[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Re Unwin's cladogram - long
----- Original Message -----
From: "Unwin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:55 AM
Subject: Re Unwin's cladogram - long
Dave Unwin wrote:
> Re Peters post entitled:
> Unwin's cladogram - long
> I have
> absolutely no ability in any way, shape, or form, to devise, code or
> polarise relevant, or in some cases, and speak not what follows aloud,
> lest some hideous demon emerge from the very pits of hell and drag you
> down to an everlasting fiery torment, irrelevant phylogenetic characters.
I always thought that about you, Dave!
> analysis, pitiful and misbegotten creature that I now know it to be,
> shares much in common with other recent studies by Bennett and Kellner
> [and therefore] they too [might think] that their work must also be
Don't worry Dave, Alex and I know that our bits are brilliant and it is only
when you attempt to use them that they become foul, stinking, odious, and
repulsive phylogenetically uninformative characters.
S. Christopher Bennett, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Basic Sciences
College of Chiropractic
University of Bridgeport
Bridgeport, CT 06601
"Savor the sun--but when the clouds come make animals" (Hexum)