From: Peter Neilson
Date: 1/30/2006
Subj: Report from Flynnmark

Apparently flynnd is still on vacation somewhere in Flynnmark. Regardless, it has sent the following report.

=========================

Here is a list of obvious errors in http://richardhartersworld.com/cri/2006/myfannish.html Please apply the obvious corrections.

[snip long list of blatant typoes]

Would you believe that I typed that up late at night while also destroying my kitchen and preparing to go to Italy? I hope so, it’s a good story, and I’m sticking to it.

The corrections will be made fifthwith (fifthwith is a bit slower than forthwith).

… continued on next rock …

I think that destroying one’s kitchen just might be the right way to prepare for travelling to Italy, given that the Italian food in Germany is so much better than that in Italy. Or so I have heard.

The rule of thumb in Italy is that tourist restaurants are suspect, a tourist restaurant being one in which the menu is printed in both Italian and English. We had some really wonderful meals in Italy and some that, ah, well, weren’t quite so wonderful.

By the way, avoid Chinese food in Germany – half an hour later and you’re hungry for power.

From: Colin Steytler
Date: 1/30/2006
Subj: On evolution!

To whomever reads this letter.

That would be me, Richard Harter

It would have been better if you had mentioned which article you were responding to; I have written quite a few articles on a surprising variety of topics.

Who am I? Well, no one special. Just a random being that was lucky enough to have evolved!

As a note, populations and species evolve, individuals don’t. Be that as it may, I commend your perspicacious observation that you are a random being.

Well no, it doesn’t.

You are here because I am very unlucky.

That certainly where your body is going. As to “you”, that is a different matter. If we have “souls” as part of our identity (I doubt that we do, but the matter is scarcely settled) then “we” might get reincarnated, be absorbed in the world soul, move to paradise, or any of many other possibilities.

I appreciate your sentiments even though your opinions are mostly codswallop. Still, isn’t it rather presumptious to demand that the universe have a grand purpose in which you have a central place? Most of us, be we atheist or Christian or Muslim or Buddhist manage to find meaning in our lives.

Who am I? Well, I am a child of God, made in His image and beloved of Him. I am created and planned by God.
Where did I come from? I was created abd ordained by God.
Why am I here? Because God planned for me to be here and has given me a purpose to live for in this life. Exciting hey!
Where am I going when I die? Well, I believe that you either go to heaven or to hell, for eternity.

One of the confusions you have is that you confuse body and soul. As a Christian you should clear your mind of these confusions.

I expect that it is better that you be a Christian than a next party bloke. It’s easier on your liver for one thing.

Er, well, I don’t quite think so. I suspect that Christianity does less damage than LSD, but I don’t want to muddle my mind with either one. That’s just a personal prejudice of course, so don’t mind me.

Hope you made the right choice, and don’t hesitate to mail me if you want to ask anything!

You know, I do believe I have made the right choice. Be that as it may, I think we have exhausted the possibilities of this exchange. I do thank you for writing though.

From: Holly Fritchman
Date: 2/6/2006
Subj: Hugh Miller/book

Hi I have an old book written by Hugh Miller – date of book is 1856 – title: Foot-Prints of the Creator. Inside jacket has the name of John Haldeman – November 1856.

Under a picture of Miller in the beginning of the books is a notation saying – “Yours very truly – Hugh Miller”

Can you give me any information on this book???

Unfortunately I can’t really tell you much about it. There is a Hugh Miller home page, www.hughmiller.org, that has a fair amount of information about the man and his work, though not as much as I would like. I tried to find a reference to the relevant John Haldeman but was unsuccessful.

Miller was a popular author in his time. He is important to those of us interested in the creationist movement because he was one of the group of writers who were both theologians and geologists at a time when it had recently become clear that the Earth was quite old and that Genesis was not factual history.

As to the value of the book I don’t imagine that it is high – Miller may have been popular in his day but as far as I know he is not prized by collectors. Still, it has value, and I would commend that you treat it well.

From: Chip Hitchcock
Date: 2/7/2006
Subj: bridge

I’m catching up slowly and tripped over Bridge I (October), in which you describe the probable distribution of 5 cards over 2 hands by

3-2 156/230 = 67.8% (20 cases) 4-1 65/230 = 28.3% (10 cases) 5-0 9/230 = 3.9% ( 2 cases)

You have to take into account that the probability of a card being in one hand or the other depends upon how many cards are already known in the two hands. To take a simple example, consider the probable distribution of 3 cards in two hands. The first card may be placed in either hand. Call it hand A, with the other being hand B. To get a distribution of 3-0 the second and third cards must also be placed in hand A. When the second card is placed there are 12 places open in hand A and 13 in hand B, so the chance that it goes into hand A is 12/25. When the third card is placed there are now 11 places open in hand A and 13 in hand B so the chance that the third card goes into hand A is 11/24. Thus the probability that both go into hand A is (12/25)*(11/24) = (11/50) = 22%. The bridge players call this the principle of restricted choice, but it is really just basic combinatorics.

Given that there are no amusement parks near me, can we have a Moebius strip instead. (I leave it to the reader to decide whether a Moebius strip is a ride or a girly show.)

From: Davida Kristy
Date: 2/6/2006
Subj: author?

Is Richard Harter the author of “Zhandivar” and “The Raven King”. When were they written?

To what does “Elonian” refer?

Richard Harter (me) is indeed the author of “Zhandivar” and “The Raven King”. Both were written in 1998. A third in the setting, “The keeper of her soul” also was written in 1998. There is a fourth poem in the series, “The Troll Queen”, which is incomplete.

Elonia is a mythical setting, permitting both a place and time for the poems, and an atmosphere of ambiguous fractured reality as well. Elonia and Zhandivar are myths to each other but sometimes there are passages between them.

From: barehams
Date: 1/20/2006
Subj: hey

Hi hon,

I found this recipe, and just thought I would like to have some for dinner.
Would you make it 4 me…puleeze????
call me and let me know what time dinner is at…

Luv you,
mom

Save a seat for me.

From: 2cjb1
Date: 1/9/2006
Subj: Genetic mutation

I have read a genetics related internet page and have a question. I am wondering why exposure to mutagenic substances, or to large doses of radiation is harmful? It would seem to me that since beneficial mutations are rare, when a large number of mutations occur over a relatively short period of time in an individual, the interconected functioning of genes (some genes may produce specific proteins, or enzymes, while other genes may act as regulators switching genes “on ” or “off”) creates the potential for serious problems. Thus being exposed to mutagenic substances, or high doses of radiation is always harmful. Is this correct?

You are more or less correct. Cells have elaborate biological machinery for keeping DNA replication accurate. This machinery has a cost in terms of energy and quickness of cell replication. In consequence the error checking is no better than it has to be, on average. High levels of mutagens (chemicals or radiation) tend to overwhelm the machinery. This varies with species; bacteria that live in nuclear reactor cooling water have extra efficient error correction.

By the way, most mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful. Of the ones that are, most are harmful, but there is a fair number that might be either, depending on the environment.

From: Mani Malagon
Date: 1/24/2006
Subj: (website)

What a great website. Thx for all the work.

You’re welcome. May you find much in it that tickles your fancy.

From: Chip Hitchcock
Date: 1/21/2006
Subj: 808

“Nothing can stop her, nothing can catch my 409” — the Beach Boys. (Somebody with better Google-fu than I have, or more patience, can probably find a complete set of lyrics.)

I needed that. I really needed that, but I haven’t the foggiest idea why.

From: bauhaus
Date: 1/18/2006
Subj: (none)

Hello

Goodbye.

From: Michel Durinx
Date: 1/13/2006
Subj: genomes and information

In your letters column (jan 2006) you wrote:

The fundamental point where you go wrong (a natural error for those of us working with computers) is to think of the genome as a program specifying the structure of the phenotype.

Therefore, if the casual reader of science columns gets the idea as presented for a decade by the established popularisers, and follows in their analogies and presentations, that’s hardly an error… Even most biologists will still have an idea of a genotype-phenotype map, whether using it as reality or approximation.

I’m sorry, but I don’t much agree. Dawkins was a proponent of the “genome as recipe” metaphor. This doen’t mean, of course, that his “selfish gene” metaphor didn’t inspire the “digital program” metaphor but the connection seems rather vague. The genotype-phenotype map mode of thinking has been around since the early twentieth century. It is scarcely fair to blame it on Dawkins. Likewise the concept of genome as digital program has been around ever since the discovery of the structure of DNA and the genetic code.

To tell the truth, I doubt that Dawkins has had much to do with the course of scientific research. The books that he is noted for are popularizations, and the content is too mushy to inspire research programmes.