[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: OH NO! NOT "RAPTORS" AGAIN!
David Hill wrote:
> Now Come on Brian, This is hardly relivent.
It was precisely relevant, since it addressed a statement made by Allan
Edels. My response was perfectly legitimate.
> Am I corect in saying that, no one cares what nick-names dinosaurs > might
No, you're not correct. *I* care. "Raptor" is not a type of dinosaur, no
matter what Michael Crichton, Steven Spielberg, and Don Lessem say to
the contrary. Allan made the allusion that people think of dromaeosaurs
when they hear the word "-raptor" used as a suffix in a dinosaur's name;
this needs to be nipped in the bud, since as I mentioned there are
*other* dinosaurs with the suffix "-raptor" in their names that are
*not* dromaeosaurs and are not even related to each other.
> P.S. Let's try not to waste everyones time with pointless banter > like
> this (there has been allot lately).
Ask yourself which was a bigger waste of time to list members: My post