You only mentioned later in the thread, after I posted, that the person you had excluded hadn't met criteria, or he *would* have been included, ("baby or no baby", passed on, as it were, to a burly coworker.) I didn't *have* that information when I first responded.
Unless this is the first post of Rivka's that you've ever read -- and if it is, I can't really imagine why you'd have started here, and why you wouldn't have read others before replying -- then you should know that she is a reasonable person who takes her job and the ethical responsibilities that come with it very seriously.
And, if you had that information about her, then you also have the information that the person in question would have been included had he met the criteria, because that's directly and obviously implied by the information that Rivka is a responsible person.
Instead, you seem to have been acting on some sort of information that the "how not to get into my study" was to be taken literally, despite the implications it made about Rivka's character. Where, I wonder, did you believe you got that information from? (And, can you see why your choice to believe "this statement is literal rather than flippant" instead of "Rivka is an ethically-upstanding researcher" might come off as an insult, regardless of your intentions? I don't think it's possible for the misunderstanding to be corrected unless you can see that.)
Re: What in the world?
Unless this is the first post of Rivka's that you've ever read -- and if it is, I can't really imagine why you'd have started here, and why you wouldn't have read others before replying -- then you should know that she is a reasonable person who takes her job and the ethical responsibilities that come with it very seriously.
And, if you had that information about her, then you also have the information that the person in question would have been included had he met the criteria, because that's directly and obviously implied by the information that Rivka is a responsible person.
Instead, you seem to have been acting on some sort of information that the "how not to get into my study" was to be taken literally, despite the implications it made about Rivka's character. Where, I wonder, did you believe you got that information from? (And, can you see why your choice to believe "this statement is literal rather than flippant" instead of "Rivka is an ethically-upstanding researcher" might come off as an insult, regardless of your intentions? I don't think it's possible for the misunderstanding to be corrected unless you can see that.)