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

Re: Everybody play nice!



I'm sorry for that message. I could not make a lengthly review of the
situation at that moment because i was in a hurry. The ulcerations of
the sauropods were probably from the attacks of theropods, meat-eating
dinosaurs. I'm surprised that he had not thought of that idea. I do not
know about _why_ mating sauropods would give ulcerations on the
underside, though.
-Compy07

 
> A few things have happened in the past couple of days to make me feel
> like I should elaborate on some etiquette particular to this list.
> 
> In the past I (and others) have complained about politics on the list.
> Paul Willis' recent message was *not* one that I would have complained
> about for one very simple reason.  Although he used a broad brush to
> paint his picture of Australian politicians, he did so in a context
> that was related to the preservation of particular dinosaur fossils.
> Politics is generally verboten, but if it's unambiguously relevant to
> dinosaurs or fossils I don't have any problem with it, and it seems to
> me that no one else should or does either.  In the past we've
> entertained discussions of fossil legislation (proposed or
> instantiated) in the United States, and I don't think anyone has ever
> complained about said entertainment (no pun intended).
> 
> In related news, we've had a recent message which drifted off into a
> discussion of animal rights.  I agree with Derek that extinction is
> generally a relevant topic for this list, but it wasn't really the
> focus of the original message.  Animal rights is a political topic
> that has nothing to do with dinosaurs (for the nit pickers I'll add
> "excluding birds"), and thus should not have been introduced here as
> the main subject of a message.
> 
> I see a stark contrast between the above two topics and I find it
> unfortunate that it was only the latter one that generated a
> discussion.  My advice is that if a message you're composing isn't
> clearly related to dinosaurs then you probably shouldn't send it here.
> If it isn't clearly related to dinosaurs and it addresses a
> contentious issue it *definitely* shouldn't be submitted here.
> Internecine battles (e.g. about dinosaur thermoregulatory physiology)
> are bad enough; off-topic internecine battles won't be tolerated.  If
> you want to start a fight... er discussion on such a topic, take it to
> private e-mail.
> 
> And since I'm already giving advice...  It's also not a very good idea
> to send short cryptic messages.  Short cryptic and sarcastic messages
> are an even worse idea.  For instance:
> 
> > Ever heard of THEROPODS?????????????????????????????????????????????
> > You know, those meat-eating dinosaurs???????????????????????????????
> 
> I wasn't even a little bit surprised when the person to whom the above
> was directed didn't understand the apparent point.  It took me a bit
> of thought to figure it out.  The author of the above was not saying
> anything about the sexuality of theropods; he was suggesting that the
> reported ulcerations on the sauropods' ribs were caused by theropods
> rather than other sauropods.  I don't know what "ulcerations" were
> being referred to in the message that drew that response, so I can't
> really comment on the content of the thread.  But quite frankly I
> suspect the author of the above didn't really know anything about
> these particular "ulcerations" either.  It appears to me that said
> author was more interested in making someone else look stupid than in
> furthering discussion.  If I've totally misinterpreted the message I
> apologize (though as I said; it was short and cryptic), but I think we
> can do better than that.
> 
> Thanks for your cooperation,
> 
> --
> Mickey Rowe     (mrowe@indiana.edu)