In a message dated 97-02-18 00:16:20 EST, LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Automatic digest processor) writes:
<< ====================================================
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 it's 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 canine (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
>>
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Automatic digest processor)
Sender: LARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum)
Reply-to: LARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum)
To: LARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Recipients of LARCH-L digests)
Date: 97-02-18 00:16:20 EST
There are 6 messages totalling 257 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. faculty position Berkely
2. wierd stuff
3. Info request - desert architecture references
4. questions on specifying fire breaks
5. landHack
6. Penn State Bracken Lecture Series
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:25:56 -0600
From: "Robert M. Wright" <wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: faculty position Berkely
Peter Bosseleman contacted me about a new faculty position at Berkely.
The position is for someone with planting design qualifications to teach
in a junior, tenure track 9 month position to be detemined in March of
1997.
I asked Peter if the position required an intimate knowledge of west
coast plant material. He replied that while such experience would be
benificial it was not absolutely necessary as they were putting the
emphasis on the position on "design" with plants.
Persons interested in finding out about the position should contact
peter directly at Berkely at the following numbers
phone: (510) 642-3028
fax: (510) 643-9576
--
_Professor_Robert_M._Wright_______________________
Chair; Program in Landscape Architecture
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
University of Toronto
230 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T-1R2
phone (416) 978-6788 - fax (416) 971-2094
email: wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:29:08 -0600
From: "Robert M. Wright" <wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: wierd stuff
This was sent to me by a friend and I though, given the heavy
discussions on LARCH-L that you all might enjoy this:
The story behind this ... apparently, there is a nutball who digs
things out of his own back yard and sends his 'discoveries' to the
Smithsonian Institution, labeling them with neo-scientific names and
insisting that they are actual archeological 'finds'. The bizarre
truth (not an urban legend as far as I can determine!!!) is that this
guy really exists and does this in his spare time!
Anyway, what follows is a letter from the Smithsonian Institute in
response to his submission of a recently discovered 'specimen'.
====================================================
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 it's 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 canine (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
--
_Professor_Robert_M._Wright_______________________
Chair; Program in Landscape Architecture
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
University of Toronto
230 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T-1R2
phone (416) 978-6788 - fax (416) 971-2094
email: wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:54:28 PST
From: "Stu Gibbs, Local 8436" <GBBS8875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Info request - desert architecture references
Dear Colleagues,
I would very much appreciate any resource information that you can provide
relating to desert landscaping/architecture with specific reference to the
Southern Baja (desert sea) region of Los Cabos. I would be interested in
both journal and book references focusing on residential home and landscaping
considerations.
Please reply to: Stu Gibbs - British Columbia Institute of Technology
e-mail: - sgibbs@xxxxxxxxxx
Any assistance would be very much welcomed....srg
Thanks, Stu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:54:54 -0800
From: kerry kencairn <kerrykai@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: questions on specifying fire breaks
I am trying to find information to help determine the necessary width of a
fire break. My site conditions include a 30-35% slope, scrub oak and brush
vegetation, north facing slope, 25 acre single family residential area. I
have looked at a fair amount of fire management documenst on the web, they
are all for a much larger scale situation than what I have. Anyone have any
suggestions for references?
Thanks, Kerry KenCairn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:39:57 +0300
From: Edward Flaherty <ehf@xxxxxx>
Subject: landHack
Dear Readers,
Most of you will know that a hacker(as the word is *understood* in a
computer user sense) is nothing more than a do-it-yourself garage person
who lets nothing stop the process of melding brain with tool with job.
This is a person who lets nothing stop the solving of a problem, whether
the problem be hardware, software, network, 6H lead or the dried up magic
marker--a work-around is always found.
In the past, readers of alt.hackers newsgroup could always enjoy the
recounting of arcane workarounds of the most unusual scope and variety, as
there existed, as a pre-requisite for each posting to the newsgroup, the
*ob*ligatory inclusion of a description of a successful *hack*(obhack).
It is my intent to gather, with the good help of you, my colleagues, and
the students and others around you, a compendium of landHacks. A landHack
is a short story that describes some sort of landscape workaround--in the
lab or practice--not necessarily on the computer, but, preferrably.
If you would kindly send these to my personal email address, I will collect
them, index them and put them on the Web. I'll send the best ones to this
list as a summary. Of course, all contributors will be credited.
I think this is a good idea and it sounds like fun; *but*, if I don't have
any help from you, it will be about as much fun as a party of *one*, so. .
(Automatic digest processor) writes:
<< ====================================================
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 it's 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 canine (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
>>
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Automatic digest processor)
Sender: LARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum)
Reply-to: LARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Landscape Architecture Electronic Forum)
To: LARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Recipients of LARCH-L digests)
Date: 97-02-18 00:16:20 EST
There are 6 messages totalling 257 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. faculty position Berkely
2. wierd stuff
3. Info request - desert architecture references
4. questions on specifying fire breaks
5. landHack
6. Penn State Bracken Lecture Series
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:25:56 -0600
From: "Robert M. Wright" <wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: faculty position Berkely
Peter Bosseleman contacted me about a new faculty position at Berkely.
The position is for someone with planting design qualifications to teach
in a junior, tenure track 9 month position to be detemined in March of
1997.
I asked Peter if the position required an intimate knowledge of west
coast plant material. He replied that while such experience would be
benificial it was not absolutely necessary as they were putting the
emphasis on the position on "design" with plants.
Persons interested in finding out about the position should contact
peter directly at Berkely at the following numbers
phone: (510) 642-3028
fax: (510) 643-9576
--
_Professor_Robert_M._Wright_______________________
Chair; Program in Landscape Architecture
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
University of Toronto
230 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T-1R2
phone (416) 978-6788 - fax (416) 971-2094
email: wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:29:08 -0600
From: "Robert M. Wright" <wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: wierd stuff
This was sent to me by a friend and I though, given the heavy
discussions on LARCH-L that you all might enjoy this:
The story behind this ... apparently, there is a nutball who digs
things out of his own back yard and sends his 'discoveries' to the
Smithsonian Institution, labeling them with neo-scientific names and
insisting that they are actual archeological 'finds'. The bizarre
truth (not an urban legend as far as I can determine!!!) is that this
guy really exists and does this in his spare time!
Anyway, what follows is a letter from the Smithsonian Institute in
response to his submission of a recently discovered 'specimen'.
====================================================
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 it's 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 canine (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
--
_Professor_Robert_M._Wright_______________________
Chair; Program in Landscape Architecture
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
University of Toronto
230 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T-1R2
phone (416) 978-6788 - fax (416) 971-2094
email: wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:54:28 PST
From: "Stu Gibbs, Local 8436" <GBBS8875@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Info request - desert architecture references
Dear Colleagues,
I would very much appreciate any resource information that you can provide
relating to desert landscaping/architecture with specific reference to the
Southern Baja (desert sea) region of Los Cabos. I would be interested in
both journal and book references focusing on residential home and landscaping
considerations.
Please reply to: Stu Gibbs - British Columbia Institute of Technology
e-mail: - sgibbs@xxxxxxxxxx
Any assistance would be very much welcomed....srg
Thanks, Stu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:54:54 -0800
From: kerry kencairn <kerrykai@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: questions on specifying fire breaks
I am trying to find information to help determine the necessary width of a
fire break. My site conditions include a 30-35% slope, scrub oak and brush
vegetation, north facing slope, 25 acre single family residential area. I
have looked at a fair amount of fire management documenst on the web, they
are all for a much larger scale situation than what I have. Anyone have any
suggestions for references?
Thanks, Kerry KenCairn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 23:39:57 +0300
From: Edward Flaherty <ehf@xxxxxx>
Subject: landHack
Dear Readers,
Most of you will know that a hacker(as the word is *understood* in a
computer user sense) is nothing more than a do-it-yourself garage person
who lets nothing stop the process of melding brain with tool with job.
This is a person who lets nothing stop the solving of a problem, whether
the problem be hardware, software, network, 6H lead or the dried up magic
marker--a work-around is always found.
In the past, readers of alt.hackers newsgroup could always enjoy the
recounting of arcane workarounds of the most unusual scope and variety, as
there existed, as a pre-requisite for each posting to the newsgroup, the
*ob*ligatory inclusion of a description of a successful *hack*(obhack).
It is my intent to gather, with the good help of you, my colleagues, and
the students and others around you, a compendium of landHacks. A landHack
is a short story that describes some sort of landscape workaround--in the
lab or practice--not necessarily on the computer, but, preferrably.
If you would kindly send these to my personal email address, I will collect
them, index them and put them on the Web. I'll send the best ones to this
list as a summary. Of course, all contributors will be credited.
I think this is a good idea and it sounds like fun; *but*, if I don't have
any help from you, it will be about as much fun as a party of *one*, so. .