-Caveat Lector- Amelia Edgeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -Caveat Lector- > > > > Hello, Group, > Wel, this relates back to a long, long thread of discussions concerning what > I cannot remember. I think my contribution to the discussion was that I > thought it was impossible because of the rodent's teeth, etc. Perhaps I was > mistaken. > Amelia > > PS I know I should not post this and open up this old subject, already > eshausted, but I cannot help myself. > > > > > Actual article from the LA Times: > > > > > > "In retrospect, lighting the match was my big mistake. But I was only > > > trying to retrieve the gerbil," Eric Tomazewski told bemused doctors in > > > the Severe Burn Unit of Salt Lake City Hospital. <nonsense snipped> FYI: This is from the Urban Legends website, http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/gerbilling/gerbilling_debunking.html: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian A. York) Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage,alt.sex,alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Gerbils and water sports Date: 28 May 1996 20:46:03 -0400 In article <4ofacc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steven S. Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I don't recall there ever being any evidence, eyewitness, phyical, >documentary, or circumstantial, offered in support of that rumor. As you say, there was no support offered for that. Since this is being crossposted to several groups (followups are hereby redirected to alt.folklore.urban), here's a summary of this legend to date. Cecil Adams, in his Straight Dope column (collected into several books) at first thought the rumour might be true, but says that all attempts to track down a real case have been unsuccessful and says that he now is confident that it's merely a legend. Jan Harold Brunvand discusses it as an urban legend (and agrees that it's false) in his book on urban legends, The Mexican Pet. The guy who writes "News of the Weird" published a list of objects found up the down staircase which included a rodent. On being asked by Cecil for a source, he hastily retracted the gerbil (ummm, you know what I mean); he had mistaken his original query for such a cite as being a cite. Or something like that; the correspondence is in one of Cecil's books. There's been nothing relevant published in the medical literature, according to Medline. A 1993 search is mentioned in the AFU FAQ (http://www.urbanlegends.com/) and I've repeated it since then with no positives. Requests on various medical newsgroups have turned up no eyewitness, and requests for gossip among my doctor buddies have only raised their eyebrows. Good old anonymous nobody is the first to make the claim. (Incidentally, in contrast to his suggestion that MDs are bashful about descriptions and prefer to simply use "rectal foreign object," the literature is simply crammed full of rectal objects, described in loving detail.) Checking with a MD who claimed to have seen an x-ray revealed that he had not seen the patient, and had no evidence that the x-ray was not faked. It was passed to him by an x-ray technician, who had had it passed to him by another x-ray tech from another hospital, and so forth. Combining two x-rays (e.g. one shot of a colon, one of a rodent) is quite simple, according to photographers who discussed this at the time. An MD claimed to have seen an x-ray of a rectal rodent while a medical student (the MD, not the rodent). I wrote to the professor he remembered as showing the x-ray, who replied that he had shown x-rays of a rectal tumbler and of a snake digesting a rodent, and presumed that the student had conflated the two in memory. As Harry says, after a while the lack of positive evidence becomes pretty strong negative evidence in itself. At this point, it's going to take more than a forged post from an anonymous poster to change my mind. Ian "squeak" York ================================= Robert F. Tatman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove "nospam" from the address to reply. NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml POSTING THIS MESSAGE TO THE INTERNET DOES NOT IMPLY PERMISSION TO SEND UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL (SPAM) TO THIS OR ANY OTHER INTERNET ADDRESS. RECEIPT OF SPAM WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF THE SENDER'S ISP. ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
