Re: Yumpin' Yiminy! Conrad and Holden are taking over!
Ed Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org)
17 Dec 1996 09:51:28 GMT
email@example.com (Toby Cockcroft) wrote:
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Ed Conrad)
>>Ho! Ho! Ho!
>>Not just funny but rather hilarious, Ben, was the time your University
>>of California/Berkeley sent a notarized letter informing me that the
>>package of four specimens that I, in good faith, had sent its Museum
>>of Paleontology for testing NEVER arrived.
>>Was that a fried or scrambled egg on its face when an inspection of
>>records inside the Berkeley Post Office, by postal officials, resulted
>>in the discovery of evidence -- a signed receipt -- that the package
>>indeed had been delivered and signed for by a member of its staff?.
>>Ho! Ho! Ho!
>Sorry for the rude awakening Ed but I think that it was just their way of
>letting you down easy. Yes they received your "samples" and yes they
>inspected them and yes they found your "evidence" to be utter garbage.
>When you insisted on phoning they didn't have the heart to tell you that
>you were completely wrong in your analysis so they told you that they had
>never received your "evidence." Determined as you were in the validity of
>your "specimens," because you had already decided they were prior to
>sending them away for a second opinion, you concluded, falsely, that they
>must have covered up the evidence in order to protect their positions. No
>matter what the outcome of any tests that may have been done you would
>only be satified with one answer; one that agreed with your
>preconclusions, anything else was a result of ignorance, subterfuge or
>conspiracy. This is not good science Ed. You must be willing to accept
>answers that may not agree with you hypothesis, scientists do it every
>day. I assure you had your samples been authentic you would have been
>On an aside, your methodology sounds flawed to me. You can't simply dig
>something up and send it off for analysis. Context is everything, without
>it any result would be suspect. Perhaps you did not provide enough data
>to situate your find. I suspect your documentation was faulty and the
>methods you used to retreive the "evidence" suspect.
I hate to tell you this -- ever so bluntly -- but everything you have
written here is hot air and emits a noxious odor.
How MANY times do I have to remind you?
You're supposed to type while facing the terminal screen, NOT
with your belly slumped over the back of the chair and your eyes
on the wall behind you.
-- Ed Conrad