Improbable Research

AIR Vents (Part 1 of 2)

Exhalations from our readers

NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions.

A Row Over Mel

Oops. I am thrilled that you published (AIR Vents 9:3) the photo I sent you of Mel and our chemistry department and the alumni on one of their annual picnic/research outings. But my letter contained a grievous error. Mel is in the SECOND row — not the first row — somewhere on the left. I am very sorry about my mistake. I have heard from many Mel enthusiasts, and written each of them an apologetic letter explaining what happened. But I fear that the number who wrote (and continue to write) me is tiny compared with the number of your readers who are seething at the wrongness of my initial description. I would be most grateful if you were to publish a correction.

Jenson Davies
Professor Emeritus
Chemistry and Life Biology Department
Adamantine University
Adamantine, Utah

---

Inquiry About an Inquiry About Mel

I am writing to ask about Chloe Alonso, of the Instituto de Clima, in Argentina, who wrote the letter about that man Mel (the one whose photograph keeps proliferating in your letters page) that appeared in AIR 9:3.

Is that the same Chloe Alonso who wrote several letters to the Journal of Climate Data Archiving in 1992, and who also published a regression analysis of the likelihood of micro-tornadoes in Namibia in the journal Hypothetical Climatology in the period 1987-1993?

If so, could you please put me in touch with her? I have a bone to pick.

T.K. Kumar, Ph.D.
Climate Resource Study Group
Nunhai, Agra, India

---

Re-Measured Response

I am humbled. You kindly published my letter (AIR Vents 9:3) in which I wrote:
“ In answer to may several critics: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.”

I concluded that letter with the statement: “That, I trust, settles that.”

Now, new information has been brought to my attention. While the details of it are not conclusive -- nay, they are far from that! -- they are suggestive, even perhaps highly suggestive. In fairness to my critics, I must revise, at least slightly, my previous stance. And so I say now unto them: “PROBABLY not.”

Dr. Milton Stanstonehaugh, retired
Glasgow, Scotland

---

Pre-Re-Measured Response (1)

I am one of the critics to whom Dr. Milton Stanstonehaugh addressed his confrontational barrage, namely:
“ In answer to my several critics: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.”

Dr. Stanstonehaugh is dead wrong (or as my late father would have chucklingly put it, “he is confused”). I can only (and must) say to him:
“ Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.”

Dr. Robert Mayling, retired
Glasgow, Scotland

---

© Copyright 2003 Annals of Improbable Research (AIR)

This HotAIR feature first appeared in AIR Volume 9 Issue 4. For a complete list of strangely fascinating featured articles elsewhere on this web site, see What's New.