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


There's something wrong going on here and if you don't get it, then the problem is essentially yours.
YOU just came in saying "stegos are not this , are not that ..etcetc" and provided NO evidence about it; being not satisfied with this, you just said that everything that has been tested and retested for years is just nonsense, because  that knowledge was achieved by means of cladistic analysis(not always, though, I suppose). Now, having stopped after your first claim(stegos are not thyreophorans) would have just made your statement sound like a tenfolded kinmanian one, no more, but you didn't just say that......
Being childish to this point, at your age, is a big problem, since it means you can't control yourself, which in the context of the DML is not a great problem , but what about the real world??
it really sounded like this: << Hey hey little friends of mine, hear this: I know this -but it's a secret- and I just can't tell you anything more about it or mom will beat me....if you just try to convince me to tell you something, then I'll get hangry and won't consider you friends of mine anymore,ok?>>
if you cannot substantiate your hypothesis because someone's working on it, and just don't want to be asked to, then refrain from telling people that they're fools because they think one thing's one way while you (and few other chosen ones) know for sure it's the other way around!  This is kind of a commonly accepted ,widely respected social  unwritten "law" which you should observe or just retire on St.Helen island  and spend there the rest of your days (the alternative is ceasing writing to the list, which is full of damn idiots , like you've just written)
I think other DML members are way too tollerant about this kind of behaviours....if you were a ten y.o. boy I would understand and nobody would say anything about it....now nobody does indeed say anything to you , so I may suspect they're aware of some deep secrets of your mind I'm not aware of...will have to check.
Filippo calzolari
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:02 AM



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu]On Behalf Of Tetanurae@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:21 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu


Tracy Ford wrote:
<<First, Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs are not related, not even closely. Thanks
to the missbelief of this and cladistics it keeps getting perpetuated (I'm
just say'n in this case :) ).>>

I am confused by this Tracy.  Are you saying that stegosaurs were created seperately from all other organisms?  That they had some special origin outside of all other life on Earth?  Last time I checked, stegosaurs and ankylosaurs were pretty clearly dinosaurs, were pretty clearly ornithischians, and were pretty clearly outside of Cerapoda.  Perhaps Thyreophora is not exclusively monophyletic, BUT saying that "they're not related, not even closely" is just not right...

Peter, are you ok? Are you on drugs, feeling sick? Whats your problem? I’m trying to understand why you wrote what you did. It’s completely insensitive, totally sarcastic. I NEVER SAID STEGOSAURS WERE NOT DINOSAURS!!! Jesus Christ, this just makes me really want to just leave the list. This is making it really easy for me to just say F*&()(  this list, these people are nuts!!!

<<Scelidosaurus is an ankylosauroid (or ankylosaur) and NOT at the junction of
thyrophean, which doesn't exist. Norman is working on this and should have
the paper out soon.>>

I look forward to reading it.

<<Jim Kirkland also believes this (pers. comm..).>>

Although I respect Dr Kirkland, and yourself very much, I don't see how saying "so and so says so" lends any support to your case as you've not really provided any character evidence in support of a paraphyletic Thyreophora.  It's an argument from authority.

What the hell do you want me to do. Not give a heads up on current theories or screw up other peoples research just because idiots on this list want it? I will NEVER tell this list my research or my reasons now, thanks for pushing me toward that!!!

>>Again, I am really curious about the alternate topology and the character evidence that supports it.<<

Screw that, I will not frustrate myself with this list with any research now.

>>  I am perfectly willing to let objectivity take over on this one, and if the characters say Thyreophora is paraphyletic, then I will too.  There's a problem though... I haven't heard or seen any character evidence to the contrary, and in fact have seen a lot of evidence support thyreophoran monophyly, and it's not just "presence of armour."<<

Pete Buchholz


I’m just going to lurk from now on!!!!


Tracy L. Ford

P. O. Box 117

Poway Ca  92074