[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur Calendar Contest Winner(s) - 2
>From HP Baeker's memento of a scintallating thread:
I just got hold of a preliminary report of scraposaurus [a subtriangular
bone fragment with side length of about 10cm] and added it with
327 characters (of which 199 were ?) to my theropod character
Unfortunately, he apparently missed the post in which the 128
additional characters were described as measured with a ruler
on the photograph, which supplied the 10cm length. In the absence
of a scale, the author tested his results twice, once assuming
the animal larger than giganotosaurus and the second time smaller
than a hummingbird.
The results of both analyses were the same, proving the conclusions
A still later post asserted the find to be fossil dandruff from
a feathered beastie. The subsequent commentaries were shrill.
A post he did locate noted:
I do not accept HP ?? classification of scraposaurus. Using
the Jefferson method I looked at the fossil from horseback, and
rather obvious that it looks most like a sea-shell, especially
light is dim. So it should not be classified as a dinosaur at
Because the post he used as source included bits and pieces of
38 other posts, all without attribution and with whole lines
of '>'s, the quotation is garbled. The original post read:
[Apply]ing the Jefferson[ian] method, if the fossil represents
bone, then, as Jefferson so correctly notes, because the use
of bone in classification schemes leads to unseemly discord,
the fossil should be ignored in the interests of amiability and
a fair regard for the good opinion of humankind.
Yours for civility...
An erudite and imposing commentary with which I find myself in
entire agreement. Considerate effusions are, after all, the
hallmark of our little band. Well, we're all too bad to be band,
but never scrofulous, except on holiday.
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.