On Sep 12, 9:54*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Giles" wrote in message

...







Things get done by people who:

1. Know what needs to be done.
2. Have an inclination/reason to get it done.
3. Can command the necessary resources (money/labor/space/materials/
etc.) to get it done.
4. Have the requisite experience/expertise/knowledge/tools to get it
done.
5. Have the time to get it done.
6. Can stay focused long enough and/or often enough to get it done.
7. Have the requisite authority/permission to get it done.....or do it
anyway.

It has been my good fortune to know a good few such people off and on
throughout my life. *They have been a constant source of inspiration
and admiration. *I have also been fortunate in actually being such a
person (admittedly by sheer happenstance and on a modest scale) on
rare occasions.

thanks for sharing your self-congratulation, once again.

I'd be interested in learning what it is I'm being congratulated for.

As one person, or
more, is fond of saying, YMMV.

Hm.....stroking the diminutive member.

introductions and CV had been exchanged

hoo, boy. That should have been good.

Not very. But when asked, it is considered polite to answer.

Dan looks at me and says (and I quote), "O.k., why are we here?"

the same thought occurred to this reader, at least.

And doubtless to others as well. It even occurred to some among us
who were there.

Hypovirulence. *There is a virus.....well, actually a tribe of
viruses.....that ingest and otherwise thrive on the Cryphonectria
fungus, the villain in the American chestnut drama. *There are many
strains of Cryphonectria, so it is a good thing that there are also
many strains of the virus that attacks and weakens them. *But it DOES
make life complicated.

a discussion of Cryphonectria, and why it has become the villain would have
been informative.....

No, it would have been any more informative. It would simply have
been information on a topic other than that I wished to write
about. If you want to inform the folks here about Cryphonectria
from your own vast store of knowledge, please be my guest. And
Cryphonectria is not a villain. Cryphonectria is a fungus. Fungi
don't have a great deal more intent (evil or otherwise) or intellect
than snots.

you might have chosen to enlighten us with that, as
opposed to a description of consuming breakfast,

Or I might have chosen to do any of innumerable other things. But
those weren't things I wanted to do.

but I suppose, that's my
scientific training getting the best of me......

No, that has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific training.....as
any reader with even a bit of it surely understands. That's just your
surly childish petulence shining through.

And it happens like this......

ok, I've slogged this far, we'll get to the point now, I figure....

Funny thing is, you KNOW what an absolute ass you are making of
yourself here.

*Then they get down to business. *It takes all
of four minutes. *Dan hangs up the phone.

Approval must await the next application and funding cycle.....a
matter of a few months. *This means exactly nothing. *The deal is
done. *The funding will appear. *The work will go forward. *The world
has turned.

so, that was it?

Yep. That was it.

They got a grant project approved(at least on a verbal
basis)?

Uh huh.

Do you have any idea how often this happens, every day, in every
field of science?

As a matter of fact, yes, I do have a pretty good idea.

Further, can you comprehend how such verbal agreements
often de-materialize into bureaucratic backlogs?

I've seen that happen. Comprehend? Well, at some level or other, I
suppose. Why don't you go ahead and make it crystal clear for all
those fans who can't get enough of the REAL dope?

I hope for the best, and
all, for this project(hell, I am alarmed as the next guy over the fate of
American Chestnuts, as well as the fate of much native flora and fauna),

Alarmed about the chestnuts? Huh? What? Has something happened to
the chestnuts?

but
to tell the truth, nothing is really 'gotten done' until the project
generates data, and points the clear path toward progress addressing the
problem.

Well, that actually depends on what it is that one wants to 'get
done'. If one wants to get a project started, then something has
"really 'gotten done'" at the inception of the project. There are
people who make a pretty good living 'doing' no more than that.

As you are no doubt well aware, this can happen through both
positive or negative findings,

Ooh! Ooh! That's science talk.....right? I'm right, ain't I? Yeah,
I'm right. Go on and tell me I'm righty.

but simply glad handing after an initial
planning session doesn't speak, in any way, to accomplishment.

Depends on what one wants to accomplish. Look at your efforts here,
for example. Some doubtless find them fairly reeking of
accomplishment. Others may differ.

Frank Reid
provided a salient example of accomplishment, as illustrated by the final
results.

Ah yes, results! Who needs beginnings when you can skip right to the
results?

g.
who suspects he will somehow get no less busy.

doing what, is always the part that's unclear,

What would you like to know?

but it's good to know we can
count on a long-winded essay describing your pivitol role in modern
biological advances.

Well, ONE of us has alluded to his "scientific training" here.

Now, was there any discussion of WHY the virus class in
question is not already present, given the presence of a preferred media of
reproduction?

I didn't hear any such discussion (there were eight of us, eating,
drinking, walking, crawling, etc., in ever shifting groups), but there
may have been. Not likely though, and not for long. Everyone there
was already pretty much up to speed on the current best guesses
regarding that issue. This is attributable, in large part I think, to
the fact that none of the participants relies much on ROFF for
scientific revelation. But then, most of those present probably don't
know that you are here.

If so, I didn't read it in your piece.

Well now you have. All ya gotta do is ask the right questions.

And if not, was there
any discussion as to potential deliterious effects of introducing same to
the ecosystem involved?

The virus(es) involved are dedicated parasites. The only deleterious
effects arise from the fact that the virus cannot live without its
host. Thus, if you want the virus, you MUST have cryphonectria for it
to feed on. These people are plant pathologists.....they ain't much
interested in healthy trees. But then, as a highly trained and
dedicated man of science, you already knew that.

Hell, Wolfgang, it seems like a potentially
interesting and beneficial program of study about to be embarked upon

Well, as a beneficiary of scientific training, you would undoubtedly
know more about that than I.

......I
just wonder what makes it in any way different from the numerous examples of
well-intended tinkering with nature that has had provable detrimental
effects for our environment.

Really? Do you? You ain't real bright for a trained scientist.

I also wonder why you choose to not name the
research principals.

See my response to Bill Grey.

Is this supposed to be top-secret?

Of course. That's why I published it here.

It would seem like
something unnecessary, and, at the same time sort of puzzling.......

It may well seem unnecesary. But the truth of the matter is that
research in pretty much any field is highly competitive in these days
of shrinking budgets. Many of those involved are in fact secretive
about their work, for good or ill. And no, I can think of no reason
to doubt that you find any or all of this puzzling.

Come on, lad, you can do better.

You really think so? Well. Gosh.

A little less about the importance of Wolfgang,

You saw something about the importance of Wolfgang in that? Good god,
you have gotten stupid in the last couple of years.

and a bit more about the actual issue at hand might have been nice.

O.k., hows about you tell me what the issue at hand is.....and I'll
see what I can do.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

Idiot.

g.