LOL... -----Original Message----- From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 11:07 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [FRIDAY] humour
Thats right have a laugh, but they'll see I'm right.. On 2 Apr 2004, at 18:58, Adam Hardy wrote: > Since it's Friday and I felt in need of a little light relief, I > looked through my collection of old humour-spam and found this, which > is so good I thought you listers would appreciate me sharing it here. > > The story behind the letter below is that there is this nutball who > digs things out of his back yard 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! This is the actual response > from the Smithsonian Institution. It is a masterful piece of > diplomacy. Bear this in mind next time you are trying to let someone > down gently. > > > > Smithsonian Institute > 207 Pennsylvania Avenue > Washington, DC 20078 > > Dear Sir: > Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labelled > "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 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 moulded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are > typically fossilised bone. 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen > is approximately 9 cubic centimetres, 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 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 > Curator, Antiquities > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
