New e-mail absurdity

To me from my PI:

Dear CFS,

As you know, there is some confusion on the double deletion strains (OMG...yes....Dr. Ass Hole started the e-mail with “as you know...” I fucking hate that!).

1. Please tell us ASAP what data you have on which strain.
2. Did you use that "good" strain for testing complementation?

Me:
My initial thoughts - ASSSSSSS HOLLLLLEEEE.....I’ve been working on this project for 3 years now.....so Dr. Ass Hole has seen this data, has been sent this data, and has read this data a million fucking times!!!

My actual response - I have used 3 different isolate strains; 380, 288 and 289. All of my complementation strains were in 288 or in 380, and yes these strains are “good”.

I did test 381 in March 09. I was doing a head to head with 380, 381, 288, 289. All strains behaved similarly, except for 381 in which I noted that the 381 strain was growing on selection plates that it shouldn’t, given its supposed genotype. I also indicated that we had doubt in this strain anyway...which I don't elaborate on, but I can only recall you had a question mark next to 381 in your book. If I'm remembering correctly this was why we wanted to remake the strains and why I had made the 288 and 289 strains in the first place.

Dr. Ass Hole response:
Did you test 380---and did that strain have any differences from the others?

For 381, I will check with the tech.

Did the growth phenotype of 380, 288 and 289 all have same result?And did you check if the remaining events still are centered predominantly in the our region for any of these strains?

......and so ends another day......hummmmm