From: brantley@infonode.ingr.com (Dwight D. Brantley)
Subject: Re: Condoms = Russian Roulet
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:17:29 GMT

In article <6097.2AC45415@umagic.FIDONET.ORG> Robert.Wood@f17.n373.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Robert Wood) writes:
>-> I made this statement partly in jest due to the general flow of 
>
>
>    Oh, my... you are going to be fun! :-)  I'd never have suspected such a long winded response from a posting made just in jest.  You are correct in that it is plainly obvious that your examination was unscientific, without control, and statistically insignificant.  Since it was only in jest, I don't understand your response to an equally jestful criticism of your "findings."
>

WOA, WOA, WOOOOAAAA!!!  Nice shootin' Tex!  Now put your emotions back
in the holster for a second and go back a re-read my post.  The statement
which I made in jest was "Maybe this would make a good school science fair
project".  Don't you get it?  All this talk about what to teach/not teach
in school, science fair project about the effectiveness of condoms, Oh never
mind, it's not funny if you have to explain it.  :-(

I'm not going to argue further about the validity of my findings other than to
say that I have made an un-biased examination on one sample of Latex material
in it's "virgin" (if you'll excuse the pun) state and found no evidence of
any pores any larger than 60 angstroms (or 6 nanometers) in diameter.  My
findings are only the first in what could turn into a very lengthy
investigation for which I do not have the time.  What would your opinion
of my analysis been if I had found pores in excess of .5 microns in diameter?
That would have been rather conclusive evidence that the previously unfounded
statements made by a few on this group were true.  Even still, further tests
and analysis would be needed to conclusivly state without a doubt that Latex
condoms are worthless.  The first leg of my investigation simply does not
support that theory.  Futher analysis could very well turn this around but
I cannot spend the time to persue this right now.

>    By maintaining some defense of the validity of information that you yourself admits to be insignificant makes me wonder about exactly how much "jest" was in there! :-)
>

I hope I've made myself clear about just which portion of my post was made
(originally) in jest.  It is now clear to me that this might indeed make a
good science fair project for someone who has access to the right equipment.
My second post simply pointed out the irony of my jest by realizing that 
this might actually be valid material for a science fair project.

>REW
>
>P.S.  Fresh Meat!  I await your response in Flame, if you are up to it :-)
>

Since you do not clearly understand or take the time to try to understand
what you read, a flame fest would not be very productive.  I'm dealing in
facts and you're shooting from the hip with emotions, this also prohibits
a productive flame war.  Maybe next time.

      ******************************************************************
      *   Dwight Brantley    *   Failure Analysis & Reliability Dept.  *
      *  Intergraph, Corp.   *  Reply To: brantley@falab1.b21.ingr.com *
      *   Huntsville, AL     *           Voice: 205-730-4456           *
      ******************************************************************