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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (25291)	5/22/1999 10:53:00 AM
From: melinda abplanalp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

This is cute...thought I'd share. My cut and paste skills need work you will see. Real Time Quote Chart Free E-Mail Raging RNTK Links < Previous Respond Next > By: SG-213 Reply To: None Friday, 21 May 1999 at 2:35 PM EDT Post # of 6299 OT: Time for Comic Relief Things are just too serious around here. The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball in Newport, Vermont who digs things out of his back yard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling 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... ____________________________________________________ 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 E a 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 "ustralopithecus 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>> (Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long) BoardMark MemberMark Ignore Poster RNTK Update Last 9/16 Chg. - 3/32 % -14.29% Time 15:41 Detailed \| Real-Time Nasdaq delayed 15 minutes, 20 min. otherwise. Your $0.02 Wanted! Why just lurk? Get in the ring. Click Here Previous \| Next \| Post New \| Respond \| View Replies Favorite Boardmarks \| No boardmarks have been placed Message Board Search Symbol Subject Member Board Directory Home \| Community \| Free Email \| My Bull \| Login \| Logout \| RT Quotes \| Copyright 1997-99 Raging Bull, Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms and Conditions

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (25291)	5/22/1999 11:28:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

We are both coming to the discussion with assumptions. Let me express mine, please. E said the patient had been admitted to the hospital with chest pains. That's the most important information. That means he had come in through the emergency room, been evaluated by the emergency room staff, and his condition was serious enough for him to be kept overnight for observation. That means that at least an emergency room physician evaluated his symptoms, which probably means he had an ekg, and blood work. E didn't say what the patient had, it could be a number of things, including infarct and embolism, but if they gave him pain meds, it probably presented as angina. His cardiac enzymes were probably negative, ekg did not signal impending heart attack, but they were watching him. The hospital may have had a cardiologist on staff, if not, there were cardiologists available. The physician undoubtedly had other cardiologists on call to take his calls and cover for him when he was off duty. He is entitled to have a personal life. He must have a personal life, otherwise he will burn out and be useless. He is not required to drop everything and come running every time a patient has chest pain and feels anxious. By having been admitted, the patient was adequately provided for. In the event of an emergency, he was already in the hospital, and the staff would have been there to take care of him, and they would have called the cardiologist on staff and the man's personal physician or whomever was covering for him. Those are my assumptions. I think your assumption is "the customer is always right." I hope you don't mean that the patient has the right to force the doctor to drop everything he is doing and come running whenever he is anxious. The doctor made a judgment call, and he made a mistake. But that doesn't mean what he did was criminal, or even negligent. Physicians make mistakes, because they are not perfect. Bad things happen. That's a fact. Your job, as patient, is to make sure that the doctor knows everything, I mean everything, he needs to know to treat you properly. Don't assume he remembers anything about you from time to time. Don't assume he read your chart. Don't assume he remembers what medicines you are taking, or what you are allergic to, or anything else. I learned that the hard way when I was in premature labor. The hospital called the doctor, who didn't remember that I was six months pregnant, because he had only seen me three times in his life, over a period of three months. He remembered that I was a strong healthy woman, and assumed I would be fine unless someone told him otherwise. I should have made sure they told him that. I asked the hospital staff if they told him that and they said they assumed he knew that. Never assume. Never let anyone assume. Miscommunication kills. But threatening lawsuits is, IMHO, counterproductive, and should only be done in extremis.