Your opinion & share...
Latest topics
» till when in laws trouble in married life
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Today at 3:27 am by JD

» Different Palm lines
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:57 am by nishaghai

» The 2D:4D ratio findings contradict the accepted knowledge of chirognomy in palmistry
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:06 am by Whitewash112358

» swastik on moon mount
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:08 am by nishaghai

» Can anybody read this palm and provide remedies. It's female palm
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:20 am by nishaghai

» Double loop on mount Luna
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:52 am by pehelina

» Can anybody please read this hand
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:57 pm by Chirag

» What does this form of life line mean?
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:17 am by cromaveg

» Hello Everyone
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:59 am by pravin kumar

» Can I get a palm reading please
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:31 am by nishaghai

» Arch on All Fingers
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Thu May 02, 2019 12:54 pm by Martijn (admin)

» Please read my palm:)
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:08 am by cromaveg

» Life line broken in both hands (fate line?)
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:09 am by cromaveg

» Weird Sun line... What’s going on?!?!
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:13 pm by JD

» Double Head Line
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Icon_minitime1Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:11 am by pravin kumar

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Who is online?
In total there are 52 users online :: 1 Registered, 0 Hidden and 51 Guests

lina

[ 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 5712 registered users
The newest registered user is lina

Our users have posted a total of 46273 messages in 4733 subjects
Top posting users this week
nishaghai
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting17How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting19How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting18 
lina
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting17How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting19How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting18 
cia
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting17How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting19How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting18 
JD
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting17How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting19How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting18 
sonu21
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting17How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting19How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting18 
raghavm
How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting17How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting19How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Voting18 

Recommendations

• The FREE hand reading services at the Modern Hand Reading Forum are being continued in 2019 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

Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Lynn
Lynn

Posts : 2444
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Lynn
Lynn

Posts : 2444
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Patti
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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.

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Suwon_12



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

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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!
Patti
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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.
Patti
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Lynn
Lynn

Posts : 2444
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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.
Patti
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Patti
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Martijn (admin)
Martijn (admin)
Admin

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Lynn
Lynn

Posts : 2444
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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:
https://i.servimg.com/u/f25/15/45/02/10/common12.jpg

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Common12

___________________________________________
sunny

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

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty 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
Lynn
Lynn

Posts : 2444
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 4:55 pm

Lynn wrote: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.

Okay, nice to hear that you recognize how my proposal makes sense.

But more important... do you also recognize that your problem (related to how to apply the length criterium as described by figure 5C, to the Suwon crease) is solved by my proposal?


(Because then it becomes obvious that the 'length' criterium should only be directly applied to the 'II'-part of the 'II+II' crease... assuming of course that the normal head line requires to have enough length as well; for otherwise one could possibly speak of a simian line variant featured with a small 'ulnar-snippet' of the head line that is fused with the heart line)

___________________________________________
sunny

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

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Patti on Tue May 31, 2011 4:58 pm

rolling on the floor

I'll leave you two to develop the "VanMensvoort Improved Analysis of Palm Creases" My video crew is heading over to continue work on my presentation for the IBMBS presentation and I need to give that my undivided attention for a while.
Patti
Patti

Posts : 3912
Join date : 2010-07-24

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Lynn on Tue May 31, 2011 5:36 pm

Yes Martijn I recognise how it makes the length requirement more sensible.

However in making these changes, we are using a different vocabulary to the researchers. I feel sure that normally you would never advocate doing such a thing!
It could even make the discussion more complicated (eg in instances when talking about accessory crease II - are we discussing your new definition or the researchers definition.)

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
Lynn
Lynn

Posts : 2444
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Lynn on Tue May 31, 2011 5:37 pm

Patti wrote: rolling on the floor

I'll leave you two to develop the "VanMensvoort Improved Analysis of Palm Creases"

rolling on the floor

Good luck with your video presentation Patti, hope it goes well. Thumbs up!

___________________________________________
Lynn
www.handanalysis.co.uk
Lynn
Lynn

Posts : 2444
Join date : 2010-07-24
Location : Devon, England

http://www.handanalysis.co.uk

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Martijn (admin) on Tue May 31, 2011 6:45 pm

Lynn wrote:Yes Martijn I recognise how it makes the length requirement more sensible.

However in making these changes, we are using a different vocabulary to the researchers. I feel sure that normally you would never advocate doing such a thing!
It could even make the discussion more complicated (eg in instances when talking about accessory crease II - are we discussing your new definition or the researchers definition.)

Okay Lynn, thanks again for your feedback.


Yes you are right... I would not advocate such a thing easily. But I am not really introducing a 'different vocabulary': because if the researchers had not used the word 'accessory' in their two examples for the Sydney line and Suwon crease, I think we would not have been confronted with this problem at all.

Because in their writtings they only speak an: "... accessory II", which could be read as a '... a second II'; but we - in our discussions - started talking about 'accessory II', while the researcher have not done that explicitely.

Afterall, it tooks us about 9 months to find the clues provides in figure 5C... and some of us have read the details in the article over-and-over again (I am thinking about Patti).

So, I think we should make the Korean article more important than it really is. Their name 'accessory II' for a normal head line, and 'accessory III' for a normal head line... could easily be described as a servious fundamental mistake in their vocabulary... and I think this explains why their definition of the Suwon crease is so confusing... that some of use here think that they are observing Suwon creases in many hands (I am not only thining about Patti, others have also presented examples of relatively common hand line variants... which they assumed that it could include a Suwon crease).


Therefore...

For me, after being confronted with the problem that you described earlier today - directly resulting from their guidelines for the accessory crease in fig.5C - I could even speak about a CLEAR 'contradiction' in the Korean guidelines.


And after saying this... I can also report a few other 'contradictions' in how they presented their materials:

- Because by fact, in figure 3 they have defined the Sydney line as: 'II+III' plus accessory III, illustrated with a picture which shows a Sydney line compose by two line parts which each clearly have a different structure.
- But in figure 4 they have presented their no.1. Sydney variant as just one 'extended head line'. It would have made more sense it they had presented their 'Sydney 2' variant as the no.1 variant - because only then that would confirm the Sydney line formula.

(And I could describe a likewise problem regarding their illustration of the simian line: both example in figure 3 and the first Simian line variant in figure 4 do not confirm the formula)


And finally... that they also sort of re-defined the Sydney line in this article: by describing it with the formula:'II+II' plus 'accessory III. They should have mentioned that this concerns a RE-DEFINITION of how a Sydney line can be understood properly.


However, I also would like to add that I really do admire their efforts + their new method.

But unfortunately, from my point of view... after 9 months of discussion their vocabulary has not survived the 'test of time'. Simply because it is rather confusing in how they used the term 'accessory crease' in the perspective of both the Sydney line and the Suwon crease.

Anyway, I will continue to use their method to discriminate a simian line, from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease... but now it no longer makes sense for me to continue using their 'accessory' concept for a normal head line and a normal heat line.

Because obviously, they have followed the classic approach for defining an 'accessory crease' (described in figure 5C)... but then they did have not succeeded to INTEGRATE that classic approach properly in their new concepts for both the Sydney line and the Suwon crease.


Let's hope that, if the Korean re-definitions are adopted in new studies... then we should hope that the researchers will not follow that aspect of their Korean vocabulary.

Anyway, great to know that that my 'proposal' does make sense for you... but I don't expect any new problems. Instead, this actually solves a significant part of the problems that we have been confronted with in our discussions so far!

Thanks!

___________________________________________
sunny

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

Posts : 5254
Join date : 2010-07-23
Location : The Netherlands

http://www.handresearch.com

Back to top Go down

How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease! - Page 5 Empty Re: How to discriminate a simian crease from a Sydney line and a Suwon crease!

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

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

Back to top


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