Difference between revisions of "Talk:3068: Rock Identification"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The funny part is it works the other way round: you first identify minerals by sight (also Mohs scale and polarizing microscope), then conclude what the geologic context is. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.232.25|172.71.232.25]] 11:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC) | The funny part is it works the other way round: you first identify minerals by sight (also Mohs scale and polarizing microscope), then conclude what the geologic context is. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.232.25|172.71.232.25]] 11:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think this random "it was wrapped in the bill, no idea where the money came from" also implies corruption and destroying the traces of the money, instead of just payment or tip. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:29, 27 March 2025
I made a transcript New editor (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
It might also imply that the geologist doesn’t know but just wants the $5 so comes up with an answer 198.41.236.163 00:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I doubt they're lying about what rock it is since both mica schists and garnets are visually obvious and even more obvious if a scratch test is performed.172.69.186.157 04:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
The funny part is it works the other way round: you first identify minerals by sight (also Mohs scale and polarizing microscope), then conclude what the geologic context is. 172.71.232.25 11:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I think this random "it was wrapped in the bill, no idea where the money came from" also implies corruption and destroying the traces of the money, instead of just payment or tip. --Lupo (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
