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

Re: Interesting hypothetical...



> From:          Chuck Prime <prime@winternet.com>

> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Harold Hutchison wrote:
> 
> >     Two dozen velociraptors in an operating pack with the usual
> > killing claws and hand claws on the one hand and a squad of Marines, 
> > with full body armor, M16 rifles and M203 grenade launchers slung 

> Judging from your question, I have to wonder how you ever found this list.
> 
> And judging from the responses so far, you might or might not get an
> answer here, whereon everyone so constantly rails against errors and
> proclaims their intent to correct them.
> 
> Of course, one can argue whether your post deserves a response at all--and
> even whether it was posted seriously--but I have my reasons for believing
> it deserves being addressed at least once and at least in the following
> manner. (And since it doesn't require very technical knowledge of
> dinosaurs, I can de-lurk to address it myself).
> 
> You and your brother have no business arguing about _any_ scenario,
> hypothetical or otherwise, until you have decided whether to argue it
> based on the known and theorized facts of reality, or whether to base it
> on a complete flight of fancy--or whether to mix the two and thereby end
> up with a complete flight of fancy.
> 
> So far, you have chosen fancy. Jurassic Park and Lost World are fiction,
> as are the books that spawned them. The central premise that extinct life
> can be revived through fossilized DNA is fiction; the misanthropic "ideas"
> spouted by Crichton's characters are fiction; the blaming of man's follies
> on his capacity for reason and productivity is fiction; and the dinosaurs
> with clever minds and indestructible bodies are fiction. It is _all_
> equally fiction and more or less equally erroneous. But just as some
> people see a worthless playboy of a "mathematician" proclaiming that
> scientific inquiry is a "penetrative act" [meaning: rape] against nature
> [meaning: the jungle god/dess] and bleat, "Baa-aa, this movie must be
> right," others see a nine foot long Velociraptor reasoning out how to open
> doors, and bleat, "Baa-aa, this movie must be right." (It is interesting
> to note how many people proclaim allegience to fact and science while
> blindly accepting as fact everything _but_ the dinosaurs.)
> 
> If you wish to debate your scenario based on fancy, you posted to the
> wrong list. I suggest instead a newsgroup or list whereon nobody has any
> standards whatsover about anything at all, and couldn't care less about
> acquiring any. Such a place isn't hard to find. Internet is full of them.
> 
> If you would rather debate your scenario based on reality, then start by
> asking yourself what the hell your point is, since man and dinosaur have
> never met and most likely never will. Assuming that you still have a
> reason to care about such a silly thing after answering that question, 
> then follow up by researching just what the hell a "Velociraptor" was and
> whether a well-armed, well-trained and battle hardened Marine could kill
> by himself (and without the grenades and the rifle) an entire pack of the
> Asian dog-sized pseudo-birds whose intelligence was closer to that of an
> ostrich than that of a dog, a chimp or a human.
> 
> Oh, you didn't _know_ any of that about the raptors, eh? Are you just as
> ignorant about the arms you would have them facing as well? Wouldn't it be
> just as pointless to argue your scenario if you didn't know a tactical
> shotgun from a walking stick? Then why bother to engage in debating
> phantasmagorical scenarios involving the _dinosaurs_ you are completely
> ignorant of?
> 
> I have to doubt it's because you want to learn, any more than those who
> have simply mocked your post did so because they want to teach.
> 
> But just in case, I suggest finding a good and relatively current book
> about dinosaurs, and reading it from cover to cover. "Archosauria" by John
> (McLaughlin?) comes to mind; "The Dinosaur Heresies" by Robert Bakker is
> very good, but is written at a very conceptual level putting forth
> sweeping theories concerning animals you don't yet understand the concrete
> facts about; "The Dinosaur Enclyclopedia" published by the Dinosaur 
> Society (I think--my copy was lost in a home disaster) will provide an
> excellent source of concrete-level reference material about every
> then-known dinosaur.
> 
> Other more qualified people on this list can suggest other reading
> materials, and I'm sure there are some here who would. Many of them have
> _written_ such materials, so I would take their knowledge of dinosaurs
> rather seriously, if I were you.

So, raptors or marines?

Cheers,
 
Larry

"You'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

"Your proposition is acceptable."