Attending the NAPC in Cincinnati

| 30 Comments

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the 9th North American Paleontological Convention in Cincinnati. ’Twas a grand old time, mingling with a lot of seriously excellent scientists.

PSS at NAPC b.jpg

Besides the excellent science, a highlight was the panel I sat on. This session was held over lunch on Thursday, and the subject was “Countering Creationism”. I was joined by Panda’s Thumb contributors Richard Hoppe, Jason Rosenhouse, and Art Hunt.

PSS and panelists.jpg

There was also a most excellent series of talks on Thursday morning. I never knew that rodent debris could be so informative (thanks, Felisa Smith!), and I learned that Jeremy Jackson really doesn’t like Pharyngula. I was disappointed that I missed the steel cage match between Jeremy and PZ - I never found the announcement. Maybe I can catch the rematch …

I got to catch up with old friends …

PSS and Dan.jpg

And, of course, I accompanied a mob of unruly paleontologists on a field trip to some “museum”.

unruly mob.jpg

bent sign.jpg

(Looks like the sign got run over by an out-of-control ark.)

There were hints of PZ even in this museum …

ceph.jpg

Of course, I was accompanied by other luminaries.

luminaries.jpg

All in all, a delightful time. With some functional keepsakes to boot.

with stuff.jpg

30 Comments

Looks like an exciting time. Can regular people attend events such as these?

I love the photo of the sign - kind of sums up the whole place - Grossly distorted, appearing to defy the laws of physics and without a leg to stand on.

Lee Ann Boyd said:

Looks like an exciting time. Can regular people attend events such as these?

As far as I know most scientific conventions will take all registrants. There is usually a fee, and an early bird discount too, something of the order of 200 to 300 USD. You get a copy of the proceedings, some keepsakes, breakfast, lunch and snacks. Typically the fees are paid by the employer and so there will be very few unaffiliated registrants. But as far as I have seen there are no other requirements to attend these seminars. But registrants with less than 4 or five years of education/experience past bachelor degree will understand very little. Even those with more experience/education will follow 100% of the presentations only in their super sub specialities.

Usually these seminar announcements are published in respective journals, and email lists. So most of the general public would not hear about them early enough to take advantage of early bird specials. I think it is a good idea if announcements of seminars that would have some appeal to the general public are posted here. One can attend in-town events for less than 300$ and out-of-town events less than 300 miles away for less than 500$.

Or may be PT can organize a seminar specifically for non-biologist followers who read/post here regularly.

This appeared in our local paper. The Jackson Sun. Roger Moore–Scientist dissents on climate change Quote: Moore, a 58-year-old paleoclimatologist who lives in Milan, presented his research at the North American Paleontological Convention at the University of Cincinnati on June 22.… What he has found so far, he argues, counters the widely held belief that carbon dioxide is a principal cause of global warming.… Moore has an undergraduate and master’s degree from University of Tennessee Martin and a Ph.D. in paleontology from Mahasarakham University in Thailand.… He said there could be a wide variety of explanations, such as cyclical increases and decreases in the intensity of solar radiation or potentially that the Earth cycles through heating and cooling periods.…… Moore noted that he does not try to date his fossils, calling typical methods of divining the age of ancient objects as “myth,” but said they could be as much as 38 to 40 million years old.….END QUOTES

The paper allows comments on the article. A professional opinion on his comments is why I posted this. I’m not a scientist. Does that Thailand university offer such a degree? You think it is phony? Maybe a diploma mill.

Ravilyn Sanders said:

Lee Ann Boyd said:

Looks like an exciting time. Can regular people attend events such as these?

As far as I know most scientific conventions will take all registrants. There is usually a fee, and an early bird discount too, something of the order of 200 to 300 USD. You get a copy of the proceedings, some keepsakes, breakfast, lunch and snacks. Typically the fees are paid by the employer and so there will be very few unaffiliated registrants. But as far as I have seen there are no other requirements to attend these seminars. But registrants with less than 4 or five years of education/experience past bachelor degree will understand very little. Even those with more experience/education will follow 100% of the presentations only in their super sub specialities.

Usually these seminar announcements are published in respective journals, and email lists. So most of the general public would not hear about them early enough to take advantage of early bird specials. I think it is a good idea if announcements of seminars that would have some appeal to the general public are posted here. One can attend in-town events for less than 300$ and out-of-town events less than 300 miles away for less than 500$.

Or may be PT can organize a seminar specifically for non-biologist followers who read/post here regularly.

Thank you. The information is appreciated.

I was the chair of the organizing committee for NAPC in Cincinnati and wanted to comment on the question of publicizing the meeting and registration issues. While it is true that much that went on at the convention may have been too technical for non-specialists to follow, a special “Education and Public Outreach” day was built into the meeting on Thursday, and it was inexpensive ($25, plus a little more for lunch and parking). This day included sessions that definitely would have been of interest to people interested in “broader”, societal themes in evolution and paleontology, one of which was the panel discussion led by the PT crew. While we advertised the session widely to teachers in the region, we could have done a better job with publicity. In retrospect, one obvious place for us to have posted information about the meeting, and especially the E. and P.O. day, was this very website.…

Lessons learned!

Arnie Miller

Charley Horse said:

This appeared in our local paper. The Jackson Sun.…

Several questions come to mind, not the least of which is, of all the talks presented at that meeting, how did the Jackson (TN?) Sun get ahold of information regarding one single talk? Did the paper send someone who happened to catch that talk? Or was the reporter specifically sent to cover that talk? If so, how did they know ahead of time that a climate change “skeptic” from Milan was going to be at the conference? Isn’t Jackson, TN a little small to have a newspaper that can afford to send a reporter to Cincinnati to cover an obscure scientific conference?

Does the program list this Dr. Moore’s talk and is an abstract available? Some conferences are putting this stuff online now to save printing costs. Did Jason, RBH, or “Prof. Steve Steve” hear the talk? Maybe one of them can provide the abstract here.

In other words, I smell a rat. Investigate.

KP said:

Charley Horse said:

This appeared in our local paper. The Jackson Sun.…

Several questions come to mind, not the least of which is, of all the talks presented at that meeting, how did the Jackson (TN?) Sun get ahold of information regarding one single talk? Did the paper send someone who happened to catch that talk? Or was the reporter specifically sent to cover that talk? If so, how did they know ahead of time that a climate change “skeptic” from Milan was going to be at the conference? Isn’t Jackson, TN a little small to have a newspaper that can afford to send a reporter to Cincinnati to cover an obscure scientific conference?

Does the program list this Dr. Moore’s talk and is an abstract available? Some conferences are putting this stuff online now to save printing costs. Did Jason, RBH, or “Prof. Steve Steve” hear the talk? Maybe one of them can provide the abstract here.

In other words, I smell a rat. Investigate.

Roger Moore is from Milan. A town close to Jackson. It is likely he instigated the article.

Arnie Miller said:

I was the chair of the organizing committee for NAPC in Cincinnati and wanted to comment on the question of publicizing the meeting and registration issues. While it is true that much that went on at the convention may have been too technical for non-specialists to follow, a special “Education and Public Outreach” day was built into the meeting on Thursday, and it was inexpensive ($25, plus a little more for lunch and parking). This day included sessions that definitely would have been of interest to people interested in “broader”, societal themes in evolution and paleontology, one of which was the panel discussion led by the PT crew. While we advertised the session widely to teachers in the region, we could have done a better job with publicity. In retrospect, one obvious place for us to have posted information about the meeting, and especially the E. and P.O. day, was this very website.…

Lessons learned!

Arnie Miller

Yes, but do you still have a Turtox Pigs t-shirt?

So here’s what we appear to have:

1. A guy with a Master’s degree in education who purchased a doctorate degree from a university in Thailand.

2. He doesn’t use radiometric dating (calls it “divining”) though it is used routinely and consistently by geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, climatologists, etc.

3. He actually did give a paper at the Convention. In it, he says he is associated with the Northeastern Research Institute and Fossil Wood Museum of Milan, TN. I could find no record of it…is it his house?

4. HIs paper says the issue is CO2!!! Did he forget what his paper said (see 28 of 495)?:

http://napc2009.org/wp-content/uplo[…]i-cont-3.pdf

The above was posted in “comments” beneath the Jackson Sun article.

Charley Horse said:

Roger Moore is from Milan. A town close to Jackson. It is likely he instigated the article.

Oh, hahaha! For some reason I thought Milan, ITALY. Makes sense that it is close to Jackson. Also, at first I thought you were talking about Jackson MS. Then I remembered there was a Jackson TN – long story how I know that.

Charley Horse said:

So here’s what we appear to have:

3. He actually did give a paper at the Convention. In it, he says he is associated with the Northeastern Research Institute and Fossil Wood Museum of Milan, TN. I could find no record of it…is it his house?

4. HIs paper says the issue is CO2!!! Did he forget what his paper said (see 28 of 495)?:

http://napc2009.org/wp-content/uplo[…]i-cont-3.pdf

The abstract to save the trip for anyone interested (my bold):

The unequivocal relationship between change in atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse forcing gas and climate remains elusive. Combined analysis of Smilax sp. leaf fossils from three clay lenses in Western Tennessee and Kentucky for stomatal frequency to determine paleo – CO2 level and hydrological conditions preserved by anatomical epidermal features clearly establishes that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increased from lower-mid Eocene to middle Eocene (372 to 411 ± 16 parts per million volume {ppmv} respectively) concommitant with changing moisture regimes from mesic to that of pronounced drought. A modern stomatal frequency index using herbarium leaves from Florida Smilax laurifolia covering the post-industrial period from 1894 to 2006 is significantly correlated (r2 = .6029 P<0.002) to anthropogenically increased atmospheric CO2 concentration from 294 to 381ppmv. Applying the training set to calibrate fossil stomatal ratios, it shows that variability in stomatal frequency was in response to long term change in paleoatmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during leaf development. Drought stress signals on fossil leaves include xeromorphic characters such as thickened epidermal tissue, decrease in epidermal cell size and straightening of anticlinal cell walls. Subsequently, morphological adjustment seen in leaves as moisture signals can be interpreted in terms of paleoprecipatation fluctuations and leaf stomatal frequency for paleoatmospheric carbon dioxide values are robust methods to relate past climate – greenhouse CO2 dynamics.

Hard to see whether there’s an angle here. I’m not a climate scientist, but the only thing I can see is that he might be saying that current anthropogenic C02 is indistinguishable from changes observed since the mid-Eocene on the basis of stomatal structure. Not a lot to go on from just the abstract. Interesting, though. His e-mail address is given on the abstract; contact him directly and find out.

Abstract of the paper presented by Roger Moore for what it is worth: Looks like he is inferring CO2 concentrations by looking at the cell size and structures on fossil leaves.

2: 4:30 PM-4:45 PM

Presenter: Moore, Bruce Roger

Eocene Leaf Remains Record a Synchronous Increase in Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Pronounced Drying Trend in Southeast North America

Moore, Bruce Roger, Northeastern Research Institute and Fossil Wood Museum, 2055 Salem Street, Milan, TN, 38358, United States, [Enable javascript to see this email address.]

The unequivocal relationship between change in atmospheric carbon dioxide as a greenhouse forcing gas and climate remains elusive. Combined analysis of Smilax sp. leaf fossils from three clay lenses in Western Tennessee and Kentucky for stomatal frequency to determine paleo – CO2 level and hydrological conditions preserved by anatomical epidermal features clearly establishes that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increased from lower-mid Eocene to middle Eocene (372 to 411 ± 16 parts per million volume {ppmv} respectively) concommitant with changing moisture regimes from mesic to that of pronounced drought. A modern stomatal frequency index using herbarium leaves from Florida Smilax laurifolia covering the post-industrial period from 1894 to 2006 is significantly correlated (r2 = .6029 P [less than symbol] 0.002) to anthropogenically increased atmospheric CO2 concentration from 294 to 381ppmv. Applying the training set to calibrate fossil stomatal ratios, it shows that variability in stomatal frequency was in response to long term change in paleoatmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during leaf development. Drought stress signals on fossil leaves include xeromorphic characters such as thickened epidermal tissue, decrease in epidermal cell size and straightening of anticlinal cell walls. Subsequently, morphological adjustment seen in leaves as moisture signals can be interpreted in terms of paleoprecipatation fluctuations and leaf stomatal frequency for paleoatmospheric carbon dioxide values are robust methods to relate past climate – greenhouse CO2 dynamics.

NJ said:

Arnie Miller said:

I was the chair of the organizing committee for NAPC in Cincinnati and wanted to comment on the question of publicizing the meeting and registration issues. While it is true that much that went on at the convention may have been too technical for non-specialists to follow, a special “Education and Public Outreach” day was built into the meeting on Thursday, and it was inexpensive ($25, plus a little more for lunch and parking). This day included sessions that definitely would have been of interest to people interested in “broader”, societal themes in evolution and paleontology, one of which was the panel discussion led by the PT crew. While we advertised the session widely to teachers in the region, we could have done a better job with publicity. In retrospect, one obvious place for us to have posted information about the meeting, and especially the E. and P.O. day, was this very website.…

Lessons learned!

Arnie Miller

Yes, but do you still have a Turtox Pigs t-shirt?

Indeed, I do.…and it still fits.

OMG, Richard Hoppe’s hair migrated from the top of his head to his face. I swear that last I saw him he had hair and no beard. Can’t recognize him.

KP said:

Charley Horse said:

This appeared in our local paper. The Jackson Sun.…

Several questions come to mind, not the least of which is, of all the talks presented at that meeting, how did the Jackson (TN?) Sun get ahold of information regarding one single talk? Did the paper send someone who happened to catch that talk? Or was the reporter specifically sent to cover that talk? If so, how did they know ahead of time that a climate change “skeptic” from Milan was going to be at the conference? Isn’t Jackson, TN a little small to have a newspaper that can afford to send a reporter to Cincinnati to cover an obscure scientific conference?

Does the program list this Dr. Moore’s talk and is an abstract available? Some conferences are putting this stuff online now to save printing costs. Did Jason, RBH, or “Prof. Steve Steve” hear the talk? Maybe one of them can provide the abstract here.

In other words, I smell a rat. Investigate.

Satan will always makes sure the false prophets of his religion of evolutionism get good press. The art projects they call “transitional fossils” are no less works of mens’ hands than the pagan idols of days yore! Yet, like the golden calf, multitudes, including many Christians, come to worship. How sad.

Toidel,

Man, if you have got evidence that “transitional” fossils are faked you can be famous. All you have to do is publish your evidence in a scientific journal. You could be given a full professorship, or even the Nobel prize! What’s that, you don’t have any evidence, just your own personal disbelief. Too bad man that won’t cut it in science. You lose.

By the way, if you can find anyone who does worship a fossil, you have my permission to hate and despise them. That is what the Bible commands you to do isn’t it?

Pfft, don’t you know that Satan buries the fossils himself?

James F said:

Pfft, don’t you know that Satan buries the fossils himself?

I thought God does it in order to be cruel and trap people.

Stanton said:

James F said:

Pfft, don’t you know that Satan buries the fossils himself?

I thought God does it in order to be cruel and trap people.

I’ve been noticing a significant up tick in the antievolution broadcasts by Answers in Genesis on one of the religion channels on TV.

The tactics are entirely of innuendo; portraying scientists, as a group, as evil and stupid without actually singling out any particular scientist. It consists of describing the characteristics of giraffes and other creatures in a way that is impossible to explain by science, and mischaracterizing scientific explanations as being so stupid and laughable that no intelligent person would be taken in.

There are lots of repeated, inane, corny jokes about their deliberately mischaracterized science that they carefully set up to joke about; getting the audience to laughing with sneering distain at unnamed scientists and their science.

It is the typical demagoguery used to whip rubes into prideful ignorance and unwillingness to learn anything. Our trolls appear to come straight from these meetings full of piss and vinegar, ready to sneer at the entire scientific world.

There is one big problem, however; either the speakers giving these mocking circus acts know they are misrepresenting the science or they don’t understand the science but are passing themselves off as someone who does. In either case, they are liars and know they are liars. But they do it anyway.

There is another repeated phrase that now shows up in this shtick that is being used to justify their “point of view” as a legitimate alternative; “Starting from different premises means one can legitimately reach different conclusions” (almost verbatim).

But there is a further problem with this shtick; the conclusions have further consequences in the real world. The resulting pseudo-science that gets constructed from their premises no longer works; you can’t do any research with it, and you can no longer use it to explain anything that actually exists in the physical universe and upon which all of our technology is built.

This line of “thinking” on the part of the Answers in Genesis gang keeps leading to inconsistency after inconsistency. It overlooks one of the most important aspects of scientific progress, namely toss out theories that ultimately fail and adjust and rebuild until you get a theory that works and agrees with reality.

The AiG crowd always bends theory to fit sectarian dogma and simply doesn’t give a crap about the downstream consequences. Just keep the rubes laughing and make sure they are never tempted to ask questions.

Mike Elzinga said:

The AiG crowd always bends theory to fit sectarian dogma and simply doesn’t give a crap about the downstream consequences. Just keep the rubes laughing and make sure they are never tempted to ask questions.

I wonder if the people in Answers In Genesis really want people in this country to abandon science, or if they just drum up religious anti-intellectualism in order to line their pockets. I mean, would Ken Ham care if he helped lead the United States back into a new Dark Ages, with Dark Age-style rates of mortality? Or would he be too busy counting God’s money to care about people dying of disease, famine, diarrhea, violence, not being pious enough, and speaking one’s mind?

“Starting from different premises means one can legitimately reach different conclusions”

Well, this is true.

Provided that the premise that you start out with is that it’s OK to ignore physical evidence when it’s inconvienent.

Absent this specific “premise” all honest investigators will eventulally converge on the same explanation for the same set of facts.

Don’t forget that the first investigators into biology were largely religious men, since education of the day would, as a matter of course, concentrate on theology first, science second.

They were men of faith who dabbled in science in their spare time. Mendel was a monk, Darwin a trained minister, Wallace a vocal spiritualist.

The premise of all these men was unambiguously that God was, of course, the Cause, the only thing for them to determine were the inner workings of His Chosen Method.

So yes, it is possible for men with even the wrong presupposition to find the truth, though not exactly in the way the the DI likes to imagine.

Stanton said:

I wonder if the people in Answers In Genesis really want people in this country to abandon science, or if they just drum up religious anti-intellectualism in order to line their pockets. I mean, would Ken Ham care if he helped lead the United States back into a new Dark Ages, with Dark Age-style rates of mortality? Or would he be too busy counting God’s money to care about people dying of disease, famine, diarrhea, violence, not being pious enough, and speaking one’s mind?

Neither, I fear.

Ham, Gish, Wells, Johnson, all the others - they really do believe that God created all things on a succession of days, by exercising his Almighty powers - that is, supernaturally - and that no further enquiry by humans is seemly or feasible. Within the limits of interpretation, (over which they might differ on points of detail) they really do believe that the Bible’s account of the early history of the world is absolutely factual, because the Bible’s account is inspired by God and must be true.

They really do believe that acceptance of this is necessary to a moral life, that acceptance of it by most people is the necessary foundation of a moral society, and that acceptance is in any case necessary for personal salvation. They really do believe that. And they believe that they are called by God to testify to these manifest truths before men.

As for the money, they regard it as a proof. God favours them, as is plainly demonstrated by the fact that He has provided. It’s important, for it enables God’s work to be done, and allows His servants - themselves - to be maintained as is meet and proper, but it’s really only a method of keeping score.

I give them this much credit, that they really do believe these things, that evidence to the contrary simply doesn’t exist for them, and that they dismiss the necessary material consequences of their beliefs. What can such things matter in comparison to establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth?

They’re crazy, of course, but craziness like this has a name - fanaticism. And human fanatics are the most dangerous things to other human beings that exist on the planet.

I suppose I feel a call to testify against them. I can’t think why else it would matter to me, as a non-biologist, non-scientist. But I am a historian. I know fanaticism when I see it, and I know what fanaticism has wrought upon the world.

Dave Luckett said:

Neither, I fear.

Ham, Gish, Wells, Johnson, all the others - they really do believe that God created all things on a succession of days, by exercising his Almighty powers - that is, supernaturally - and that no further enquiry by humans is seemly or feasible. Within the limits of interpretation, (over which they might differ on points of detail) they really do believe that the Bible’s account of the early history of the world is absolutely factual, because the Bible’s account is inspired by God and must be true.

Is there any way of pointing out to these fanatics that lying and slandering in God’s/Jesus’ name accomplishes nothing but harm, and that Jesus specifically said, as according to his biographers in the New Testament, that He frowns on such behavior anyhow (i.e., such as his admonishment about millstones and the ocean)?

Stanton said:

Dave Luckett said:

Neither, I fear.

Ham, Gish, Wells, Johnson, all the others - they really do believe that God created all things on a succession of days, by exercising his Almighty powers - that is, supernaturally - and that no further enquiry by humans is seemly or feasible. Within the limits of interpretation, (over which they might differ on points of detail) they really do believe that the Bible’s account of the early history of the world is absolutely factual, because the Bible’s account is inspired by God and must be true.

Is there any way of pointing out to these fanatics that lying and slandering in God’s/Jesus’ name accomplishes nothing but harm, and that Jesus specifically said, as according to his biographers in the New Testament, that He frowns on such behavior anyhow (i.e., such as his admonishment about millstones and the ocean)?

In a word – no. Frankly, I believe that they have so brainwashed themselves, and others unfortunately, that they have no idea what pathological liars they have become. How else, or why else, could anyone summarily dismiss reality (real evidence) in favor of myth? It is because they are convinced that their religion is not myth, but fact. And as fanatics, no amount of real evidence will ever convince them otherwise. I do not believe they have the slightest clue how detrimental they are to the general public – on the contrary, I believe they think they are providing the ultimate service; winning people over their particular religious truth. The result of their lying can be seen throughout threads on this site (and others). The irony to me is while they are trashing many of the underlying foundations of current science and technology, they have no qualms about exploiting the devices it has provided. Sorry to say, but it is my opinion that the general public at large, at least the U.S., is, quite frankly, science illiterate. Either they just do not care, or they think it is too complicated, or more often then not, they think they already know all about it – and ignorance rarely recognizes itself. I dread the day (very soon) when my daughter begins school around here. In the bible-belt, when science meets religion head to head, it is not hard to guess which one will lose. Not with my kid!

Mike said:

OMG, Richard Hoppe’s hair migrated from the top of his head to his face. I swear that last I saw him he had hair and no beard. Can’t recognize him.

That would have to have been in 1968. :) My beard is older than most people!

Is there any way of pointing out to these fanatics that lying and slandering in God’s/Jesus’ name accomplishes nothing but harm, and that Jesus specifically said, as according to his biographers in the New Testament, that He frowns on such behavior anyhow (i.e., such as his admonishment about millstones and the ocean)?

No.

Over on Premier Radio’s forum, I’m repeatedly told by one poster that I’m merely making assumptions if I present any evidence at all that shows the Earth/Universe cannot be 6,000 years old (distances to astronomical objects for example). All science is apparently just an opinion. It’s impossible to argue with that kind of attitude.

P.S. It would seem lying for God is perfectly acceptable.

Peter Henderson Wrote:

Over on Premier Radio’s forum, I’m repeatedly told by one poster that I’m merely making assumptions if I present any evidence at all that shows the Earth/Universe cannot be 6,000 years old (distances to astronomical objects for example). All science is apparently just an opinion. It’s impossible to argue with that kind of attitude.

That’s when you have to remind them that OECs and most IDers disagree with them, not just “Darwinists.” So they have no reason, except a cheap political one, to single out “Darwinists.” Besides, sometimes (though not much lately) IDers insist that they are just about the science. And their chief spokesmen are quite clear that their “science” is consistent with mainstream chronology, with earth and life billions of years old, and plenty of death before modern H. sapiens came along.

YEC leaders occasionally criticize OEC and ID, but it’s fun to watch the rank and file squirm, especially if they’re unaware of the internal (YEC-OEC-ID) feud.

NJ said:

Arnie Miller said:

I was the chair of the organizing committee for NAPC in Cincinnati and wanted to comment on the question of publicizing the meeting and registration issues. While it is true that much that went on at the convention may have been too technical for non-specialists to follow, a special “Education and Public Outreach” day was built into the meeting on Thursday, and it was inexpensive ($25, plus a little more for lunch and parking). This day included sessions that definitely would have been of interest to people interested in “broader”, societal themes in evolution and paleontology, one of which was the panel discussion led by the PT crew. While we advertised the session widely to teachers in the region, we could have done a better job with publicity. In retrospect, one obvious place for us to have posted information about the meeting, and especially the E. and P.O. day, was this very website.…

Lessons learned!

Arnie Miller

Yes, but do you still have a Turtox Pigs t-shirt?

I have no doubts that Mr. Arnot M. Iller still possesses his Turtox Pig Shirt (Pigs Rule!). I bet he still has his Beard-Dipping Club Membership Card. “Say, NJ, do you have a moment? Have a seat. As I was saying about that g-d-d–n Luis Alvarez. Did I ever tell you about my time at STAN-ford?”

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Prof. Steve Steve published on July 1, 2009 10:49 PM.

Some polling data on evolution was the previous entry in this blog.

Send Prof. Steve Steve to Antarctica! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter