[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Interesting hypothetical...
I am sorry to be quoting the entire message but having just arrived home
from the hospital I was not in on the beginning of this thread so please
bear with me.
Consider the fact that the original poster of the hypothesis and his
brother may be young people (anywhere from age 7 though 13 or 14 perhaps)
and with your mocking and belittling attitude you have perhaps just turned
a viable interest and curiosity into a humiliating experience. One of the
best ways to learn is to ask questions and one of the ways young people
learn is to equate something unknown/ancient ('raptors') with something
known/modern (Marines). I am not saying that for an adult to post such
things is right or that this person should post a whole string of : "Well
if the raptors can beat the Marines how about a T-Rex...or a Stegosaurus or
......." ad infinitum but there should be latitude for everyone.....that
is, the age/experience of the persons involved should be taken into
account. I am an adult and as an adult I, like probably everyone else on
this list, have said or done something incredibly dumb on more than one
occasion. However if whatever I did elicted the response you posted to
these young people it is extremely likely that I would not only be afraid
to open my mouth again but that I would tend to shy away from the subject
and persons associated with it for some time. In other words, For Gods
sake! Lighten up!! I didn't notice anyone else getting so bent out of
shape over the question. Remember that you too up there in your lofty
tower at one point were young/inexperienced and even you needed to ask
Louise Sugar Donning flameproof underwear ;D
PS Sorry Mickey...I had to do it :D
From: dunn1@IDT.NET [SMTP:dunn1@IDT.NET]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Interesting hypothetical...
> From: Chuck Prime <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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
> 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
> 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
> spouted by Crichton's characters are fiction; the blaming of man's
> 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
> 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
> 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
> (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
> 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?
"You'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."
"Your proposition is acceptable."