Subject: Re: THE CHECK IS IN THE MAIL (or is it?} Date: 19 Jun 1996 15:15:30 GMT Ed: In ca

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

======== Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.fan.publius,sci.bio.paleontolgy,alt.christnet,sci.skeptic,alt.catastrophism Subject: Re: THE CHECK IS IN THE MAIL (or is it?} From: mcc@lusitania.watson.ibm.com (Mark Chu-Carroll) Date: 19 Jun 1996 15:15:30 GMT Ed: In case you haven't realized, Andrew in *not* in the US. He's not dealing with the US postal service. Those of us who live in the US are spoiled. In most areas of the US, the postal service is extremely efficient, fast, and reliable. We can reliably and cheaply get mail sent from point A to point B in the US in approximately 2-3 days. And we're so used to that that we complain bitterly about how inefficient and expensive our postal service is. People who live in Canada aren't so lucky. In Canada, it can take over a week to get mail delivered when you send it to your next door neighbor. My wife's in-laws live in Ottowa - the capital of Canada. It takes somewhere in the vicinity of *three* *full* *weeks*, on average, to get a letter delivered from New Jersey to Ottowa. And that's when the mail is getting delivered to the area where the members of the Canadian parliament live! You can easily verify that this is true by asking people in soc.culture.canada. They'll give you an earful of info about how pathetically inefficient Canada post can be. (And they'll probably tell you about how a few years ago, during a postal workers strike, postal workers threw bags full of mail into one of the great lakes!) In article <4q90sh$km5@ns2.ptd.net>, Ed Conrad wrote: > >Andrew: > >On Friday, May 24, 1996, you answered my E-mail in which I requested >-- since your first "test" results were published and your erroneous >conclusions announced -- that you return "all portions of the specimen >I had sent you (although you may keep a portion, if you so desire)." Isn't is just *so* strange how everyone who does a careful scientific examination of your "bones" comes up with the same "erroneous" conclusions? Have you ever even considered the possibility that you might be wrong? >You responded by informing me: >"I planned to do so soon, but I would like to keep one of the >segments I cut, in case I eventually do wish to prepare a thin >section. This would leave one other segment and the remainder of the >specimen, which together represent over 3/4 of the specimen. Would >that be okay? I will also be including a thin section of the dinosaur >bone I used for comparison." > >On Wednesday, May 29, 1996, you E-mailed me the following (while >resending part of the message I had sent you): > > (Ed Conrad): "Certainly, I am perfectly agreeable that >you keep a portion of the specimen that I had sent you. I wouldn't >want it any other way. > "As you've mentioned, it would enable you to have a portion >available in the event that you wanted to prepare a thin section for >microscopic examination and evaluation." > > (Andrew MacRae): "Good, I will package up the rest of the >specimen. > > (Ed Conrad:) "Meanwhile, I appreciate the fact that you have >sent -- or will be sending -- a thin section of the dinosaur bone >which you had used for comparative purposes in your testing and >analyses. Is it possible that I might have a very tiny piece of the >dinosaur specimen as well?" > > (Andrew MacRae): "I would say yes, except I already promised >to send a specimen of the bone to Ted. I figured I would send the >thin section to you, and the specimen to Ted, that way you would both >get a dinosaur bone specimen in some form. And there is the potential >that the two of you could get the two specimens (thin section and hand >specimen) back together relatively easily." > --O--- >Andrew, I realize the usage of the U.S. Postal Service is >sarcastically referred to as snail mail but WHERE? OH! WHERE? are the >remaining portions of the specimens you PROMISED you'd be returning? >Today is June 19 and they STILL haven't arrived. That's not at all surprising when you're dealing with Canada Post, the red-hot anemic snail of postal services. >Are you sure you sent them? >If not, are you going to send them? > >After all, aren't you going to give me an opportunity to have a thin >section prepared -- to reveal (and publish microscopic photographs of) >the majestic, magnificent Haversian systems which you, for some >strange reason, have been unable to find and photograph. > >They're there, Andrew! The only problem, neither you nor your >microscopic cameras can see them. Maybe it's just because you don't >want to see them. Maybe it's because, due to all of your extraneous >meanderings, you made a simple task especially difficult for yourself. Oh, cut the shit Ed! The pictures are *there*, on the web, of the preparation that you requested, at the magnification you requested, with the lighting you requested. Just look at the pictures - you can't claim that he's "missing" something which would be *in the pictures which everyone can see* if it only existed. >To resurrect a few words from another cliche, perhaps you have been >unable to locate and photograph the Haversian systems in my specimen >because you had put too much emphasis on seeing the forest, therefore >failed to see the trees. > >Whatever the reason, Andrew, it is imperative that I now be placed in >a position in which I can have a thin section prepared from the >specimen I sent you. I need it to prove to you and the nasty Doubting >Thomases out there that I am neither a kook nor a crackpot. Well, one things for sure. You're an asshole. >You really have nothing to lose. You seem to be absolutely certain the >specimen I sent you is NOT petrified bone and you apparently had used >the most sophisticated scientific instrumentation before arriving at >that conclusion. > >It is time for me to prove that, as right as you think you are, you >are wrong -- totally and absolutely incorrect! > >By doing what you have done -- attempting to make me out as some sort >of nincompoop _ you have injured MY reputation. Now I demand that the >unused portions of my specimen be returned. >I am holding you to your promise. > >There is no reason for anymore undue delays. This material should be >in the mail TODAY and arrive in Shenandoah, Pa., by Saturday -- for >sure. > If it doesn't arrive, there will be a public daily countdown here and >in other Newsgroups updating the number of days that have passed >since the material failed to arrive. Grow up. It's not possible to get some delivered so quicky when you're dealing with Canada Post. > >It will sort of remind us of the time we were counting the number of >days that the American hostages were being held captive in Iran. > > -- Ed Conrad >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >PS: As for your latest microscopic photos of the thin section prepared >from the specimen I had sent you, I am completely mystified why they >show NO CELL STRUCTURE at all. >Why, even Douglas Cox admitted seeing a peculiar cell structure when >examining flakes that he had scraped from a STONE he had picked up >outside my home the day of his visit to Shenandoah, Pa.. >Isn't it a fact, Andrew, that cell structure exists in just about >everything, even stones and rocks and concretions? But NONE is visible >in your microscopic photos of my specimen. >Could it be, Andrew, that the thin section you prepared is not thin >enough to permit light to pass through? Oh, come on! Get real! No, it is *NOT* a fact that cell structure exists in every rock, unless *every* *rock* is a fossil, which is an utterly ridiculous claim. You're not seeing cell structure in those rocks. You're seeing optical illusions which are artifacts of the limits of your equipment. Trying reading a book on microscopy before you shoot off at the mouth. Andrew hasn't harmed your reputation - you have! In real science, people who make mistakes don't have their reputations ruined, unless they amplify the mistakes out of proportion with their own behavior. You've damaged your reputation by being a rude, boorish, obnoxious, accusatory, ignorant idiot. And you've got no one in the world to blame - except yourself. -- Mark Craig Chu-Carroll || "I'm not dumb, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center || I just have a command of thoroughly useless mcc@watson.ibm.com || information." --- Calvin

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank