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

Re: Dinogeorge Digest #10



In a message dated 98-07-11 17:11:35 EDT, Dinogeorge wrote:

<< I agree. Almost every discussion on this list would benefit from a fuller
 fossil record. There is no way to test or confirm any but the most trivial
 hypotheses about dinosaur endothermy; dinosaur behavior, habits, ecology, and
 lifestyles; dinosaur phylogeny and relationships; dinosaur diseases; and
 dinosaur life appearance (color, stance, and so forth). On this list,
 therefore, we should discuss nothing but historical aspects of dinosaurology,
 dinosaur descriptions and nomenclature, and the reconstruction and life
 restoration of existing dinosaur specimens in motion pictures and as art.
  >>
 This message originally came to me as an off-list posting. Dinogeorge has an
excuse which I accept. This is the third time in a week, however, that I have
received Email relating to the dinosaur list where there is some kind of
confusion whether it is public or private. There is a little bit of a
difference in how I would write to only one person and how I would write
knowing that my words would be accessible to the entire planet, as they are
here on this list. I sincerely hope this confusion comes to an end. 
 As to my inclusion in Dinogeorge's post, I am a little bewildered, as I have
not entered into the "BCF" discussion to any extent at all, aside from some
heartfelt congratulations after the recent National Geographic article. Some
of the most rewarding discussions to me here on the list are those with the
many paleolife artists worldwide, including those who work in the motion
picture industry (which Mr. Laurel says is still in its infancy). I've made
some friends here and I've learned a great deal here. I have no desire to see
anyone be limited in their discussions except, that is, for the basic ground
rules.Thanks.
 Dan Varner.