the heartline should be accessory II.

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
avatar
Lynn

Posts : 2409
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum