Replies

So you made a faulty assumption that cost me unjustifiable time & energy to correct, & your reaction is: “I have no idea what you’re now arguing about.”?

How decent of you.

Listen, username, I gave you no indication whatsoever that I was talking about ‘Gayle’. You ASSUMED that on your own, & look how many posts it took me to get to the bottom of it. This is called piddle-poor communication. I’d call it worse, but perhaps you get the drift.

Here’s how you make an ASSUMPTION: ‘By ‘vet’ I ASSUME you’re talking about Gayle’. That is ***minimal*** communication. Minimal.

Of course if you’d been that lucid, I’d have responded, ‘What makes you assume that? Callis is not the vet referred to in the Smithsonian article’.

& w that level of ease & efficiency, the false assumption wd have been laid to rest.

Personally, I don’t think you want to communicate clearly. It’s too easy to do, if you really want it. I think you thrive on confusion. That’s what it looks like, anyway.

Consider this:

“[Shweitzer] was having trouble preparing the slides, and went to a vet histologist who specializes in preparing slides made from bone for help, and she then showed the slides to a pathologist who believed them to be blood cells.
I don’t think it would be obvious to a nonspecialist.”

So you didn’t think it was ‘Gayle’ after all; you thought it was a pathologist. You can’t keep your stories straight long enough to even cover your screw ups.

Look, username, it’s not just piddle poor communication. It’s not just your graceless inability to say “sorry” for making a faulty ASSUMPTION & causing me to lose so much time & energy correcting it. It’s not just your contradictory stories & misdirection.

It’s all three.

Do you have to communicate minimally well in order to post on this site?

No.

Do you have to show minimal decency when your fallacious assumption hijacks the conversation for ~14 needless posts?

No.

Do you have to keep your stories straight & operate w at least a veneer of honesty?

No.

Do I have to go on attempting to converse w someone this bad at communication & this lacking in basic courtesy?

No.

"So you made a faulty assumption that cost me unjustifiable time & energy to correct, & your reaction is: “I have no idea what you’re now arguing about.”?"

I thought this was cleared up all the way back in post 116.
Why you're still going on about it in post after post and wasting your own time and energy, I have no idea (well, I do have an idea, but I won't mention it out of courtesy.)
If you were still confused about it after 116, it's due to your own lack of communication skills.

"Of course if you’d been that lucid, I’d have responded, ‘What makes you assume that? Callis is not the vet referred to in the Smithsonian article’."

Gayle, the vet histologist, is referred to in the Smithsonian article - along with the unnamed vet pathologist.

And the reason why I thought you were referring to Gayle is because when I mentioned that it was a pathologist that first suggested that the remains were those of red blood cells, you replied:
"Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells."

If it's not the pathologist, than what other vet could you possibly mean but Gayle? It was because of your error that I thought you were referring to Gayle.

"So you didn’t think it was ‘Gayle’ after all; you thought it was a pathologist. You can’t keep your stories straight long enough to even cover your screw ups."

Huh? When did I ever say or suggest that it was Gayle that identified the red blood cell remains?
Again, I don't think I'm the one here with the communication issues.