No announcement yet.

An 'RFP' - perhaps.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    An 'RFP' - perhaps.

    This is funny - This is the style of writing we should have in every RFP Those of you that have ever done an RFP will, I am sure, appreciate this . (Admin please move this to the jokes forum if you wish).

    The story behind the letter below is that there is a nutball in Newport, Rhode Island, named Sam Hart, who digs things out of his back yard and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling them with scientific names and insisting that they are actual archaeological finds.

    This guy really exists and does this in his spare time! Anyway, here's the actual response from the Smithsonian Institute. Bear this in mind the next time you think that you are challenged in your duty to respond to a difficult situation in writing.

    Smithsonian Institute
    207 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington DC 20078

    Dear Mr. Hart

    Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled ?3211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid skull?

    We have given the specimen a careful and detailed examination and regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago.

    Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of the variety that one of our staff, who has small children, believes to be 'Malibu Barbie'. It is evident that you have given a great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen and you may be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of the specimen, which might have tipped you off to its modern origin:

    1.The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are typically fossilized bone.
    2.The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest identified proto-hominids.
    3.The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent with the common
    Domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during that time.

    This latter finding is certainly one of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily against it.

    Without going into too much detail, let us say that:
    1.The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a dog has chewed on.
    2. Clams don't have teeth.

    It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your request to have the specimen carbon dated. That is partially due to the heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD and carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results.

    Sadly, we must also deny your request that we approach the National Science Foundation Physiogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen the scientific name Australopithicus spiff-arino. Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you
    selected was hyphenated and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.

    However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this fascinating specimen to the museum. While is undoubtedly not a Hominid fossil, it is nonetheless yet another riveting example of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens you have previously submitted to the Institution and the entire staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your digs in the site you have discovered in your Newport back yard.

    We eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital, that you proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the Director to pay for it.

    We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9 mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

    Yours in Science
    Harvey Rowe
    Chief Curator - Antiquities

    Great response. *smile*

    Learn to love yourself, then learn to love one-another
    "O man! What has seduced thee from thy Lord Most Beneficent?" - Quran 82:6

    Sponsor and choose an orphan at alyateem dot com



      May The Madness Be Upon You!!!


        Just goes to show, that this Smithsonian folks have a lot of time on their hands (and I am sure they are handsomely paid for all that wasted time too). In the place of all this mumbo jumbo, three words would have sufficed....



          Hey are you sure this is a true letter? Any links to proove it. If it is I would sure like to share it with my communication writing professor

          An excellent way to approach the subject.

          I really liked the line scientific name Australopithicus spiff-arino. Speaking personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the species name you
          selected was hyphenated and didn't really sound like it might be Latin.



            Sorry hmcq, unfortunately no link. Non-the-less I am sure your professor will appreciate the humor