>Not again, PLEASE!!!  I have seen this thing 6 times in the last year.  The
>first time it was cute although slightly offensive since I was working at
>SI at the time.  Now it is just tiresome.
>
>Dr. Elizabeth A. Moore
>Curator of Collections and Archaeology
>Virginia Museum of Natural History
>1001 Douglas Avenue
>Martinsville, VA  24112
>[log in to unmask]
>
>----------
>> From: aprachid <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Fw: PRE-FRIDAY HUMOR:  Smithsonian
>> Date: Monday, October 27, 1997 7:11 PM
>>
>> dear folks,
>> just another joke.
>>
>> sincerily,
>>
>> Adilson Rachid
>> ----------
>> > From: K. Emmett-Sweetser <[log in to unmask]>
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: PRE-FRIDAY HUMOR:  Smithsonian
>> > Date: Terça-feira, 14 de Outubro de 1997 21:06
>> >
>> > Since I won't be here Friday, I'm sending this early.
>> > Like all stories of its kind, it is supposed to be true.
>> > ;-)
>> > Ok, off to the aeropuerto, read you-all next month.
>> >         Kata
>> >
>> >         [Begin Quoted Text]
>> >
>> > The story behind this is that there is this nutball who digs
>> > things out of his back yard and sends the stuff he finds to
>> > the Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with scientific
>> > names, insisting that they are actual archeological finds.
>> > This guy really exists and does this in his spare time!
>> > Anyway... here's the actual response from the Smithsonian.
>> > Lest we think we have challenges in responding, at times,
>> > to our constituency [or clients, or colleagues], I send this
>> > to you all as an exemplar of a public servant's considerate
>> > and thoughtful response.
>> >
>> > ----------
>> > From:   Paleoanthropology Division
>> >         Smithsonian Institute
>> >         207 Pennsylvania Avenue
>> >         Washington, DC 20078
>> >
>> >  Dear Sir:
>> >
>> > Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled
>> > 93211-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 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
>> > its 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-homonids.
>> >                 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 as 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 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 illifitation 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.
>> >
>> >         [End Quoted Text]
>> >
>> >
        Dear Elizabeth,
   I'm very sorry if all of this stuff offends or annoys you but I think I
speak for everyone when I say calm down a little.Also,one extra e-mail or
spam a day is nothing.Simply erasing the thing would be a lot easier than
writing a letter back to this person telling them not to send you these
anymore.These people don't have all that much control over what they are
doing and I'm shure they don't mean any personal harm to you or anyone else.

                                                         Grimpen Mire

Grimpen Mire