[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
[request for flame-down deleted]
Thanks for the head-whack. I re-read what I wrote and agree it was
a bad case of stupid flaming. It's been real muggy here lately :-)
My apologies to Sherry. I promise to keep the tone on an even keel.
>I personally believe
>an impact happened there and have been swayed by much of the evidence,
It sounds like we have the same views on the impact hypothesis.
>So, back to the K-T discussions. Nothing is fully settled and there is
>no reason for this flaming condescension that seems to get so developed
>in some of the notes. Some of the comments on this topic, and also in
>the discussions of SUE, have entered the realm of religion and are
>non-scientific in their nature. Stop it and relax.
The flaming point is well taken. Since you brought up SUE, I'd appreciate
some specifics as to what you think of the issue. Where have I gone astray
on this one? I've taken great pains to post factual material about the
subject. I've received a stack of email from dino readers thanking me for
all of the information, sources, and research notes that I've posted,
which include a specimen catalog for T. rex and much anatomical and
pathological data from the study of SUE. I'd welcome any info or insight
you might have about SUE, as I'm sure would many of the readers here.
No flames, I promise!
>I don't know why Alroy was so strong in his arguments for the impact
>because the data still need to stand up to more scrutiny. I say this even
>though my opinion and evaluation of the evidence is probably very similar
>to his. I just know how quickly evidence can become non-tenable at this
>stage in the investigation of events like extinction events.
Maybe he lost his cool for the same reason I did. People don't like
being labelled "unscientific" because they advocate the impact hypothesis
as a major contributor to the K/T extinctions.
Thanks to your tactful comments, maybe we can exchange our differing
ideas in a more polite tone. I'll certainly try. But beware, responding
to posts with blanket statements labelling the asteroid hypothesis a
trumped up media-fanned hype with no evidence to support it is not very
productive either. And posting rah-rahs like "Yeah, tell em Sherry" has
only one purpose, flame-baiting.
Here's a few substantive questions to get back on track:
What would happen to an ecosystem(including dinosaurs) if there were
suddenly a very thick dust cloud introduced to earth's atmosphere?
(Assume the cloud persists for 3-4 months.)
How much sampling do we need to do before we can have confidence that
the dinos definately were checking out before the Ir layer was deposited?
(Or have we already done enough?)
> So, what I've long-winded here is to suggest that if you cannot
>introduce your arguments and data in a civil manner, than you should
>think twice about stating them at all.
Agreed. But don't forget, this IS the net. We can have a little fun
here too. Most people have trolled around enough to see what real
ridiculous flaming looks like. I've never seen any of that here,
thats why I like this group. There is a consistently high signal
to noise ratio here, along with a steady flow of timely information
and informed speculation. The Holtzs, Alroys, Friesens, Rowes et al
make this IMHO the best read on the net.
- Re: Religion
- From: Sherry Michael <firstname.lastname@example.org>