|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 9, 2020 10:01:16 GMT 5
Not necessarily (although I DO like big dinos). This is the most aesthetically appealing of all the Carch skeletals. Bulky, well designed; what's not to like? I'm sure we can agree it's at the least more visually appealing than this:  |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 9, 2020 10:08:52 GMT 5
As if there were objective criteria for how visually appealing black and white (and grey?) digital skeletal reconstructions are?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 9, 2020 10:11:11 GMT 5
Not necessarily (although I DO like big dinos).This is the most aesthetically appealing of all the Carch skeletals. Bulky, well designed; what's not to like? You just like to dig your own grave, don't you? since you used Franoys in your post, how is his not "bulky" or "well designed"? Answer: It isnt the biggest. Laughable content. ...It's really not. Its a black on white sihlouette in both portrayals. again, like i said in the shoutbox, in the realm of fanatics, bigger = better. You really make it heard to take anything you say seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 9, 2020 10:11:29 GMT 5
As if there were objective criteria for how visually appealing black and white (and grey?) digital skeletal reconstructions are? 100% this. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 9, 2020 17:34:21 GMT 5
Okay, maybe that was a bit lacking on context. But I do think SIW's Carcharodontosaurus is very underrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 10, 2020 0:00:01 GMT 5
Considering the fact it was 14.5m long a handful of years ago no its not.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 10, 2020 0:15:35 GMT 5
This is the updated one. I agree the old, really really big one is bad.
Nowadays many act as if Franoys' skeletal is the only one and that's why this is underrated
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 10, 2020 0:22:29 GMT 5
I really never would have guessed, it's not like we just had a discussion about his new one maybe a day or two ago. People with exaggerated figures don't tend to get the best reception. SIW also discusses with franoys in making these skeletals, so i'm not sure what your odd little ramblings about him keep being brought up like it's a bad thing his are widely accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 10, 2020 0:36:15 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 10, 2020 0:42:04 GMT 5
Yeah mate i just said that. Pay attention. That's probably because it is factual.
You really take DeviantArt comments to heart don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 10, 2020 0:46:01 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 10, 2020 0:52:53 GMT 5
You pointed out what i already said? Okay....Do you actually think before you say things or do you just blurt them out?
Once again, vainly attempting to quote someone else to bolster your argument because you simply lack the capacity to form a coherent and concise, original thought. Laughable content.
To say it isn't a factual, (or to a lesser and insinuated degreee less well designed) skeletal is so beyond laughable you probably just destroyed any little shred of credibility you had
These are well designed, well researched and constructed skeletal diagrams using the literature and the measurements therein. To say they are not "factual" is ludicrous. The person you just failed to use in your argument doesn't even make that claim, either. Once more, a nail in your coffin.
Inb4 "How?"
This did make me laugh though, bless you.
Anddddddddd so do you. Marvelous.
Mind you, you've already blurted out several comments in the shoutbox that outline you as a marvelously inept hypocrite, so take care in your next response.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 10, 2020 1:58:33 GMT 5
1: You pointed out what i already said? Okay....Do you actually think before you say things or do you just blurt them out? 2: Once again, vainly attempting to quote someone else to bolster your argument because you simply lack the capacity to form a coherent and concise, original thought. Laughable content. 3: To say it isn't a factual, (or to a lesser and insinuated degreee less well designed) skeletal is so beyond laughable you probably just destroyed any little shred of credibility you had These are well designed, well researched and constructed skeletal diagrams using the literature and the measurements therein. To say they are not "factual" is ludicrous. The person you just failed to use in your argument doesn't even make that claim, either. Once more, a nail in your coffin. Inb4 "How?" This did make me laugh though, bless you. 4: Anddddddddd so do you. Marvelous. Mind you, you've already blurted out several comments in the shoutbox that outline you as a marvelously inept hypocrite, so take care in your next response. 1: I linked it to give more context and that it could be potentially helpful for further comments, such as this one. 2: And? What's wrong with quoting SIW? He put it very well that no particular data interpretation is guaranteed. Take whatever floats your boat; for me it's SIW's and that is why I use it. 3: By saying it wasn't factual, I meant it was not guaranteed or set in stone. Franoys' skeletal is indeed very plausible, as is SIW's, but neither are guaranteed or set in stone because Carcharodontosaurus is poorly known and there are several different ways to interpret data, each one of them basing their skeletals differently. 4: I am not taking it as set in stone like they are. Just saying that it is the one that floats my boat. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 10, 2020 23:45:58 GMT 5
1: You pointed out what i already said? Okay....Do you actually think before you say things or do you just blurt them out? 2: Once again, vainly attempting to quote someone else to bolster your argument because you simply lack the capacity to form a coherent and concise, original thought. Laughable content. 3: To say it isn't a factual, (or to a lesser and insinuated degreee less well designed) skeletal is so beyond laughable you probably just destroyed any little shred of credibility you had These are well designed, well researched and constructed skeletal diagrams using the literature and the measurements therein. To say they are not "factual" is ludicrous. The person you just failed to use in your argument doesn't even make that claim, either. Once more, a nail in your coffin. Inb4 "How?" This did make me laugh though, bless you. 4: Anddddddddd so do you. Marvelous. Mind you, you've already blurted out several comments in the shoutbox that outline you as a marvelously inept hypocrite, so take care in your next response. 1: I linked it to give more context and that it could be potentially helpful for further comments, such as this one. 2: And? What's wrong with quoting SIW? He put it very well that no particular data interpretation is guaranteed. Take whatever floats your boat; for me it's SIW's and that is why I use it. 3: By saying it wasn't factual, I meant it was not guaranteed or set in stone. Franoys' skeletal is indeed very plausible, as is SIW's, but neither are guaranteed or set in stone because Carcharodontosaurus is poorly known and there are several different ways to interpret data, each one of them basing their skeletals differently. 4: I am not taking it as set in stone like they are. Just saying that it is the one that floats my boat. Except it's not in the slightest. The problem is you lack originality in your thought process and rely on the words of others far too much for a basic conversation. This is just a damning emphasis of this. All while vainly expressing disdain for people doing this with franoys; hypocrisy 101. "concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it." I mean it really is, much of how it is reconstructed is very much "guaranteed" or "set in stone". This is the problem with arguing with dinosaur bois, they always use this as a de facto excuse to try and slide their misguided thought processes. I'd know, i was one. moving on. "IMO by far this is the best Carcharodontosaurus skeletal" "it actually does it justice as a giant theropod" "it's way more aesthetically pleasing than this(Franoys' Carcharodontosaurus). Three direct quotes from you that are in direct contradiction of this comment. If you can't see the fact that these kinds of remarks are very similar to the one you take issue to regarding people on franoys skeletals, there is not a need to keep this conversation going. This is just a remarkable demonstration of your laughable hypocrisy. Like this reply you just made, i suspect your next one will be very weak as well. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 10, 2020 23:54:58 GMT 5
1: I linked it to give more context and that it could be potentially helpful for further comments, such as this one. 2: And? What's wrong with quoting SIW? He put it very well that no particular data interpretation is guaranteed. Take whatever floats your boat; for me it's SIW's and that is why I use it. 3: By saying it wasn't factual, I meant it was not guaranteed or set in stone. Franoys' skeletal is indeed very plausible, as is SIW's, but neither are guaranteed or set in stone because Carcharodontosaurus is poorly known and there are several different ways to interpret data, each one of them basing their skeletals differently. 4: I am not taking it as set in stone like they are. Just saying that it is the one that floats my boat. 1: Except it's not in the slightest. 2: The problem is you lack originality in your thought process and rely on the words of others far too much for a basic conversation. This is just a damning emphasis of this. 3: All while vainly expressing disdain for people doing this with franoys; hypocrisy 101. 4: I mean it really is, much of how it is reconstructed is very much "guaranteed" or "set in stone". This is the problem with arguing with dinosaur bois, they always use this as a de facto excuse to try and slide their misguided thought processes. I'd know, i was one. moving on. 5: "by far this is the best Carcharodontosaurus skeletal" "it actually does it justice as a giant theropod". Two direct quotes from you that are in direct contradiction of this comment. You are dense. 1: And? just because it didn't end up as helpful doesn't mean it's the end of the world. Moving on. 2: Again, what on earth is wrong with directly quoting someone else to save time? I could have put it into my own words, but it was faster and easier as well as more convenient to just quote SIW. 3: I don't take issue with people USING Franoys' skeletal. The issue is people acting as though it is the only good skeletal, the only possible interpretation, and set in stone. 4: Where is your time portal to the Cretaceous period, then, that Carcharodontosaurus was 12 meters and 6.4 tonnes instead of 12.95 meters and 9 tonnes? What I'm saying is that no one possible interpretation for fragmentary remains of animals is absolutely guaranteed, both Franoys's and SIW's included. 5: That's why I said IN MY OPINION. |
|
