I refer you to post 119, where I took time I cd ill afford & laid out the entire timeline of the exchange. You responded:
“I already said I misunderstood - when you mentioned the vet I thought you were referring to Gayle. I’m not disagreeing with you”
Now today you are saying just the opposite of what you said yesterday. Are you a dual personality? Does the person posting today have no idea what the person (posting under your screenname) said yesterday?
You really need to harmonize your stories. Were you right yesterday when you cdn’t fault my meticulously accurate timeline, or are you right today when you’re contradicting what you said yesterday?
[I’m not delineating post 119 a second time. I shouldn’t have had to go to that much trouble once. Twice is out of the question.]
To All: I apologize for ever getting involved w this poster. He’s the tar baby of contradictory, time-wasting contentless posts. This is a great thread. Post 94 is one of the best I’ve ever read on FR; thank you varmintman. Had I known responding to the poster in question wd result in the thread getting bogged down w what is either purposeful misdirection or cluelessness on a scary scale I’d have ignored him completely. Again, my apologies. It won’t happen again.
Oy vey, I probably shouldn’t but perhaps another recap would help. As you point out in 119, you state:
“It took a veterinarian to recognize blood cells, because he wasn’t blinded by evolutionary assumptions.”
I responded by pointing out that Mary had trouble with the slides and so wasn’t seeing much of anything (probably due to how miniscule the remains were) - and so went to a histologist for help. Or, to directly quote:
“[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.”
To which you responded, confusingly:
“Wrong. It was a veterinarian who first identified the blood cells.”
Well, it was a veterinary conference. Gayle, the histologist and the unnamed pathologist are both veterinarians. “Wrong”? Wrong about what? I wasn’t sure what you meant, but thought maybe you were stating that it was the veterinarian Gayle who first noticed the red blood cells instead of the pathologist (although, that person, too, is a veterinarian). You then, for some reason, cite the Smithsonian article (perhaps you think the Smithsonian article contradicts the Earth Magazine article because they give some different details? They don’t contradict though.) And then you state:
“But I do appreciate how your version eliminates the veterinarian altogether.”
Again, the veterinarian was a pathologist. At this point I’m thinking that maybe you didn’t realize that the pathologist I referred to was also a veterinarian, and so you thought I had the wrong person. (I still think that that’s where you’re confused, but I’m not sure, since, as usual, you wouldn’t answer the question.) And so to try to clear things up I respond:
“Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well.”
I thought that would clear everything up and we’d be able to move on. I stated that I misunderstood (due to your error, although I didn’t say that), and then tried to subtly (and nicely, without directly stating you were in error) fix where I thought the confusion was (by stating that the pathologist is a vet).
At least, I HOPED we’d move on since the question of “which vet first noticed the red blood cells” is easily the least interesting and least relevant part of the whole discussion. Yet, you decided to have a tantrum and make that the ONLY topic of discussion for all of the following rambling, incoherent, ad hominem posts.