(no subject)

UPDATE colorwheel criticizes top-posting updates to one's own posts. I can see why, on reflection. I'll do it once more just to annoy her. And then never again!

UPDATE Mystery solved (probably). Props to my crack team of aspartaimees. The parenthetical plea to the rest of the world still holds.

If you are "dunnewind" of AIM, please [feel no need to] tell me who you are [because I now know thanks to my CToA and also your own kind email], because you left me a message and I don't know who you are supposed to be [except that I do]. Your name is familiar but I probably dunderheadedly failed to note it the first time I heard it.

---

(General plea to y'all: if you wish to IM me, but think it's likely that you haven't contacted me before from that particular identity, please introduce yourself. It saves me from asking "Who's this?" repeatedly (if I'm there). Saying "You don't know me, my name is such-and-such" is fine, if that's the case. Otherwise you're just a hollow voice saying plugh, to me, and my mommy told me never to talk to plughs.)

Biochemistry Nutter OTD

There's this guy who for some time has been spamming a list of people, my boss among them, with a weekly email whose entire text content is the line "Small molecule lib wanted." (He is apparently asking for an HTS library of chemical compounds. This is not literally nonsensical, but it's like writing an email to a middle-manager at Microsoft and saying "Word processor wanted.")

My boss got a snailmail letter today from this fellow. The envelope's entire contents were a small strip of paper: "Small molecule lib wanted."

Small language note

I just observed the New York Times offhandedly mention "Web logs". While it's cool that the NYT now feels that blogs are ubiquitous enough not to deserve a dependent clause popping up to explain what they are with every first mention (I remember when "Internet" needed that kind of exposition), does anyone who leared about blogs through traditional mass media know them as any other name than "blogs"? I guess some NYT readers might, but ih... I guess this is a risk that a newspaper takes when it fastens a neologism in its style guide too quickly.