|
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
Subject: RE: STEGOSAURS: SPECIAL
CREATION
-----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
Subject: STEGOSAURS: SPECIAL
CREATION
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
Tetanurae@aol.com
I’m
just going to lurk from now on!!!!
Tracy L. Ford
P. O. Box 117
Poway Ca 92074
|