On 11-12-21 03:50 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:Mary Yugo <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: . . . but that someone could make inadequate observations and jump to erroneous conclusions which then they reported to you -- that's as credible as the proposition that the information is correct. Are you serious? Do you sincerely believe that a professional scientist could spend several days in the laboratory talking to people, looking at instruments and data, and not recognize that the equipment is fake and the researchers are pretending? As my contact put it, "I know a laboratory when I see one." Uhhun. I hope he knows whose it is also.
LOL (well, snickering a little, anyway). Entertaining thought -- makes it sound like the link I posted earlier on the Paradyne boondoggle may have been more apposite than I realized at the time; it bears repeating:
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-13/business/fi-16784_1_indictment A relevant quote:
Prosecutors accused Paradyne of faking a computer demonstration during the bidding process by showing equipment that was *neither fully developed _nor Paradyne's_*_._
