Re: The absurdity, the absurdity (was: Cooperating theropods?)

["Larry Dunn" <larrydunn@hotmail.com>]

From: Chris Campbell <sankarah@ou.edu>

>Uncivil?  Please.  Aside from the lawyer comment I haven't engaged in
>any personal attacks of any kind.  I have gotten frustrated, I'll 
admit,
>but never personal.  

You're defining away your penchant for condescension in your replies.  
Calling it frustration doesn't make it ok.

This penchant certainly wasn't limited to this thread. I've gone back 
over the archives for just a few months and come up with just a few of 
your "frustrated" replies:

                               * * *

> A small female wolf weighs about 40lbs and small male wolf  55lbs with 
a
> large male weighing 175lbs.  However 80-125lbs for both males and 
females
> is average so 50kg is right on average.

Average?  You're kidding, right?  

                               * * *

> I have to disagree with this one.  If _Triceratops_ charged each other 
> from a distance, the results would be fatal to one or both animals.  

(snip)

Please read what I wrote. 

                               * * *

> An old and often asked question about the final dinosaur 
> extinction is why certain animals went and others didn't.  

(snip)

And this would explain the extinctions of sharks and mososaurs how, 
exactly?  

                               * * *

>      A bullet can puch a hole in something quite a bit larger then its
> diameter.  

(snip)

Look at what I wrote.  


>  In a Cretaceous setting, the hyena-cheetah pattern would fit best 
with 
> tyrannosaurs and dromaeosaurs.  The smaller theropods would most 
likely 

(snip)

This is a dangerous assumption; first, your model is probably not
terribly accurate.  

                               * * *

> The last couple of posts that I've read on _T.rex_ have bashed 
Horner's
> hypothesis (and him to some extent).  Cut the man some slack.  

(snip)

Cut him some slack?  Why?  

                               * * *

You know, the way you phrase things is important.  Other people on this 
list can and do disagree quite strongly without these sorts of put-down.  
Take a look at the archives further and you'll see more of this on your 
part.  Finally, don't be shocked and surprised when others put you down 
in turn, because, frankly, behavior like yours makes it perfectly 
justified.

>If you're not in the sciences, you might want to listen to those who 
are
>before dismissing evidence out of turn.

Evidence that the hadrosaur Tenontosaurus was ripped open by the claws 
of Deinonychus, a claw you were trumpeting all along as good only for 
slashing until someone who'd actually given some serious thought to the 
idea drew you a picture you couldn't deny (leading you in turn to an 
abrupt about face as to its "obvious" use)?  

And in any event what "evidence" was I dismissing "out of turn" 
(whatever that means)?

>Really?  And you know this how?  I'm a wildlife biologist with an
>interest in the history of science.  How are they my colleagues, in any
>way other than the sense that all academic professionals are
>colleagues?  Please, tell me. 

Do you think you're the only wildlife biologist on this list?  I hope I 
don't need to explain how wildlife biologists are your colleagues.

>> So go for it.  Be condescending and call Betty stupid because she 
>> DARED to disagree with you -- 
>
>I didn't call her stupid.  I said she made herself look stupid by 
making
>claims that were demonstrably untrue.  

BIG difference.  And how about you with your claims of the slashing 
abilities of the dromaeosaur claw?  Did Jeff Martz point out how stupid 
you'd made yourself look (and you certainly made yourself look A LOT 
stupider with that than Betty may have done with her post).

Translation: don't call people stupid on the list, even if you think 
that they "deserve" it. 

>>and have fun living down your behavior in this thread and others.
>
>Given the positive response I've received from many list members (some
>professionals, I'll note) that shouldn't be a problem.  

Well, given that some of the people who were agreeing with you in terms 
of hypothesis wrote to me specifically to separate themselves from your 
snottiness, you may want to reconsider this position.

Apologies to all others for this off-topic and most unpleasant matter.  
Those of you who've been on the list for a while know the general tenor 
of my posts and should consider just what was necessary to turn this so 
ugly.

Larry

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com