Richard Ziprin (Richardlz at aol.com) wrote:
>gcole at clark.net (Gerald A. Cole) wrote:
> > In article <3u3rol$3e4 at terrazzo.lm.com>, darcoda at telerama.lm.com (S. Frog)
> > wrote:
> > > Okay, here's the deal: If you could do it, come up with a disease
> > > (either naturally occuring, mutation, or genetically engineered) that
> > > would do the most damage to the world at large.
> > > Gradings will be on virulance, what percentage of the population
> > > you can cack out, and grossness of the disease itself; i.e., huge nasty
> > > pussy boils, uncontrollable vomiting, etc....
> > > --
[Numerous criticisms deleted]
Just to inform you all, as the originator of this thread, that it
was not meant as a mockery of you or your science. It was not
meant as a joke, and was definitely not meant as flame bait. It was
actually a serious question, with an ulterior motive. I *tried* to keep
the mood light.
Unfortunately, it seems most of you have little patience with
light matters and are really too concerned with the infinitesimal to
bother to look up at the rest of the world outside of the miniature at
the other end of your microscopes. If you had, you might have seen that
all is not so neat and clean and clear-cut as those tiny worlds.
But don't fear; I'll never try to inject light into such a dark