|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 11, 2020 0:04:02 GMT 5
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. It literally makes no sense in the context of the conversation to just repeat what i said. It's not a hard concept to grasp mate. Do not get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with directly quoting someone, but using only their words in your argument is not a proper debate tactic. It just shows you lack independant thought and/or originality. You a day ago: You indeed take issue with people using it. Contradiction 101. I don't need a time machine to know that both are well constructed reconstructions of the material that was represented in the literature, Many thanks for proving exactly what i said about the misguided thought processes of dino lads though. It's like a comedy at this point. The funny thing is i think i used the time machine excuse too a long time ago, unfortunately it isn't a good countering point at all. And it's their opinion that his is great too, and that's why they use it. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? You are marvelously showing that you have the same behaviors of people you are expressing disdain for and again, it is comedy gold. Not a solid rebuttal has come from your side of the aisle and no refutation of your laughable hypocrisy i just put on display. Come back when you can do that. It's only getting worse for you at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 11, 2020 0:15:17 GMT 5
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. 1: It literally makes no sense in the context of the conversation to just repeat what i said. It's not a hard concept to grasp mate. 2: Do not get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with directly quoting someone, but using only their words in your argument is not a proper debate tactic. It just shows you lack independant thought and/or originality. 3: You a day ago: You indeed take issue with people using it. Contradiction 101. 4: I don't need a time machine to know that both are well constructed reconstructions of the material that was represented in the literature, Many thanks for proving exactly what i said about the misguided thought processes of dino lads though. It's like a comedy at this point. 5: And it's their opinion that his is great too, and that's why they use it. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? You are marvelously showing that you have the same behaviors of people you are expressing disdain for and again, it is comedy gold. Not a solid rebuttal has come from your side of the aisle and no refutation of your laughable hypocrisy i just put on display. Come back when you can do that. It's only getting worse for you at this point. 1: Now that that's been established, it might be a good idea to move on, no? 2: If you insist, then. There is absolutely no guarantee for the size or exact proportions of Carcharodontosaurus because it is poorly represented in the fossil record. It is perfectly normal and to be expected that multiple plausible interpretations of given data can exist, and that's even more true when remains of an animal are scant and we have little to work on as is the case here. 3: How is that issue with me using it? Literally, just before that, I said them using it wasn't necessarily the issue. The problem is them taking it as if it's the only good skeletal and as if it's guaranteed. I have no issue whatsoever with people using Franoys' skeletal just so long as they do not act as I have just went over. 4: No, you wrote:Which neither one is. 5: As previously stated, I don't take issue with people using a plausible reconstruction that is different from what I prefer as long as they do not treat it like it's the only good one and like it's set in stone. I am doing neither one and I fully acknowledge SIW's Carcharodontosaurus could be inaccurate. Where's the hypocrisy in that? |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 11, 2020 0:33:41 GMT 5
1: It literally makes no sense in the context of the conversation to just repeat what i said. It's not a hard concept to grasp mate. 2: Do not get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with directly quoting someone, but using only their words in your argument is not a proper debate tactic. It just shows you lack independant thought and/or originality. 3: You a day ago: You indeed take issue with people using it. Contradiction 101. 4: I don't need a time machine to know that both are well constructed reconstructions of the material that was represented in the literature, Many thanks for proving exactly what i said about the misguided thought processes of dino lads though. It's like a comedy at this point. 5: And it's their opinion that his is great too, and that's why they use it. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp? You are marvelously showing that you have the same behaviors of people you are expressing disdain for and again, it is comedy gold. Not a solid rebuttal has come from your side of the aisle and no refutation of your laughable hypocrisy i just put on display. Come back when you can do that. It's only getting worse for you at this point. 1: Now that that's been established, it might be a good idea to move on, no? 2: If you insist, then. There is absolutely no guarantee for the size or exact proportions of Carcharodontosaurus because it is poorly represented in the fossil record. It is perfectly normal and to be expected that multiple plausible interpretations of given data can exist, and that's even more true when remains of an animal are scant and we have little to work on as is the case here. 3: How is that issue with me using it? Literally, just before that, I said them using it wasn't necessarily the issue. The problem is them taking it as if it's the only good skeletal and as if it's guaranteed. I have no issue whatsoever with people using Franoys' skeletal just so long as they do not act as I have just went over. 4: No, you wrote:Which neither one is. 5: As previously stated, I don't take issue with people using a plausible reconstruction that is different from what I prefer as long as they do not treat it like it's the only good one and like it's set in stone. I am doing neither one and I fully acknowledge SIW's Carcharodontosaurus could be inaccurate. Where's the hypocrisy in that? I much rather continue to show how flawed your argumentative style is. Not a proper reply, it isn't what i "insist", it is the facts surrounding how to debate. I didn't say the size was, i said there was a lot of "guaranteed" or "set in stone" surrounding how it is constructed. Literacy. Use it. Lol, you can't say that neither of them have guaranteed or set in stones elements of their reconstruction. that makes exactly zero sense. If there was not much of it set in stone, or guaranteed, noone would have a reconstruction of any prehistoric animal in the fossil record; the fact is, alot of it guaranteed (the shape, measurements of the material, etc), the differentiation is size may be different, but this is one factor of many. Why that i hard for you to grasp around the original statement of " much of how it is reconstructed is very much guaranteed", the world may never know. Once again, saying "no" is not a proper reply. Because it makes you a laughable hypocrite with no credibility to do what you've put on display. I will not repeat myself again. Very nice job of avoiding the point, i will admit that, but unfortunately a very nice display that your argument has zero substance. if it is their opinion his is one that they want to use over others, there is nothing really wrong with that, despite your inane insistence that this is some sort of issue whilst you simultaneously blurt out that SIW's Carcharodontosaurus is the following: - 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).
Your thought process is illogical and incoherent at best. Again, if these three comments were about Franoys', you'd no doubt be taking issue and rambling here, as you have on and off for the last few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 11, 2020 0:45:51 GMT 5
1: Now that that's been established, it might be a good idea to move on, no? 2: If you insist, then. There is absolutely no guarantee for the size or exact proportions of Carcharodontosaurus because it is poorly represented in the fossil record. It is perfectly normal and to be expected that multiple plausible interpretations of given data can exist, and that's even more true when remains of an animal are scant and we have little to work on as is the case here. 3: How is that issue with me using it? Literally, just before that, I said them using it wasn't necessarily the issue. The problem is them taking it as if it's the only good skeletal and as if it's guaranteed. I have no issue whatsoever with people using Franoys' skeletal just so long as they do not act as I have just went over. 4: No, you wrote:Which neither one is. 5: As previously stated, I don't take issue with people using a plausible reconstruction that is different from what I prefer as long as they do not treat it like it's the only good one and like it's set in stone. I am doing neither one and I fully acknowledge SIW's Carcharodontosaurus could be inaccurate. Where's the hypocrisy in that? 1: I much rather continue to show how flawed your argumentative style is. 2: Not a proper reply, it isn't what i "insist", it is the facts surrounding how to debate. 3: I didn't say the size was, i said there was a lot of "guaranteed" or "set in stone" surrounding how it is constructed. Literacy. Use it. 4: Lol, you can't say that neither of them have guaranteed or set in stones elements of their reconstruction. that makes exactly zero sense. If there was not much of it set in stone, or guaranteed, noone would have a reconstruction of any prehistoric animal in the fossil record; the fact is, alot of it guaranteed (the shape, measurements of the material, etc), the differentiation is size may be different, but this is one factor of many. Why that i hard for you to grasp around the original statement of " much of how it is reconstructed is very much guaranteed", the world may never know. Once again, saying "no" is not a proper reply. 5: Because it makes you a laughable hypocrite with no credibility to do what you've put on display. I will not repeat myself again. 6: Very nice job of avoiding the point, i will admit that, but unfortunately a very nice display that your argument has zero substance. if it is their opinion his is one that they want to use over others, there is nothing really wrong with that, despite your inane insistence that this is some sort of issue whilst you simultaneously blurt out that SIW's Carcharodontosaurus is the following: - 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).
Your thought process is illogical and incoherent at best. Again, if these three comments were about Franoys', you'd no doubt be taking issue and rambling here, as you have on and off for the last few days.
1: Meh, I'm dropping this part 2: It is not against the rules in (this) debate to quote someone else. 3: So, what you are saying is that the proportions Franoys gives are absolutely guaranteed? The only guarantees we have for this animal are its fossilized bones, which are too incomplete as they are and thus must be speculated based on relatives. 4: Again, as I said, the only parts of a fossil animal set in stone are that own species' preserved bones. Results will vary depending on interpretation, and none are guaranteed. 5: it's hypocritical NOT to do what I take issue with? 6: Where in those paragraphs am I claiming it is set in stone or that Franoys' is bad? I'm merely voicing my opinion that I prefer it to Franoys' skeletal, but nowhere am I saying Franoys' is inaccurate or bad or SIW's is guaranteed. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 11, 2020 0:51:30 GMT 5
1: I much rather continue to show how flawed your argumentative style is. 2: Not a proper reply, it isn't what i "insist", it is the facts surrounding how to debate. 3: I didn't say the size was, i said there was a lot of "guaranteed" or "set in stone" surrounding how it is constructed. Literacy. Use it. 4: Lol, you can't say that neither of them have guaranteed or set in stones elements of their reconstruction. that makes exactly zero sense. If there was not much of it set in stone, or guaranteed, noone would have a reconstruction of any prehistoric animal in the fossil record; the fact is, alot of it guaranteed (the shape, measurements of the material, etc), the differentiation is size may be different, but this is one factor of many. Why that i hard for you to grasp around the original statement of " much of how it is reconstructed is very much guaranteed", the world may never know. Once again, saying "no" is not a proper reply. 5: Because it makes you a laughable hypocrite with no credibility to do what you've put on display. I will not repeat myself again. 6: Very nice job of avoiding the point, i will admit that, but unfortunately a very nice display that your argument has zero substance. if it is their opinion his is one that they want to use over others, there is nothing really wrong with that, despite your inane insistence that this is some sort of issue whilst you simultaneously blurt out that SIW's Carcharodontosaurus is the following: - 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).
Your thought process is illogical and incoherent at best. Again, if these three comments were about Franoys', you'd no doubt be taking issue and rambling here, as you have on and off for the last few days.
1: Meh, I'm dropping this part 2: It is not against the rules in (this) debate to quote someone else. 3: So, what you are saying is that the proportions Franoys gives are absolutely guaranteed? The only guarantees we have for this animal are its fossilized bones, which are too incomplete as they are and thus must be speculated based on relatives. 4: Again, as I said, the only parts of a fossil animal set in stone are that own species' preserved bones. Results will vary depending on interpretation, and none are guaranteed. 5: it's hypocritical NOT to do what I take issue with? 6: Where in those paragraphs am I claiming it is set in stone or that Franoys' is bad? I'm merely voicing my opinion that I prefer it to Franoys' skeletal, but nowhere am I saying Franoys' is inaccurate or bad or SIW's is guaranteed. It's not against the rules, but that doesn't mean it makes your argument better to just use someone elses words. Go directly quote me saying that once. Literacy is evidently not your friend. that does not mean their reconstructions are not factual. I've outlined several little outburst comments of yours that make you a hypocrite. Nice try though. You have been going out of your way to show your "preferance" for SIW while making several comments of disdain for people doing this with franoys', which i already outlined several times. It's like talking to a brick wall at this point. Until you can form a proper reply, please don't reply. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 11, 2020 1:34:46 GMT 5
1: Meh, I'm dropping this part 2: It is not against the rules in (this) debate to quote someone else. 3: So, what you are saying is that the proportions Franoys gives are absolutely guaranteed? The only guarantees we have for this animal are its fossilized bones, which are too incomplete as they are and thus must be speculated based on relatives. 4: Again, as I said, the only parts of a fossil animal set in stone are that own species' preserved bones. Results will vary depending on interpretation, and none are guaranteed. 5: it's hypocritical NOT to do what I take issue with? 6: Where in those paragraphs am I claiming it is set in stone or that Franoys' is bad? I'm merely voicing my opinion that I prefer it to Franoys' skeletal, but nowhere am I saying Franoys' is inaccurate or bad or SIW's is guaranteed. 1: It's not against the rules, but that doesn't mean it makes your argument better to just use someone elses words. 2: Go directly quote me saying that once. Literacy is evidently not your friend. 3: that does not mean their reconstructions are not factual. 4: I've outlined several little outburst comments of yours that make you a hypocrite. Nice try though. 5: You have been going out of your way to show your "preferance" for SIW while making several comments of disdain for people doing this with franoys', which i already outlined several times. It's like talking to a brick wall at this point. Until you can form a proper reply, please don't reply. 1: It's not like it's lower quality either 2: I never said you were saying that; note the questionmark. I am inquiring about what you meant when you said that. 3: It also doesn't mean they are set in stone. Both are certainly PLAUSIBLE however. 4: Show me where I say Franoys' skeletal is inaccurate or where I say SIW's skeletal is the only good Carcharodontosaurus skeletal. 5: I'm just voicing my preference, not belittling other restorations like I take issue with. |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 11, 2020 4:40:25 GMT 5
Your argument is though.
You do this a lot. I'm not speaking portuguese, what i'm saying is not very hard to understand.
Textbook dino lad argument that goes in circles.
You have now spent half the day rambling on and on about how some people prefer franoys to other reconstructions and how that's negative only to come on here and ramble just a little bit more about how you think SIW's is the best "in your opinion. It's very textbook definition hypocrisy. Quit beating around the bush, we're all hypocrites in some degrees of our lives.
Sure, and so are other people when they say they have a preference. I don't think i've ever seen someone fuss as much as you over this, it is exceedingly asinine.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 11, 2020 5:20:57 GMT 5
1: Your argument is though. 2: You do this a lot. I'm not speaking portuguese, what i'm saying is not very hard to understand. 3: Textbook dino lad argument that goes in circles. 4: You have now spent half the day rambling on and on about how some people prefer franoys to other reconstructions and how that's negative only to come on here and ramble just a little bit more about how you think SIW's is the best "in your opinion. It's very textbook definition hypocrisy. Quit beating around the bush, we're all hypocrites in some degrees of our lives. 5: Sure, and so are other people when they say they have a preference. I don't think i've ever seen someone fuss as much as you over this, it is exceedingly asinine. 1: What makes you say that? 2: The CONTEXT is harder as we are not face to face. 3: And? Still fits; both are plausible but neither guaranteed 4: Tell me, how is this so hypocritical if I'm not saying Franoys' skeletal is bad or if I'm not taking SIW's estimate for granted 5: Maybe I've gotten my point across well enough, but again I don't see how this is s hypocritical |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 11, 2020 6:00:57 GMT 5
1: Your argument is though. 2: You do this a lot. I'm not speaking portuguese, what i'm saying is not very hard to understand. 3: Textbook dino lad argument that goes in circles. 4: You have now spent half the day rambling on and on about how some people prefer franoys to other reconstructions and how that's negative only to come on here and ramble just a little bit more about how you think SIW's is the best "in your opinion. It's very textbook definition hypocrisy. Quit beating around the bush, we're all hypocrites in some degrees of our lives. 5: Sure, and so are other people when they say they have a preference. I don't think i've ever seen someone fuss as much as you over this, it is exceedingly asinine. 1: What makes you say that? 2: The CONTEXT is harder as we are not face to face. 3: And? Still fits; both are plausible but neither guaranteed 4: Tell me, how is this so hypocritical if I'm not saying Franoys' skeletal is bad or if I'm not taking SIW's estimate for granted 5: Maybe I've gotten my point across well enough, but again I don't see how this is s hypocritical Your consistent inability to provide a proper response. Not if you are literate it isn't. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. You really need to work on your reading comprehension before you reply to me again. Once again in this thread, you have gotten no "points across" and you show a comprehensive failure to read and understand what is being said. inb4 "how" |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 11, 2020 16:56:49 GMT 5
1: What makes you say that? 2: The CONTEXT is harder as we are not face to face. 3: And? Still fits; both are plausible but neither guaranteed 4: Tell me, how is this so hypocritical if I'm not saying Franoys' skeletal is bad or if I'm not taking SIW's estimate for granted 5: Maybe I've gotten my point across well enough, but again I don't see how this is s hypocritical 1: Your consistent inability to provide a proper response. 2: Not if you are literate it isn't. 3: Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. 4: You really need to work on your reading comprehension before you reply to me again. 5: Once again in this thread, you have gotten no "points across" and you show a comprehensive failure to read and understand what is being said. inb4 "how" 1: How is this improper? To each point I respond with the best of my ability 2: I can read what you have said, but it's not like I can 100% understand EVERYTHING behind it; no one can 3: Show me where in those 2 sentences I am saying SIW's skeletal is guaranteed or Franoys' is bad 4: I don't see what's so hypocritical about complaining about something I am not doing 5: Why do you think that? Look at all the posts before this! |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jan 11, 2020 23:34:46 GMT 5
Both of these comments can be addressed by looking at this pyramid; Your continued muddled replies simply asking "why" "how" or just outright denial surrounding the point i outlined regarding your hypocrisy is not a proper reply. Just because you "respond with the best of my ability" does not make a proper rebuttal. You can't understand 100% of basic sentences? I would maybe understand this if my replies were long and difficult, but they are not.Did you not understand what i meant by saying "circular reasoning is a fallacy?"
" Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."Because if you're going to complain about a behavior regarding a preference for someone's use of a skeletal you ought to not do the same thing. Black and white really.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 11, 2020 23:59:28 GMT 5
1: Both of these comments can be addressed by looking at this pyramid; Your continued muddled replies simply asking "why" "how" or just outright denial surrounding the point i outlined regarding your hypocrisy is not a proper reply. Just because you "respond with the best of my ability" does not make a proper rebuttal.2: You can't understand 100% of basic sentences? I would maybe understand this if my replies were long and difficult, but they are not.3: Did you not understand what i meant by saying "circular reasoning is a fallacy?"
" Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."4: Because if you're going to complain about a behavior regarding a preference for someone's use of a skeletal you ought to not do the same thing. Black and white really. 1: Again, WHAT IS SO IMPROPER about this? I'm addressing everything as best I can 2: No one can understand 100% of anything anyone posts on here unless the post is very thorougly explained with all possible contexts and meanings as we are not face to face. 3: The thing I take issue with is people proclaiming Franoys' skeletal to be the only accurate skeletal and for it to be set in stone. I am doing neither when I show my preferences for SIW's. 4: Again. ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUE with people preferring Franoys' skeletal. The problem is them proclaiming it to be the only skeletal that is accurate and that it's guaranteed. I am doing neither for SIW's. |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Jan 12, 2020 13:00:19 GMT 5
Perhaps I can address this issue? CeratodromeusjdangerousdinosaurtheropodProvide an overview of size estimation(s) of each theropod in focus from different authors in chronological format and which proposition is most accurate. Table formatting:- Authors (Year) | animal name | size estimation in full | comments/criticism (if any) References at the bottom. I will help in building a consensus for these themes for future references. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 12, 2020 16:38:32 GMT 5
1: Again, WHAT IS SO IMPROPER about this? I'm addressing everything as best I can No-one is forcing you to reply to every single sentence. If you can't reply to something, skip it, concede defeat on that point and move on or just make a general rather than paragraph-by-paragraph response. The last option can be really useful at times. Like that, you stick to the central point in a debate in mind without going on irrelevant tangents. Plus, you are forced to show actual understanding of your opponent's points if you want to see the big picture. While I don't like his tone, I feel like Cerato has a point in this PM. That being said, crocuta rufus has recently messaged me and Life on Discord. Ceratodromeus is allegedly harassing crocuta via PM. I'd certainly like to see Cera's take on this conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 12, 2020 17:35:56 GMT 5
You are correct, creature. There was a little....thing going on.
I believe CR could enlighten you as you said.
|
|
