[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Not-well-thought-out Paleo-positions.

Paleo-types are not getting the point. All the whining about raptor-this
and t-rex that isn't going to change human nature. Sorry. You can toss and
turn all you want but it isn't going to change. This position is not well
thought out.

Molator@aol.com wrote:

>There are many anoying things about Jurassic Park and other such movies.  The
>word raptor used when in meaning for Velociraptor has been misinterpreted to
>all dromaeosaurs.  Children used the term to identify a Deinonychus or
>whatever when they see such an animal with a big, sickle claw.  T. rex is
>another fine example as stated above.  Abbreviations and pet names should not
>be made and then broadcasted to a naive public to identify these magnificent
>creatures.  Screenwriters and authors should use full names and
>classifacations.  Just a thought.

Several people have made some wonderful analogies. One about the pine cone
comes to mind. Another one about armadillo's and platypus tried to
illustrate the point. But there appears to be close-minded resistance in
some, thicker than a "Pachy" skull out there because the obvious is
bouncing off like a laser on a mirror. I'll just say it:

No one cares about dinosaurs as much as dinosaur people do. They don't care
about the distinction between Deinonychus and Velociraptor and nothing is
going to change that because they don't really give the whole issue a
second thought.

I can already hear the outrage and outcry "By God that's the problem we're
complaining about that needs fixing!!" Well, complain all you want,
non-dinosaur people just aren't going to care. They're going to say
"Brontosaurus" So what?!! Is the world going to stop rotating?!! Why does
the lay public have to learn the proper way to classify dinosaurs? Why? To
satisfy the paleo-types? Why? The Gods of Paleo decree that all who don't
know that "Trike" is not PC shall be stoned?!! Excuse me, but that comes
across to me and others as intellectual snobbery. Period. Many "scientists"
on this list still quote what was believed to be absolute limitations in
physics that was true fifty years ago but is no longer accepted as true
according to the physics of today. So what? They're not physicists. They
don't care as much about physics to keep up with it, as they do about
dinosaurs. And in order to become dinosaur experts, they don't have time to
keep up with the latest discoveries in physics. Probably never will. If you
cry that the dogmas of science must be represented without artistic
license, without human light-heartedness in pop culture then I say that
science is becoming too much like a religion. Know as I know. Believe as I
believe. Talk as I talk. Do not say "raptor" that is BLASPHEMY!! Do you see
the absurdity in this game?!!

Brian (franczak@ntplx.net) wrote:

>Fine. As long as those nicknames and colloquialisms and terms of endearment
>REMAIN in pop culture. Beyond that, it *is* a big deal, and a very serious
>issue. While it may seem trivial to some, the use of the word "raptor" to
>mean dromaeosaur and the substitution of T-Rex for _T. rex_ are symptomatic
>of a far larger, far more serious problem, and that is the blurring of the
>line between science (reality) and popular culture (fantasy).

Blurring of the line between science and pop culture? I don't see how that
is possible regardless of this "issue". There are scientists and
non-scientists and that's probably the way it's always been and always will
be. Is one side winning and the other side losing? I don't think so. I
think science is more in danger of becoming a religion than it is of being
killed off by the pop culture media. Beware of DOGMA!!

>So now I'm an intellectual snob. Interesting. Just for the record, Mister
>Lazarus: in responses to my posts to the list since February, you have
>called me (directly or indirectly) an ugly-headed cynic, a chowderhead,
>uptight, and now we can add juvenile and stupid to list as well.

Hey, I also said some nice things about your work. Gotta take the bad with
the good. Sorry if you were offended. "Chowderhead" is supposed to be a
light-hearted characterization. When I state these opinions I don't mean
that I think you or anyone *is* a "chowderhead" or "stupid" or "juvenile".
I mean that in my opinion someone is *displaying* attributes of "stupidity"
or "immaturity" or "chowder". No one is stupid all the time or immature all
the time. I sometimes use colorful metaphors because they illustrate the
thought more powerfully and I often feel very passionate about some of the
discussions here.

The way this whole issue comes across to me is this: Either complaining
about these non-scientific nicknames is simply banging your head against
the wall because non-dinosaur specialists are never going to care enough
and are too busy in their little worlds of expertise to learn the
professional distinctions OR complaining and condescending is a way of
feeling superior to those who are not "in the know" and this is what smacks
of intellectual snobbery. Please don't be offended and no one should take
these views as a personal attack.

Please let's not let science become anymore dogmatic than it already is.
The world does not need another religion.

Getting all uptight over this issue just seems pointless and a waste of time.

Raptoringly Yours,
S.S. Lazarus