Manuscript idiosyncrasies/frauds a plenty
From the words a certain automated manuscript handler flagged as being suspected mispellings, in a recent manuscript of mine:
Yeah, a lot of these are just Britishisms; it was, apparently, a US install of ispell. But personally, I say any work that contains both the words 'astroturf' and 'radiodating' has probably got something going for it.
But, then, that's probably just me.
On the subject of radiodating, yes, this work makes some references to it. So I actually spent a bit of time, some time back, Googling about, making sure my knowledge on the subject was reasonably current.
And doing that, it was a bit depressing, in that the internet signal/noise ratio was unusually bad in this area. A whole lotta crackpot evangelicals out there publishing deceptive stupidity on the subject. Apparently, they're still pissed that the rubidium-strontium method—oh yeah, and the lutetium-hafnium, the samarium-neodymium, the uranium-lead and the lead-lead methods—all give dates of 3.5 and 3.6 billion years for the Amitsoq gneisses. Instead of the 6,000 years or so they'd rather prefer. And never mind the isochron work that's been done on the meteorites.
Savages in this town. Sometimes, it seems to me, the 'net's so full of these utter frauds, it's a wonder anyone ever learns anything halfway accurate using the web.
| accusatory gotta meddlers pummelings sorta archway holographic megaliths quarrelling streetlights astroturf humour radiodating thickset charade inlays neighbourhoods railings tonne clacking kempt nomadic | ringleader tonnes cooly loony nutters sadnesses tryouts doormat louts orbs shimmery twerp favoured mafia pithily smirks unmenacingly gonna marvellously pleasantries smouldering walkaround |
Yeah, a lot of these are just Britishisms; it was, apparently, a US install of ispell. But personally, I say any work that contains both the words 'astroturf' and 'radiodating' has probably got something going for it.
But, then, that's probably just me.
On the subject of radiodating, yes, this work makes some references to it. So I actually spent a bit of time, some time back, Googling about, making sure my knowledge on the subject was reasonably current.
And doing that, it was a bit depressing, in that the internet signal/noise ratio was unusually bad in this area. A whole lotta crackpot evangelicals out there publishing deceptive stupidity on the subject. Apparently, they're still pissed that the rubidium-strontium method—oh yeah, and the lutetium-hafnium, the samarium-neodymium, the uranium-lead and the lead-lead methods—all give dates of 3.5 and 3.6 billion years for the Amitsoq gneisses. Instead of the 6,000 years or so they'd rather prefer. And never mind the isochron work that's been done on the meteorites.
Savages in this town. Sometimes, it seems to me, the 'net's so full of these utter frauds, it's a wonder anyone ever learns anything halfway accurate using the web.
posted by AJM at 11:03 a.m. (Permanent Link)
