So how do you spell DNA?

Well, this explains PZ at least.

Tip o’ the PCR machine to Twitter follower jnaz.

September 7th, 2008 10:35 AM by Phil Plait in Humor | 20 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

20 Responses to “So how do you spell DNA?”

  1. madge Says:

    So the verbopressin hormone makes you misrepresent or make things up? Can we synthesise an antidote? Only for use on conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists and the like. We will give the creative artists and writers etc full freedom
    :)

  2. madge Says:

    Oh and BA? Any chance of reinstating the Sunday night live web chat? I know you must be really busy ( Oh Great One ) with JREF and the book and cons and EVERYTHING, but we, your humble minions, sure do miss our Sunday night fix.( madge goes off to prostrate herself before the illuminated alter on which stands the sacred i-madge of THE ONE we (who are not worthy) call The Great and Munificent Phil)
    :)

  3. Jewel Says:

    Madge - I like the way you think.

  4. Gary Ansorge Says:

    I absolutely LOVE the last sentence in that “article”. Most writers could use such a suppository to get them off their couch and running,,,

    Should forward this to Colbert,,,

    GAry 7

  5. madge Says:

    Jewel- I like the way you like the way you think I think….I think :)

  6. Pierre Says:

    This explains PZ you say? Well, if anything in that article was even remotely true, it
    woudl show that PZ’s science writing gene is in excellent shape (ah, a folding joke).
    PZ write wonderfully well, as we all know.

    Myself, I like the VERY last sentence of the article, the Reference to the monogamy gene
    stupidity we’ve been hearing about recently. The science writing gene story is a good
    satire of that bunk.

  7. Freiddie Says:

    Is it a parody? Or not?

  8. Monkey Says:

    Parody.

  9. David Says:

    It’s almost entirely a “quote” of the New Scientist article with an amazingly small number of changes. There is a “Reference” at the end of the article to the original, or at least the first part of the original, unless you subscribe to New Scientist.

  10. Nicole Says:

    Best line ever:

    “Not only that, men with two copies of IMl33t were more likely to pull random facts out of actual research and completely misinterpret them.”

    Tee hee hee. Silly boys! ;-)

  11. Nicole Says:

    Wow, I thought it was completely made up… thanks for that, David!

  12. Dave Hall Says:

    madge Says:
    So the verbopressin hormone makes you misrepresent or make things up? Can we synthesise an antidote? Only for use on conspiracy theorists, religious fundamentalists and the like. We will give the creative artists and writers etc full freedom

    Just ONE more use, please?
    Can we make in liquid form and then use the government’s secret chemtrail aircraft to spray it over Washington DC. With an extra dose on the White House and the Capitol Building?

  13. The Science Pundit Says:

    That spells DNA.

  14. Michael Lonergan Says:

    I’m heading to the doctor next week to get my IMl33T levels checked, and see about my oreillytocin levels.

  15. Radwaste Says:

    “In neocons and fundamentalists, receptors for the two systems sit at adjacent desks, so grant applications get a lot of attention, leading to government funded research into why the government shouldn’t fund research.”

    I detect contamination by the Adams virus. That’s OK. I wish I could write like Douglas, too!

  16. Davidlpf Says:

    I wonder if there is a genetic connection between not being flexable with definations with words like irony or gas.

  17. CandidoH Says:

    I wonder if IMl33t also affects twitch reflexes in computer games…

  18. ChesterM Says:

    I suspect IMl33t also causes people to periodica1ly repl4ce rand0m 1etter5 wi7h numb3r5 th4t l0ok l1k3 13773r5.

  19. JTDC Says:

    It should have been IM1337. n00bs.

  20. Links and Video of the Week (2008/37) :: cimddwc Says:

    […] Bad Science Writing Gene found in people (via Bad Astronomy) […]

Leave a Reply