pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/12/85)
In article <389@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > Pam Pincha quotes me as saying: > >>> Picture >>> ancient man exterminating EVERY SINGLE ONE of the double-sized >>> super-rhinos or megalotheriums on this planet with knives and >>> spears. That is what Bill Jefferys, Stan Friesen et al would >>> have us believe happened. > Then says, and I quote: >>AAAAARGH!!!!!!!!!!:-) >>I CARE TO DIFFER WITH THE BLANTENT MISDIRECTION OF THIS ARTICLE! >> >>In my reading of the articles listed (and the ones the I have posted) >>NO WHERE was it stated that man killed off ALL the mega-fauna!!!!!!! >>In fact I SPECIFICALLY STATED that was not the case!!! READ YOUR >>ARTICLES CAREFULLY!!!! > > Now, the original quote from Jefferys, about a month and a half ago, was: > > >>It is well established that the first people in the >>Western hemisphere were responsible for the extinction >>of most of the large mammals in North and South >>America. They had nothing but stone weapons, but their >>methods were extremely effective. > > If I exxagerated in quoting this one, it wasn't by much. Don't jump > into an argument a month and a half late and assume you know what's going on, Pam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I still maintain that being the factor that led to extinction (ie. being responsible for it) and actually having to kill off EVERY one of the beast themselves is TWO DIFFERANT THINGS! The reference quote you just gave doesn't imply the later either. >> >>Point 2 - In regard to no fauna recorded being wiped out over an >>entire continent until recently __WRONG!WRONG!WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! >>This has happened quite frequently throughout geologic history. >>The most distinctive of these are the INDEX FOSSILS geologist >>use all the time to distinquish ceertian areas, and time periods. >>These are very significant and usefull indicators. >>So on this point you have been grossly mislead!! > > You talk about ME misquoting other people? I wrote: Note: I never mentioned deliberate misquoting -- misunderstanding maybe, to which I mentioned some more objective study might be useful. > > " Consider that no instance is known of an entire species > being exterminated from a major continent in recorded history > other than at the hand of man, and that only recently, within the > last several hundred years. Ancient man had neither the > capability nor the inclination for such feats. Most of the > cases of species extermination which science books like to go > over occured on islands." Sorry. I stand corrected. My mistake. Mea cupa, mea cupa, mea maxima cupa. > I don't intentionally misquote other people and I don't like being accused >of such, and I don't like people misquoting me or setting up straw men at my >expense, Pam. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was accusing you of misquoting other people intentionally. That was not my intent. What I was responding to was the misdirection I felt that the article contained. > >>Point 4 - In reguards to the texts used on dinosaur calculations >>and such. These texts wouldn't have those type of calculations >>anyway! They are VERY GENERAL overview texts that make no pretentions >>of being in depth texts! I suggest you check on Romers texts and >>the journals (Journal of Paleontology) for you mathematical cal- >>culations. The books you mentioned are beginners texts and the calculations >>are long involved and BORING. General beginnig text rarely mention >>such. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES EXIST!!(Another good example of the >>"magical thinking"that is rampant in some of the replies on this net. >>Note:That was an editorial comment Mail all flames, don't clutter >>the net with them,please. Thank-you) Go look again. > Note: The reference above to mailing a reply was made inreference to my comment within the brackets, not the rest of the article. As to my mailing my reply, I would have done so if our mail facilities would have let me (I tried be it got sent back..). Now as to the weight lifting problem, I don't feel that the calculations were at all definitive, or based on a reasonable set of assumptions. One cannot compare the weight ratio and muscular requirements of such two completely different bone structures to begin with. The rest of the assumptions have already been addressed in other articles most of which a more reflective of a knowledge of such matters than I saw in the article you admired. In the future,I will try to keep the flames banked. P.M.Pincha-Wagener