Negative_Gravitas t1_je1lmoz wrote

On the one hand, there is an honest endeavor to seek more information about a particular question and being grateful for receiving that information (from a very likely reliable source) without drawing any conclusion as to the question's final resolution, but on the other hand, there is snark and completely baseless assumptions about a stranger's state of mind. Case definitely closed.

But you're right, and it's kind of amazing: even without the slightest shred of evidence, that guy on Reddit surely did sound really confident about what I was thinking.


Negative_Gravitas t1_jaxgujs wrote

No worries at all. Old brain here, too. Also . . . hm. I've been going back to Vonnegut a bit in my senescence. Just re-read Sirens of Titan and Galapagos a couple of months ago. Maybe it's time to give Welcome to the Monkey House another look. It's only been about 45 years. Cheers and good luck out there.


Negative_Gravitas t1_j8yojxj wrote

>Rey said that when he first brought up the project at international conferences no one believed him. “Everyone basically told me, ‘Oh no you’re making it up you’re wasting your time you’re wasting British Museum UK government funding’ – that’s what they were telling me,” he said.

That seems . . . odd. No one believed him? It seems like it would be very hard to get away with falsifying findings like this, and to not get away with it would be instant professional suicide. And to effectively and publicly accuse someone of fraud seems pretty close to libel/slander.

Strange. Probably I am missing something. At any rate, this is really cool and just goes to show that sometimes even the oldest and best known sites can still teach us new things.