|
You wont need to apologise Ann ;o)
|
|
well if it is I'm really not interested in anything she has to say - Gail is such a lovely person with so many problems and I don't like people who are so unkind - anyway, benefit of the doubt and all that, could be wrong and as I said, If I am wrong I apologise unreservedly
|
|
yes Ann I get the impression it is
c
xx
|
|
can I ask please - are you the Kathryn who was so unkind to our Gail in Oz? I apologise if I am mistaken
|
|
~~~waves back to Tor~~~
Y'all be good now:-))
|
|
Thank you for your
'recommendations'
~~~~~waves to BC~~~~~
|
|
lol Kathryn, as pleasant as it is to banter with you, y'all have to take the dog out...
|
|
Oh dear. We're not really going to go back to discussing MOI, are we?
Please. Spare yourself the bother. Unless, um, you have a lot of time on your hands ...
|
|
Excellent, Kathryn!! You must have a lot of time on your hands:-)
|
|
But don't you worry. I'm busy sharing my great knowledge of how to find ancestors over in the places where the business of this site actually gets done.
Now don't tell me y'all have missed my glowing reviews on Success Stories these last few weeks!
|
|
Ah, I missed out on that anagram thread, but I did want to share.
Cupid feels 'r butt up!
|
|
How very kind of you, Kathryn, to share the wealth of your great knowledge with us. It is much appreciated, I am sure.
|
|
And what a fun experiment that was. ;)
Went exactly as predicted!
|
|
My all-time favourite email hoax -- the first I ever received, and still the best.
There are probably some here who haven't seen it, so enjoy. I believed it, myself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled "211-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 the "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 molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
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's 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
But sadly, not true:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithsonian.asp
|
|
Sigh. I just got another one. "Life is Beautiful". Apparently it's been making the rounds since 2002.
Like virtually all of its ilk, it is a HOAX!!!! We really all need to stop wasting our own and other people's time on these things.
So herewith my recommendations.
1. When you receive any email of this nature, research it yourself.
The easiest way to do this is to go to Google and search for the name of the alleged virus or file or whatever the email is about, plus the word hoax. In this case, search for:
"Life is beautiful" hoax
Look for a Symantec site in the results list. This is the one I consulted:
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?
docid=2002-011511-0444-99&tabid=2
(copy and paste that back together to go to the site -- or just do the google search and you will see it right at the top: "Life is beautiful Hoax - Symantec.com")
At the bottom of that page, it says:
>>>> "Please ignore any messages regarding this hoax and do not pass on messages. Passing on messages about the hoax only serves to further propagate it."
Also:
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/lifevirus.html
(also contains helpful tips for spotting a hoax)
http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/life.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_life_is_beautiful.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_is_beautiful_virus_hoax
Related strong recommendations:
2. Do not forward emails that contain other people's email addresses
If you forward emails you have received, be sure that you first DELETE any names, email addresses and other identifying information that appears in the body of the message you received. Surely no one wants his/her name and email address circulating around the internet to thousands of strangers.
This latest hoax message I received contained the email addresses of dozens of people who had previously received it, all of whom are strangers to me. If it is forwarded by another recipient, the message sent will presumably include my email address, because the sender did not use the BCC function. This applies to all mass emails, not just hoax virus messages, of course. ;)
I once received a hoax chainmail that contained the email addresses of dozens of women undergraduate students at a local university to whom it had already been sent. How unwise is it to circulate a list like that?!
3. Use the BCC function when sending mail to more than one person
(unless there is a reason you want all recipients to know it was sent to the others too -- that's often the case for family- and genealogy-related email, of course!)
Using the CC function, or simply addressing the mail "To" a list of people, discloses all the email addresses, and possibly names, of all the recipients to anyone who receives the message.
And if those people forward the message without following recommendation #2, it passes that information on to potentially thousands more people.
BCC (blind copy) conceals the addresses of other recipients from everyone who receives an email. It is only good manners to protect other people's personal information by not sending it out willy-nilly to people they don't even know.
I look forward to more posts here saying "email virus hoax!!" rather than "important!!! do not open this email!!". ;)
|
