Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Ask Poor Yorick: Dating Advice for Geeks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (12)	7/23/2000 9:31:25 PM
From: Cisco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48

LOL! How did you get a 24 hour trail of Netscape?

To: Carolyn who wrote (12)	7/23/2000 9:31:37 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48

Speaking of which, my sister just sent this: The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball in >Newport, >> RI named Scott Williams who digs things out of his backyard and sends the >> stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labelling them with >scientific >> names, insisting that they are actual archaeological finds. >> >> This guy really exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway...here's >the >> actual response from the Smithsonian Institution. Bear this in mind next >time >> you think you are challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult >situation >> in writing. >> >> Personally, I believe that although this guy really deserves to show up on >a >> 2000 Darwin Awards Nominee list, the world would probably be a much duller >> place without him. >> >> >> Smithsonian Institute >> 207 Pennsylvania Avenue >> Washington, DC 20078 >> >> Dear Mr. Williams: >> >> Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "93211-D, >> layer seven, next to the clothesline post...Hominid skull." We have given >> this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and regret to inform you >> that we disagree with your theory that it represents conclusive proof of >the >> presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago. >> >> Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, >of >> the variety that one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be >> "Malibu Barbie." It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought >to >> the analysis of this specimen, and you may be quite certain that those of >us >> who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to >> contradiction with your findings. >> >> However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the >> specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin: >> >> 1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically >> fossilized bone. >> 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic >> centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified >> proto-homonids. >> 3. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent with the >> common domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous man-eating Pliocene >> clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time. >> >> This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you >> have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence >seems >> to weigh rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail, >let >> us say that: >> >> A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has >chewed >> on. >> B. Clams don't have teeth. >> >> It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request >to >> have the specimen carbon-dated. This is partially due to the heavy load >our >> lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due to carbon-dating's >> notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of >our >> knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and >carbon-dating >> is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results. >> >> Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National >Science >> Foundation Phylogeny department with the concept of assigning your >specimen >> the scientific name Australopithecus spiff-arino. Speaking personally, I, >for >> one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but >was >> ultimately voted down because the species name you selected was >hyphenated, >> and didn't really sound like it might be Latin. >> >> However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating >specimen >> to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a Hominid fossil, it is, >> nonetheless, yet another riveting example of the great body of work you >seem >> to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has >> reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the >specimens >> you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire staff >> speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs at the >site >> you have discovered in your Newport back yard. >> >> We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you proposed >in >> your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for >it. >> >> We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories >> surrounding the trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a >> structural matrix that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex >femur >> you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm >> Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench. >> >> Yours in Science, >> >> Harvey Rowe >> Chief Curator-Antiquities >>