Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus

Idkbutlike2:

registered on 2009-01-02 07:16:09 pm.

Gender: male

Location: Reisterstown MD, USA

view all posts by Idkbutlike2

Idkbutlike2

2010-04-11 09:27:00 am

Everlasting Turquoise

I found this image not too long ago, that basically shows the (stereotypical) differences between how a man and a woman typically write. I found it absolutely hilarious. laugh new

http://i.imgur.com/ONYAG.jpg

Thread title:

Prime Hunter:

registered on 2004-08-09 06:04:32 pm.

Gender: male

Location: USA

view all posts by Prime Hunter

Prime Hunter

2010-04-11 10:04:45 am

Oh, that was great! Especially funny when they start arguing with each other over the writing styles. Definitely stereotypical as you said though, since I can think of a few stories from both men and women that don't fit into this example easily.

TheGreenManalishi:

registered on 2008-06-30 11:04:09 am.

Gender: male

Location: England

view all posts by TheGreenManalishi

TheGreenManalishi

2010-04-11 10:14:43 am

The flesh is spongy and bruised

I actually like what Bill wrote, and not because that's my first name too. I like a bit of millitary sci-fi, just not so much in videogames.

Quietus:

registered on 2008-09-13 07:03:27 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Quietus

Quietus

2010-04-11 10:50:50 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

I'm sure I read this a good few years back (approx. 2005?), and it was contained in a book called e-tales. It was subtitled as 'the best and worst of internet humour'. There was supposedly another from a guy who continually pestered the Smithsonian Institute with his archeological 'finds'. They always took it in good humour, and actually wrote lengthy replies back to him. The truth of either is, as ever, questionable.

Here's one of their 'replies', should you wish to read it:

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 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 it's 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

I'm sure I read this a good few years back (approx. 2005?), and it was contained in a book called [i]e-tales[/i].  It was subtitled as 'the best and worst of internet humour'.  There was supposedly another from a guy who continually pestered the Smithsonian Institute with his archeological 'finds'.  They always took it in good humour, and actually wrote lengthy replies back to him.  The truth of either is, as ever, questionable.

Here's one of their 'replies', should you wish to read it:

[spoiler]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 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 it's 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 [/spoiler]

Idkbutlike2:

registered on 2009-01-02 07:16:09 pm.

Gender: male

Location: Reisterstown MD, USA

view all posts by Idkbutlike2

Idkbutlike2

2010-04-11 11:05:47 am

Everlasting Turquoise

Well, that can't be Quietus, since the emails are dated 4/8/10 Think

Quietus:

registered on 2008-09-13 07:03:27 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Quietus

Quietus

Edit history:

Quietus: 2010-04-11 11:31:25 am

Quietus: 2010-04-11 11:30:06 am

2010-04-11 11:27:36 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

It's waaay too close to the one I read to be coincidence. The airy-fairy start, the space station, the degeneration into the ending, resulting in simply name calling. It's almost word-for-word the original story I read. I recall us being in stitches at the mention of the space station in paragraph two. It's probably just like many other internet things, and they get recycled every few years.

Edit: Here's one dated 2007.
One from 2005.
And here's one that says it was e-mailed to them in 1998.

nate:

is in the group Administrator.

is in the group deutschsprachiger Moderator.

registered on 2003-09-15 06:16:34 pm.

Gender: male

Location: lubbock, tx, usa

view all posts by nate

nate

2010-04-11 11:47:06 am

君だけの

光になると

WARNING: NSFW
http://chan.sankakucomplex.com/post/show/22489/

(mouse over the japanese to read it in english)

Idkbutlike2:

registered on 2009-01-02 07:16:09 pm.

Gender: male

Location: Reisterstown MD, USA

view all posts by Idkbutlike2

Idkbutlike2

2010-04-11 12:16:30 pm

Everlasting Turquoise

Quote from Quietus:

It's waaay too close to the one I read to be coincidence. The airy-fairy start, the space station, the degeneration into the ending, resulting in simply name calling. It's almost word-for-word the original story I read. I recall us being in stitches at the mention of the space station in paragraph two. It's probably just like many other internet things, and they get recycled every few years.

Edit: Here's one dated 2007.
One from 2005.
And here's one that says it was e-mailed to them in 1998.

Wow, I guess you're right. d'oh!