Well, like I said, as I get time (we all have time constraints, as you mentioned), I'll try to get to the library and pick up a hard copy. :)

As to the electrical model on spiders, I suppose it may need work and evolves a bit as I read more. But to be frank so far I haven't SEEN other formative processes that as closely match Lichtenberg patterning as electricity. Even the viscous fingering mentioned by Greg Orme appeared to be blobby and at times uneven or noly remotely lichtenberg like. In some cases it didn't resemble Lichtenbergs at all. And the one instance I found that DID have a high similarity to a Lichtenberg formation also mentioned dielectric breakdown, which is an electrical discharge. So, I've at least tried to be open to other formative processes, but the ones I've been pointed to, so far don't appear to as-closely match the actual patterning of the spiders as an electrical arc does. And the size of a Lichtenberg is basically proportional to the amount of charge it has received, yeah? So, it seems to me that it's simply a matter of having the specific surface areas charged by accelerated particles to a point where dielectric breakdown occurs. Could this not happen when the south pole is aligned at perihelion and getting a fair amount of charged particles off the sun in a band around the pole?

Whatever the causative feature of the spiders is, if they're in a band around the pole it seem to be pretty strong correlation to either the magnetic field, if it had one at some point, or simply to axial orientation in relation to the sun at perhelion.

I do see whee you're coming from about Mars being a very different place than Earth. However, I'd balk a bit at saying that certain rules o' physics "work differently" there.

I do however agree that science is about cause and effect, and not ENTIRELY about pattern matching, since some patterns ARE caused by different causes at different times. So there is a slippery slope there, which I recognize, hence I'm open to alternate theories that *adequately* explain apparent anomalies. But if theories "ignore" anomalies, I guess I have a bit more problem with them. Of course it's almost impossible to see one's own blind spots. IE, how can one know that one doesn't know and try to acount for it. That's a perilous slippery slope too. It's the old Buddhist tradition of He who "knows it all" knows nothing, he who understands that he knows almost nothing is at least on the path to enlightenment. Or something to that effect. It always the thing in our blind spot that we never see coming and sideswipes us. ;o]

As to the CO2 or Clathrate models, I'm not saying they're definitely not right. I'm just saying that most fluids behave pretty similarly, yeah (except Bose-Einstein condensate which is just funky and climbs walls nd stuff)? And there are some features that fluids have a hard time explaining from a traditional standpoint... Like perpendicular channels that cross each other, or channels that appear to go in one direction and then make a right turn and go at a 90 degree angle. Or channels that snake along but also have secondary arcs, or divide and reform. Conservation of momentum wold seem to say that these features couldn't do that if the fluid was all moving coherently and machining untouched surfaces. I've seen some pretty funky pictures that seem to give fluids problems.

I'm totally with ya' on the listening and reading part. It does help. Though if I see problems with an argument I'll point it out too. ;o] Can't be a total sheep. Hehe.

Well, any argument tends to evolve over time. That's the nature of an argument. I might even say the nature of a good argument, or at least a good arguer. I mean, if there's a roadblock, it may lead to an insight, and the argument changes slightly. I mean that's how science is supposed to work. You make an assertion and test it, ot talk to people knowledgeable about it, and they say yea or nay and offer adcice on where yo uwent wrong, or the observed results don't match predictions, so you go back to it and refine the model slightly to account for the roadblock.

I've always been a fan of the dialectic. IE, talking things out. If I ramble, that's why. I prefer to lay out the complete argument so I don't miss a big piece and have to go back and add it later and make people wonder why I didn't say it to begin with. But, since I like debate, I also enjoy others' reactions and hearing their thought processes. It helps to understand their side of things and how their understanding works so I can synthesize the understanding. I hate "rote fact." If someone rattles off a list of facts and figures, I'll probably be bored, roll my eyes, wait until the end and then ask "why?" 'Cause if they explain the why then I can re-create the results in my head on my own. I guess I tend to think in structural frameworks, being an INTP, and think in terms of relationships of data sets to other data sets. And I'm quite good at synthesizing information and building models from principles. I just need to first understand the principles in order to re-build the models. It's kind of the old, "if I can repeat it back to you, start to finish, then I've learned it and will remember it." If I have to constantly refer to a sheet of paper for the result information, I'll forget it every time 'cause I don't "know it." I gues that's justmy learning style. I tend to ask the "why" questions. But it's a double-edged sword at the least. sometimes it's hard to sort out the bad information and bad models from the good. So, that's why the dialectic is useful. intelligent folks can swap models, and poke holes in each others' models. Then we can patch up the holes and try it again with a slightly stronger model, and discard the weak spots that got poked out.

Darn it, I promised myself I was goingto try to rein in my responses. *sigh* I have a hard time censoring myself. Ahh well. Different approaches, I guess. No worries. & no hard feelings. Nudge me back into line gently whenever ya' gotta'. I can take it. Just don't nudge with long pointy objects. Funny how forces concentrated into a tiny spot can be so much more painful/deadly that large blunt objects. ;o)

Ohh, and I see your point about long posts versus many chaotic smaller posts. Sorry about that. It's just hard to sit down and write out every single inter-connected thought in one long post. I mean there are so many things to consider, and sometimes an insight doesn't come until after a post is already written. so I guess I've just kind of been writing addendums. But it's seriously hard to take so many different topics that are all interconnected and put them into a single cogent post, so as issues come up, I address them. I'll try to be more long-winded and less chaotic... Or something like that. Though I don't usually have time to sit down and dash off uber huge posts, though I guess it seems like it doesn't it? Anywho, I'll try to pare it back a bit in the future.