Whoops!
I don't often misspell to create puns, but it seems funnier not on purpose.
How clairvoyant you are. Dev.
In article <7ag12s$324 at sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, flefever at ix.netcom.com(F.
Frank LeFever) wrote:
>>>If it's any consolation, this process WOULD result in the
>"concellation" (i.e. reduction to constituent cells) in the first
>step...
>>F. LeFever
>>>In <7adu4i$lsh at dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> devdootm at ix.netcom.com>writes:
>>>>If it's any concellation, I thought it was funny, very funny actually.
>>I believe one of my professors prefers to use "homogenize the hell out
>of" the
>>person, but anyhow...
>>:) Dev.
>>>>>>In article <36c5dc0f.31746671 at news.casema.net>, koetje at boe.nl (Wookie)
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ok. here is the secret.
>>>>>You take a person, put him/her in a blender.
>>>>>Blend for 30 minutes, room temperature.
>>>>>Put the residu in an Erlenmeyer Flask and add some
>>>>>Everything-but-DNA protease.
>>>>>Do this for three days by 350 K.
>>>>>Then use a light microscope to read all the A's C's G' and T's in
>>>>>linear order and Bingo you got THE SECRET INFORMATION.
>>>>>>>>>>Wookie
>>>>>>>>>>>>Sarcasm is not effective unless the recipient is capable of
>>>>understanding it as such. In any case, the homogenizers I
>>>>have available in my lab require that you process the person
>>>>in small aliquots.
>>>>>>>>>>>Well,
>>>Since the original poster seems to be refering to some alchemistic
>>>proces, the unraveling of a big secret by mysterious ways,
>>>I don't think he'd capable of understanding anything at all.
>>>This is supposed to be a neuro science NG , so don't come here with
>>>irrelevant questions, but even that seemed to difficult for the
>>>orignal poster.
>>>What proportions must these aliqouts have by the way?
>>>>>>Wookie
>>>>>>>
