Conclusions concerning the T. rex

My advice to you is the same that I used to offer 'Cal' back when I bothered: If you are so convinced of the correctness of your opinion, publish it for the scientific community to scrutinize! The feedback you receive in this forum may or may not reflect current thinking in the scientific community, so don't be bashful (like 'Cal' seems to be)

Getting a bit breathless with adulation there, aren't we Corvoon ? I strongly disagree with your assessment of the T. Rex. In my humble opinion, it belongs in the same category as the Dodo. A creature that painted itself into an evolutionary coffin corner, and paid the ultimate price for it. T. Rex was not wiped out by the K-T killer. It was already almost extinct by then, if not completely extinct. Even if there were a few T. Rexes around, the K-T killer was only the coup de grace to a dying breed.

Nature's most perfect masterpiece is the cockroach. It was here long before the dinosaurs, and it will be here long after we are fossils ourselves.

john thrum

Naw, the roach is nature's most 'popular' masterpiece. Of course, then again, when I referred to the Rex as nature's most perfect masterpiece, I was partially (mostly) swayed by my own aesthetic opinion of the beast. I've always found it to be a very beautiful

No, that is not my claim. There is just one rather persistent cyberstalking loon and he does have some allies among the cladists.

In a biology newsgroup you do need at least the basics in biology. You have none. If you are going to claim that Horner presented no evidence that T. rex is a scavenger, then you have to present evidence that T. rex can travel in excess of 40mph. You have no such evidence. It is not surprising that you 'conversed' with 'Chris Ho-Stuart,' since the cyberstalking loon answers his own posts with different aliases. In fact, the cyberstalking loon, when he was a magazine editor, used to answer his own letters that he sent to himself in the letter to the editor column. Of course, you are conversing with your other aliases in the many graffiti posts to this newsgroup right now. Of course, your cladistic allies will claim that I am paranoid. But that is understandable since they are on your side and since the cladists are just as dishonest as you.

Ho ho, this is a new one! Which magazine are we talking about Cal?

Snippage. . . .

Yep, looks like you have met and recognized our little snake in the grass. Harmless little striped thingy that masquerades as a dime store coral snake, all puffed up with self importance and dripping with venom. Oh, how are you doing there Cal ole buddy ole pal!

OBTW, the next convention of the 'Cal King cyberstalkers' will be conducted in Las Vegas Convention centers (yep, we needed all of them!) come next fall! Be there with your particular set 47 different Cal-baiting egos and we can mix and match! ))))

Yep, that term 'paranoid' does come to mind along with 'grandiose illusions of importance'. . . . .

Anyway, welcome aboard! Its an illustrious crew, bet if we look hard we can find a potential Nobel or two lurking in the background!!!! 8-)

Regards

If you need to know the basics of biology, why are you posting here? You claim that avian dinosaurs (birds) aren't actually dinosaurs at all...no more than a whale is a fish at least (of course this comparison doesn't work because whales *did* descend from fish, as did we, as did humming birds and cobras, so cladistically speaking, they, and all other tetrapods, are a type of 'fish'. You claim that cladism is invalid, and that T. rex was a scavenger.

What are you going to say next? That the fossil record was formed during a global flood some 5,000 years ago? That the world was created in 4004 B.C.?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

^^^^^^^^^^

Using the term 'The T. rex' in both the title and in the body of your post proves that you have no formal training whatsover in biology. No biologist will call T. rex 'the T. rex.' unless he is referring to one particular individual of T. rex, and you clearly wasn't.

Get over yourself