info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Dinosaurs weren’t driven to extinction by that meteorite after all"
209 views
Skip to first unread message
Lynn McGuire
Apr 19, 2016, 4:13:01 PM4/19/16
to
"Dinosaurs weren’t driven to extinction by that meteorite after all"
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-meteorite-after-all/
"New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
I wonder how valid their count is?
Lynn
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-meteorite-after-all/
"New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
I wonder how valid their count is?
Lynn
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 19, 2016, 8:45:56 PM4/19/16
to
What people are saying is that the number of dinosaur species was declining leading up to the meteor strike.
The meteor strike still seems to have finished them off (apart from the birds of course).
Greg Goss
Apr 19, 2016, 9:20:02 PM4/19/16
to
the past fifteen years that dinosaurs were in trouble for a million
years or so before Chixculub. Dunno about 24 million.
I think that the pre-bolide extinction stress has been blamed on the
Deccan Traps mega-eruption. Since scientists don't really like
coincidences, this is why I found the now-discredited "verneshot
hypothesis" attractive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verneshot
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Quadibloc
Apr 20, 2016, 12:52:04 AM4/20/16
to
Later on, some claims were made that because the time of a fossil find is
uncertain, this gradual decline was a statistical artifact. So it might be news
that more careful checking has made it more definite that, no, it was real.
John Savard
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 20, 2016, 2:51:10 AM4/20/16
to
Joe Bernstein
Apr 20, 2016, 3:22:43 PM4/20/16
to
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 5:45:56 PM UTC-7, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> What people are saying is that the number of dinosaur species was
> declining leading up to the meteor strike.
> The meteor strike still seems to have finished them off (apart from
> the birds of course).
Hmmm. How annoying. I always thought crocodiles and such were
> What people are saying is that the number of dinosaur species was
> declining leading up to the meteor strike.
> The meteor strike still seems to have finished them off (apart from
> the birds of course).
archosaurs just like the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, etc., which means,
since the bird-hipped and lizard-hipped dinosaurs were themselves
separate orders, crocodiles could only be considered not to be dinosaurs
by definition, rather than by any meaningful criterion. But it turns
out most modern (ie, post-my childhood) classification schemes consider
the division between crocodiles and dinosaurs+pterosaurs to be *the*
dividing line among the archosaurs. Humph.
Crocodiles are certainly much more *convincing* dinosaurs than pigeons.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <j...@sfbooks.com>
Peter Trei
Apr 20, 2016, 3:45:42 PM4/20/16
to
older recreations, which in turn were based mostly on lizards (including
crocodiles), rather than birds.
The real-life appearance of dinos is still a bit of a mystery,
pt
Don Bruder
Apr 20, 2016, 4:39:03 PM4/20/16
to
In article <616c691d-4a19-409b...@googlegroups.com>,
That's 'cause pigeons aren't birds. They're rats with wings.
--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.
--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.
Don Bruder
Apr 20, 2016, 4:43:20 PM4/20/16
to
In article <5089f2a7-0a4a-4b5f...@googlegroups.com>,
Some of the skin-impression fossils we've come across are suspiciously
similar to ostrich hide, so it wouldn't surprise me all that much if it
turns out the dinos wore feathers. (or something close enough to be
indistinguishable on a visual inspection)
similar to ostrich hide, so it wouldn't surprise me all that much if it
turns out the dinos wore feathers. (or something close enough to be
indistinguishable on a visual inspection)
David DeLaney
Apr 20, 2016, 6:36:39 PM4/20/16
to
On 2016-04-20, Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The real-life appearance of dinos is still a bit of a mystery,
Coelasquid's +Manly Guys Doing Manly Things+ webcomic, about the misadventures
> The real-life appearance of dinos is still a bit of a mystery,
of Commander Rock, his spindly sidekick Jared (whose Pokemon Mr Fish is
absolutely ginormous), and Jonesy, along with gaggles of title-described
heroes from various video games, has put in its oar on this in the current
nearly-ended story arc, with the extremely cute feathered raptors. (Which get
even cuter when fitted out with helmets and tiny armor.)
Dave, will plug the improbable-but-amusing for food
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
hamis...@gmail.com
Apr 20, 2016, 8:13:28 PM4/20/16
to
(Largely from China iirc) which show that at least a fair few of the raptors had feathers.
Wikipedia lists 43 species with feathers in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur#List_of_non-avian_dinosaur_species_preserved_with_evidence_of_feathers
William December Starr
Apr 21, 2016, 2:17:11 PM4/21/16
to
In article <nf8p6p$tgo$1...@dont-email.me>,
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
>> Crocodiles are certainly much more *convincing* dinosaurs than
>> pigeons.
>
> That's 'cause pigeons aren't birds. They're rats with wings.
Then what are seagulls?
-- wds
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
>> Crocodiles are certainly much more *convincing* dinosaurs than
>> pigeons.
>
> That's 'cause pigeons aren't birds. They're rats with wings.
-- wds
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 21, 2016, 2:29:04 PM4/21/16
to
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:nf8p6p$tgo$1...@dont-email.me:
That is very insulting to rats.
(If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
for the pigeons.)
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:nf8p6p$tgo$1...@dont-email.me:
(If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
for the pigeons.)
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Walter Bushell
Apr 22, 2016, 11:52:02 AM4/22/16
to
In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
park?
--
To terrify children with the image of hell,
to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?
Christopher Hitchens
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
> pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
> and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
> back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
> for the pigeons.)
>
> --
> Terry Austin
Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in the
> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
> pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
> and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
> back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
> for the pigeons.)
>
> --
> Terry Austin
park?
--
To terrify children with the image of hell,
to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world?
Christopher Hitchens
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 22, 2016, 12:47:57 PM4/22/16
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
news:proto-6DAD8F....@news.panix.com:
> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give
>> a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very
>> quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they
>> keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note that this
>> is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
>>
>> --
>> Terry Austin
>
> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> the park?
>
I suspect the effect would be similar. Chocolate has stimulants that
are very unlealthy for small, warm blooded animals. And frankly,
yeah, squirrels deserve no more sympathy than pigeons. A place I used
to work had a psycho squirrel that chased people in our parking lot.
He was high on the chemicals from the fertilizer plant next door. We
always imagined him coming home from a hard day's work dealing drugs
and beating the wife and kids if dinner wasn't ready on time.
news:proto-6DAD8F....@news.panix.com:
> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give
>> a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very
>> quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they
>> keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note that this
>> is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
>>
>> --
>> Terry Austin
>
> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> the park?
>
are very unlealthy for small, warm blooded animals. And frankly,
yeah, squirrels deserve no more sympathy than pigeons. A place I used
to work had a psycho squirrel that chased people in our parking lot.
He was high on the chemicals from the fertilizer plant next door. We
always imagined him coming home from a hard day's work dealing drugs
and beating the wife and kids if dinner wasn't ready on time.
Kevrob
Apr 22, 2016, 12:49:44 PM4/22/16
to
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
> > pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
> > and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
> > back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
> > for the pigeons.)
> >
> > --
> > Terry Austin
>
> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in the
> park?
Is it possible to cease this endless squabbling?
> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
> > pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
> > and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
> > back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
> > for the pigeons.)
> >
> > --
> > Terry Austin
>
> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in the
> park?
Kevin R
Peter Trei
Apr 22, 2016, 1:06:55 PM4/22/16
to
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
> > pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
> > and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
> > back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
> > for the pigeons.)
> >
> > --
> > Terry Austin
>
> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in the
> park?
This morning, for about the 3rd time in my life, I took out a squirrel
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give a
> > pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
> > and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming
> > back for more, like any good addict. Note that this is *very* bad
> > for the pigeons.)
> >
> > --
> > Terry Austin
>
> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in the
> park?
while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
pt
Quadibloc
Apr 22, 2016, 1:28:33 PM4/22/16
to
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:47:57 AM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Chocolate has stimulants that
> are very unlealthy for small, warm blooded animals.
Incidentally, the berries from holly are poisonous.
> Chocolate has stimulants that
> are very unlealthy for small, warm blooded animals.
I happened to read what the poisonous ingredient in them was.
Theobromine.
That the active ingredient in chocolate is a poison at larger doses, of course,
in itself should come as no surprise; too much of almost anything can be deadly.
I wonder if holly could be used as a source of theobromine for the manufacture
of ersatz chocolate in northern climates.
John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 22, 2016, 2:04:50 PM4/22/16
to
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:2e3f2d3b-a3d2-4997...@googlegroups.com:
No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics that
this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
so you?
news:2e3f2d3b-a3d2-4997...@googlegroups.com:
this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
so you?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 22, 2016, 2:05:38 PM4/22/16
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com:
I don't think I've ever hit a squirrel. Quite an umber of birds, but
for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
news:fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com:
for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
Peter Trei
Apr 22, 2016, 3:55:30 PM4/22/16
to
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:05:38 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell
> > wrote:
> >> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial,
> >> > give a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very,
> >> > very quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
> >> > So they keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note
> >> > that this is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Terry Austin
> >>
> >> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> >> the park?
> >
> > This morning, for about the 3rd time in my life, I took out a
> > squirrel while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
> >
> I don't think I've ever hit a squirrel. Quite an umber of birds, but
> for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
I drive 20,000+ miles a year, in areas with *lots* of critters.
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell
> > wrote:
> >> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial,
> >> > give a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very,
> >> > very quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
> >> > So they keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note
> >> > that this is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Terry Austin
> >>
> >> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> >> the park?
> >
> > This morning, for about the 3rd time in my life, I took out a
> > squirrel while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
> >
> I don't think I've ever hit a squirrel. Quite an umber of birds, but
> for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
But this was actually on a 4 lane highway, at about 65 mph. I had very little
notice, and at that speed, little ability to swerve.
I've hit birds once or twice. Once a pigeon flattened itself on my Suburban's
windscreen as it flew across the road (very near where today's squirrel
incident occured). It left a big greasy mark, clearly showing the bird in
profile, with one wing upraised.
pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 22, 2016, 5:20:42 PM4/22/16
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:81d73aa9-8284-4050...@googlegroups.com:
to the thrill of seeing how close they can get to passing cars.
When one comes across a teenage driver who likes to go > < that
much faster than everybody else, well, hiliary does not ensure. At
least, not for the bird.
Hit a pigeon once, with the front bumper of the Oldsmobile. Saw an
*enormous8 cloud of feathers behind me as I drove away. I didn't
feel bad.
Kevrob
Apr 22, 2016, 5:48:51 PM4/22/16
to
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:04:50 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:2e3f2d3b-a3d2-4997...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell
> > wrote:
> >> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial,
> >> > give a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very,
> >> > very quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
> >> > So they keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note
> >> > that this is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Terry Austin
> >>
> >> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> >> the park?
> >
> > Is it possible to cease this endless squabbling?
> >
> > Kevin R
> >
> No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics that
> this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
> so you?
Rot-13 link:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:2e3f2d3b-a3d2-4997...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell
> > wrote:
> >> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial,
> >> > give a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very,
> >> > very quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
> >> > So they keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note
> >> > that this is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Terry Austin
> >>
> >> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> >> the park?
> >
> > Is it possible to cease this endless squabbling?
> >
> > Kevin R
> >
> No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics that
> this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
> so you?
uggcf://ra.jvxvcrqvn.bet/jvxv/Fdhno_(sbbq)
OR
http://tinyurl.com/re-squabbling
Kevin R
Kevrob
Apr 22, 2016, 5:52:45 PM4/22/16
to
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:05:38 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell
> > wrote:
> >> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial,
> >> > give a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very,
> >> > very quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
> >> > So they keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note
> >> > that this is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Terry Austin
> >>
> >> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> >> the park?
> >
> > This morning, for about the 3rd time in my life, I took out a
> > squirrel while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
> >
> I don't think I've ever hit a squirrel. Quite an umber of birds, but
> for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
>
>
"An Umber of Birds" would be a great title. Better yet,
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell
> > wrote:
> >> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial,
> >> > give a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very,
> >> > very quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
> >> > So they keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note
> >> > that this is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Terry Austin
> >>
> >> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> >> the park?
> >
> > This morning, for about the 3rd time in my life, I took out a
> > squirrel while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
> >
> I don't think I've ever hit a squirrel. Quite an umber of birds, but
> for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
>
>
"An Umbra of Birds" - very Hitchcockian.
ObSF: Pigeons From Hell
Also, cue the Pretenders. "Back On The Chain Gang."
Kevin R
Brian M. Scott
Apr 22, 2016, 9:52:21 PM4/22/16
to
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:1293cf3b-b3c6-48a3...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:04:50 PM UTC-4, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> news:2e3f2d3b-a3d2-4997...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter
>>> Bushell wrote:
>>>> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something
>>>>> hysterial, give a pigeon chocolate. They get very,
>>>>> very drunk, very, very quickly, and are just barely
>>>>> smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming back
>>>>> for more, like any good addict. Note that this is
>>>>> *very* bad for the pigeons.)
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:1293cf3b-b3c6-48a3...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:04:50 PM UTC-4, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>> news:2e3f2d3b-a3d2-4997...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter
>>> Bushell wrote:
>>>> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something
>>>>> hysterial, give a pigeon chocolate. They get very,
>>>>> very drunk, very, very quickly, and are just barely
>>>>> smart enough to knwo why. So they keep coming back
>>>>> for more, like any good addict. Note that this is
>>>>> *very* bad for the pigeons.)
>>>> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning
>>>> pigeons in the park?
>>> Is it possible to cease this endless squabbling?
>>>> pigeons in the park?
>>> Is it possible to cease this endless squabbling?
>> No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of
>> physics that this squabbling must occur. You don't want
>> to destroy the universe, so you?
> Rot-13 link:
> uggcf://ra.jvxvcrqvn.bet/jvxv/Fdhno_(sbbq)
> OR
> http://tinyurl.com/re-squabbling
Quite tasty, if the one time I had it was a fair sample.
>> physics that this squabbling must occur. You don't want
>> to destroy the universe, so you?
> Rot-13 link:
> uggcf://ra.jvxvcrqvn.bet/jvxv/Fdhno_(sbbq)
> OR
> http://tinyurl.com/re-squabbling
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Gene Wirchenko
Apr 22, 2016, 10:03:24 PM4/22/16
to
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:04:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics that
>this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
>so you?
I responded to Terry because I do not want the universe to be
destroyed, let alone by me.
How much squabbling? Is it OK if I disagree about the exact
amount? For that matter, do I have to disagree?
Well trolled.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics that
>this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
>so you?
destroyed, let alone by me.
How much squabbling? Is it OK if I disagree about the exact
amount? For that matter, do I have to disagree?
Well trolled.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
David DeLaney
Apr 23, 2016, 12:32:44 AM4/23/16
to
On 2016-04-22, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
>>> the park?
>>
>> Is it possible to cease this endless squabbling?
>
... thinking.
Dave, just a passenger-by
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
>>> Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
>>> the park?
>>
>> Is it possible to cease this endless squabbling?
>
> No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics that
> this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
> [d]o you?
> this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the universe,
... thinking.
Dave, just a passenger-by
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 23, 2016, 12:54:38 AM4/23/16
to
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote in
news:mrllhb1udki12uuji...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:04:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics
>>that this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the
>>universe, so you?
>
> I responded to Terry because I do not want the universe to
> be
> destroyed, let alone by me.
You're an optomist.
>
> Well trolled.
>
The only way to not lose is to not play. Usenet is kinda like Cthulu
that way.
news:mrllhb1udki12uuji...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:04:46 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>No. It's not possible. It is written into the laws of physics
>>that this squabbling must occur. You don't want to destroy the
>>universe, so you?
>
> I responded to Terry because I do not want the universe to
> be
> destroyed, let alone by me.
>
> How much squabbling? Is it OK if I disagree about the
> exact
> amount? For that matter, do I have to disagree?
We will doubtless disagree on that, as well.
> How much squabbling? Is it OK if I disagree about the
> exact
> amount? For that matter, do I have to disagree?
>
> Well trolled.
>
The only way to not lose is to not play. Usenet is kinda like Cthulu
that way.
Greg Goss
Apr 24, 2016, 11:50:13 AM4/24/16
to
>> This morning, for about the 3rd time in my life, I took out a
>> squirrel while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
>>
>I don't think I've ever hit a squirrel. Quite an umber of birds, but
>for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
I've hit one or two birds in my life; never any squirrels There was
>> squirrel while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
>>
>I don't think I've ever hit a squirrel. Quite an umber of birds, but
>for the most part, it was entirely their fault.
that night when the road was just covered with (migrating?) frogs --
traction was a bit iffy for a half mile or so.
An apartment complex where I lived for a few months in 2005 had at
least two squirrels with severe scarring, presumably from arguments
with cars. Didn't seem to slow either of them down at all.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
William December Starr
Apr 24, 2016, 12:56:18 PM4/24/16
to
In article <81d73aa9-8284-4050...@googlegroups.com>,
you the finger?
-- wds
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> I've hit birds once or twice. Once a pigeon flattened itself on my
> Suburban's windscreen as it flew across the road (very near where
> today's squirrel incident occured). It left a big greasy mark,
> clearly showing the bird in profile, with one wing upraised.
So in the last instant of its life, it was doing its best to give
> I've hit birds once or twice. Once a pigeon flattened itself on my
> Suburban's windscreen as it flew across the road (very near where
> today's squirrel incident occured). It left a big greasy mark,
> clearly showing the bird in profile, with one wing upraised.
you the finger?
-- wds
William December Starr
Apr 24, 2016, 1:00:07 PM4/24/16
to
In article <XnsA5F291EB3B8...@69.16.179.42>,
<rot13>
znwbe yrnthr unyy bs snzr cvgpure enaql wbuafba havagragvbanyyl boyvgrengvat
n cnffvat oveq jvgu n snfgonyy (va na rkuvovgvba tnzr, vs vg znggref)
</rot13>
-- wds
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
> Hit a pigeon once, with the front bumper of the Oldsmobile. Saw an
> *enormous8 cloud of feathers behind me as I drove away. I didn't
> feel bad.
ObVideoClip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwpRHrAh3pk
> Hit a pigeon once, with the front bumper of the Oldsmobile. Saw an
> *enormous8 cloud of feathers behind me as I drove away. I didn't
> feel bad.
<rot13>
znwbe yrnthr unyy bs snzr cvgpure enaql wbuafba havagragvbanyyl boyvgrengvat
n cnffvat oveq jvgu n snfgonyy (va na rkuvovgvba tnzr, vs vg znggref)
</rot13>
-- wds
Walter Bushell
Apr 27, 2016, 12:54:39 PM4/27/16
to
In article <fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com>,
Squirrels are pests and know as portable fires. A neighbor had her
attic set on fire by squirrels chewing insulation, besides the disease
spreading potential. Rats with tails IOW.
attic set on fire by squirrels chewing insulation, besides the disease
spreading potential. Rats with tails IOW.
Walter Bushell
Apr 27, 2016, 1:01:02 PM4/27/16
to
In article <XnsA5F263ACC85...@69.16.179.43>,
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhuMLpdnOjY>
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
> news:proto-6DAD8F....@news.panix.com:
>
> > In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give
> >> a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very
> >> quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they
> >> keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note that this
> >> is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Terry Austin
> >
> > Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> > the park?
> >
> I suspect the effect would be similar. Chocolate has stimulants that
> are very unlealthy for small, warm blooded animals. And frankly,
> yeah, squirrels deserve no more sympathy than pigeons. A place I used
> to work had a psycho squirrel that chased people in our parking lot.
> He was high on the chemicals from the fertilizer plant next door. We
> always imagined him coming home from a hard day's work dealing drugs
> and beating the wife and kids if dinner wasn't ready on time.
CAUTION AUTOPLAY -- Tom Lehrer
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
> news:proto-6DAD8F....@news.panix.com:
>
> > In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial, give
> >> a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very, very
> >> quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why. So they
> >> keep coming back for more, like any good addict. Note that this
> >> is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Terry Austin
> >
> > Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons in
> > the park?
> >
> I suspect the effect would be similar. Chocolate has stimulants that
> are very unlealthy for small, warm blooded animals. And frankly,
> yeah, squirrels deserve no more sympathy than pigeons. A place I used
> to work had a psycho squirrel that chased people in our parking lot.
> He was high on the chemicals from the fertilizer plant next door. We
> always imagined him coming home from a hard day's work dealing drugs
> and beating the wife and kids if dinner wasn't ready on time.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhuMLpdnOjY>
Walter Bushell
Apr 27, 2016, 1:01:58 PM4/27/16
to
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 27, 2016, 1:19:24 PM4/27/16
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
news:proto-648773....@news.panix.com:
> In article
> <fa4e918f-dd74-4f43...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 11:52:02 AM UTC-4, Walter Bushell
>> wrote:
>> > In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
>> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > (If you hate pigeons and want to see something hysterial,
>> > > give a pigeon chocolate. They get very, very drunk, very,
>> > > very quickly, and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
>> > > So they keep coming back for more, like any good addict.
>> > > Note that this is *very* bad for the pigeons.)
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Terry Austin
>> >
>> > Can we do in a squirrel or two while we're poisoning pigeons
>> > in the park?
>>
>> This morning, for about the 3rd time in my life, I took out a
>> squirrel while driving into work. I really try not to do that.
>>
>> pt
>
> Squirrels are pests and know as portable fires. A neighbor had
> her attic set on fire by squirrels chewing insulation, besides
> the disease spreading potential. Rats with tails IOW.
>
Don Bruder
Apr 27, 2016, 4:46:46 PM4/27/16
to
(Why is it I'm only seeing this response today, most of a week later?)
--
Brought to you by the letter Q and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.
Walter Bushell
Apr 27, 2016, 5:54:02 PM4/27/16
to
In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
> and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
Were you by any chance eating chocolate when
> and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
writing "knwo"?
Kevrob
Apr 27, 2016, 6:29:21 PM4/27/16
to
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:46:46 PM UTC-4, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <nfb5f4$l2$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> > In article <nf8p6p$tgo$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
> >
> > > Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Crocodiles are certainly much more *convincing* dinosaurs than
> > >> pigeons.
> > >
> > > That's 'cause pigeons aren't birds. They're rats with wings.
> >
> > Then what are seagulls?
>
> Amphibious rats with wings.
>
>
> (Why is it I'm only seeing this response today, most of a week later?)
Rats, squirrels are the infantry.
> In article <nfb5f4$l2$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> > In article <nf8p6p$tgo$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
> >
> > > Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Crocodiles are certainly much more *convincing* dinosaurs than
> > >> pigeons.
> > >
> > > That's 'cause pigeons aren't birds. They're rats with wings.
> >
> > Then what are seagulls?
>
> Amphibious rats with wings.
>
>
> (Why is it I'm only seeing this response today, most of a week later?)
Pigeons are the Air Force, or Army Air Corps.
The gulls are the Naval Air Squadrons. They are
usually land-based, but will use watercraft at anchor
as aircraft carriers when we humans aren't around,
not to mention any flotsam they might commandeer.
Gulls are highly adaptable. You will find them
miles and miles inland, as long as they is edible
garbage to feed on. They also take to piracy!
See:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/TheGullMenace
http://tinyurl.com/TheGullMenace which is
https://books.google.com/books?id=uufQnE7MzMkC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=extent+of+gull+populations&source=bl&ots=wGFtxK-uOe&sig=5nlKhri1_4eESG5ZLStWy0Epet8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg07uH7q_MAhXHXB4KHRQmDmgQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&q=extent%20of%20gull%20populations&f=false
"Encyclopedia of Tidepools and Rocky Shores"
By Mark W. Denny, Steven Dean Gaines
Kevin R
Native of Long Island, resident of Connecticut, spent many years
on the shores of Lake Michigan. Gulls, everywhere!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 27, 2016, 6:32:37 PM4/27/16
to
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in news:proto-
9EB4BC.175...@news.panix.com:
> In article <XnsA5F174D1233...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They get very, very drunk, very, very quickly,
>> and are just barely smart enough to knwo why.
>
> Were you by any chance eating chocolate when
> writing "knwo"?
>
Don Bruder
Apr 27, 2016, 11:58:21 PM4/27/16
to
In article <6564ed2c-5979-4bd6...@googlegroups.com>,
<snip>
> Kevin R
>
> Native of Long Island, resident of Connecticut, spent many years
> on the shores of Lake Michigan. Gulls, everywhere!
At no time in my memories of the first thirty years of my life did the
distance between myself and a shore of either Lake Michigan or Lake
Huron exceed 7 miles for more than a small handful of days at a time.
And at no time I can remember during that same span did the distance
ever exceed 20 miles.
Trust me... I'm *QUITE* familiar with seagulls, thank you! Until I left
Michigan, there probably wasn't a day of my life that was completely
seagull-free.
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:46:46 PM UTC-4, Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article <nfb5f4$l2$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <nf8p6p$tgo$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
> > >
> > > > Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Crocodiles are certainly much more *convincing* dinosaurs than
> > > >> pigeons.
> > > >
> > > > That's 'cause pigeons aren't birds. They're rats with wings.
> > >
> > > Then what are seagulls?
> >
> > Amphibious rats with wings.
> >
> >
> > (Why is it I'm only seeing this response today, most of a week later?)
>
> Rats, squirrels are the infantry.
> Pigeons are the Air Force, or Army Air Corps.
> The gulls are the Naval Air Squadrons. They are
> usually land-based, but will use watercraft at anchor
> as aircraft carriers when we humans aren't around,
> not to mention any flotsam they might commandeer.
> Gulls are highly adaptable. You will find them
> miles and miles inland, as long as they is edible
> garbage to feed on. They also take to piracy!
I can swallow that classification :)
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 4:46:46 PM UTC-4, Don Bruder wrote:
> > In article <nfb5f4$l2$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <nf8p6p$tgo$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > > Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
> > >
> > > > Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Crocodiles are certainly much more *convincing* dinosaurs than
> > > >> pigeons.
> > > >
> > > > That's 'cause pigeons aren't birds. They're rats with wings.
> > >
> > > Then what are seagulls?
> >
> > Amphibious rats with wings.
> >
> >
> > (Why is it I'm only seeing this response today, most of a week later?)
>
> Rats, squirrels are the infantry.
> Pigeons are the Air Force, or Army Air Corps.
> The gulls are the Naval Air Squadrons. They are
> usually land-based, but will use watercraft at anchor
> as aircraft carriers when we humans aren't around,
> not to mention any flotsam they might commandeer.
> Gulls are highly adaptable. You will find them
> miles and miles inland, as long as they is edible
> garbage to feed on. They also take to piracy!
<snip>
> Kevin R
>
> Native of Long Island, resident of Connecticut, spent many years
> on the shores of Lake Michigan. Gulls, everywhere!
distance between myself and a shore of either Lake Michigan or Lake
Huron exceed 7 miles for more than a small handful of days at a time.
And at no time I can remember during that same span did the distance
ever exceed 20 miles.
Trust me... I'm *QUITE* familiar with seagulls, thank you! Until I left
Michigan, there probably wasn't a day of my life that was completely
seagull-free.
Peter Trei
Apr 28, 2016, 9:06:22 AM4/28/16
to
Those were lakegulls.
</pedant>
pt
David Johnston
Apr 28, 2016, 10:51:04 AM4/28/16
to
Robert Woodward
Apr 28, 2016, 2:57:44 PM4/28/16
to
In article <5706f39b-907c-45e4...@googlegroups.com>,
Even if they are the same species as the gulls on the New England coast?
Ruling overturned upon further review.
Ruling overturned upon further review.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 28, 2016, 4:36:16 PM4/28/16
to
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:robertaw-2963B3...@news.individual.net:
There's a special level of amusing in someone trying to be pedantic
about the casual use of a term with no technical definition by
insisting on a different casual use term with no technical
definition (there are dozens, at least, of species of gulls). And
the other person rejecting the new term because he's unaware that
it is, in fact, used in some places.
(The common sorts of gulls that live on coasts are apparently quite
rare in inland waterways, so "lake gulls" is a valid term to
distinguish between different species.)
news:robertaw-2963B3...@news.individual.net:
about the casual use of a term with no technical definition by
insisting on a different casual use term with no technical
definition (there are dozens, at least, of species of gulls). And
the other person rejecting the new term because he's unaware that
it is, in fact, used in some places.
(The common sorts of gulls that live on coasts are apparently quite
rare in inland waterways, so "lake gulls" is a valid term to
distinguish between different species.)
Peter Trei
Apr 28, 2016, 5:45:24 PM4/28/16
to
tongue in cheek, with no idea that it was a real term. Should have
added <joke></joke> tags.
pt
Robert Bannister
Apr 28, 2016, 10:37:42 PM4/28/16
to
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Kevrob
Apr 28, 2016, 11:10:58 PM4/28/16
to
Kevin R
Cryptoengineer
Apr 29, 2016, 12:05:36 AM4/29/16
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
news:dofvnj...@mid.individual.net:
Sure, why not?
pt
news:dofvnj...@mid.individual.net:
pt
Robert Woodward
Apr 29, 2016, 12:23:38 PM4/29/16
to
In article <XnsA5F88A62360...@69.16.179.43>,
I was thinking of the American Herring Gull, see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_herring_gull>, which has a
rather broad distribution in North America.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_herring_gull>, which has a
rather broad distribution in North America.
J. Clarke
Apr 29, 2016, 7:03:21 PM4/29/16
to
In article <robertaw-73189F...@news.individual.net>,
robe...@drizzle.com says...
His mistake is in thinking that seagulls give a crap about water. The
local gull population doesn't hang out in any stinking "waterways", they
hang out at the mall.
robe...@drizzle.com says...
local gull population doesn't hang out in any stinking "waterways", they
hang out at the mall.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 29, 2016, 7:04:11 PM4/29/16
to
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:14e35e60-cac3-4f25...@googlegroups.com:
> Should have added <joke></joke> tags.
the joke without being told to, you're admitting it isn't funny.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Apr 29, 2016, 7:05:17 PM4/29/16
to
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:robertaw-73189F...@news.individual.net:
more connected to geography than genetics.
My point remains.
Robert Carnegie
Apr 29, 2016, 9:20:26 PM4/29/16
to
programme, which trades in "Quite Interesting" although not
absolutely reliable knowledge (the latter is rather the enemy
of the former than a prerequisite of it), describes "a plan to
train seagulls to spot enemy submarines", with that being one
of the reasons why it didn't work. (Also, the birds didn't
know which were the enemy's ships, or may have not even been
loyal patriots. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3221471.stm>
- for the saying, not for any implication about the patriotism
of Mr. Cantona or anyone else.)
Dimensional Traveler
Apr 29, 2016, 10:42:26 PM4/29/16
to
part of the hatred is they will crap on anything.
--
Privacy IS Security
Greg Goss
Apr 30, 2016, 10:43:40 PM4/30/16
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
><http://qi.com/infocloud/gulls> from the British "QI" television
>programme, which trades in "Quite Interesting" although not
>absolutely reliable knowledge (the latter is rather the enemy
>of the former than a prerequisite of it), describes "a plan to
>train seagulls to spot enemy submarines", with that being one
>of the reasons why it didn't work. (Also, the birds didn't
>know which were the enemy's ships, or may have not even been
>loyal patriots. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3221471.stm>
>- for the saying, not for any implication about the patriotism
>of Mr. Cantona or anyone else.)
I hate the fact that Miss Cortana keeps popping up telling me to ask
><http://qi.com/infocloud/gulls> from the British "QI" television
>programme, which trades in "Quite Interesting" although not
>absolutely reliable knowledge (the latter is rather the enemy
>of the former than a prerequisite of it), describes "a plan to
>train seagulls to spot enemy submarines", with that being one
>of the reasons why it didn't work. (Also, the birds didn't
>know which were the enemy's ships, or may have not even been
>loyal patriots. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3221471.stm>
>- for the saying, not for any implication about the patriotism
>of Mr. Cantona or anyone else.)
her stuff when I'm trying to type.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Robert Carnegie
May 1, 2016, 5:19:02 AM5/1/16
to
I presumed that the name "Cortana" was chosen to be something
that you wouldn't normally say. So, it isn't working?
I wonder if they have the same problem in Cortina, or
in the Swiss cantons.
I may have said that the last time I tried to use speech
recognition, I was obliged to train it, or train myself,
to use pronunciations "pee-ree-odd" and "perry-odd" to
distinguish the word "period" and a stop mark. I had to
use American "eh" (a) and "thee" (the) as well.
Now - I've been meaning to find out - can you still do
local speech recognition to control a Windows 10 PC,
or is it now Cortana which apparently transmits everything
you say to the secret undersea base where Microsoft
lurks plotting world domination? /More/ world domination,
that is.
Stanley Engel
May 1, 2016, 6:35:42 AM5/1/16
to
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:13:01 AM UTC+7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Dinosaurs weren’t driven to extinction by that meteorite after all"
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-meteorite-after-all/
>
> "New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
>
> Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
>
> I wonder how valid their count is?
>
> Lynn
Well, here's what I wrote on the topic of dinosaur extinction nearly 20 years ago in the group sci.biology.evolution. My contention is that the newly evolved eutherian mammals played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. I used the word *placental* not *eutherian* back in 1996 but what I said back then still applies.
sci.bio.evolution ›
Mammals as a cause of Dinosaur Extinction
10 posts by 7 authors
AC2
8/19/96
Why does Stephen Jay Gould completely ignore the possibility that mammals
may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
this theory from a 1950's textbook.
Giant reptiles (turtles) have "ruled" the Galapagos islands for a long
time. It is my understanding that recently imported dogs and cats have
caused a decline in the turtle population due to their predation of turtle
hatchlings. The same predation has also reduced the population of the other
Galapagos "rulers", the Iguanas. Why is it not a feasible possibility that
newly evolved (Late Cretaceous that is) placental mammals damaged the
dinosaur population by eating their young. The adult Dinosaurs (just like
adult Galapagos turtles) would be invulnerable to mammal attack but their
young would not be so lucky. Question--- When did definable placental
mammals evolve? Was it not in the Late Cretaceous, at about the same time
that the number of Dinosaur species declined?
Newly imported mammal species also exterminated the "rulers" of Mauritius,
the Dodos, some 3 centuries ago and seem to be doing the same today to the
ruling Tuataras, Kiwis and Parrots of New Zealand. In addition, it is my
understanding that the largest predator of the Paleocene (post Dinosaur)
was the 2 metre tall Diatryma which was eventually superseded by mammalian
Creodonts and true carnivores. Is my understanding correct? If Diatryma was
destroyed by placental mammal competition why not Troodonts or
Velociraptors.
I do not claim that mammals were the sole or even a major cause of Dinosaur
extinction. I believe that it was a factor and should not be summarily
dismissed.
> "Dinosaurs weren’t driven to extinction by that meteorite after all"
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-meteorite-after-all/
>
> "New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
>
> Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
>
> I wonder how valid their count is?
>
> Lynn
Well, here's what I wrote on the topic of dinosaur extinction nearly 20 years ago in the group sci.biology.evolution. My contention is that the newly evolved eutherian mammals played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. I used the word *placental* not *eutherian* back in 1996 but what I said back then still applies.
sci.bio.evolution ›
Mammals as a cause of Dinosaur Extinction
10 posts by 7 authors
AC2
8/19/96
Why does Stephen Jay Gould completely ignore the possibility that mammals
may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
this theory from a 1950's textbook.
Giant reptiles (turtles) have "ruled" the Galapagos islands for a long
time. It is my understanding that recently imported dogs and cats have
caused a decline in the turtle population due to their predation of turtle
hatchlings. The same predation has also reduced the population of the other
Galapagos "rulers", the Iguanas. Why is it not a feasible possibility that
newly evolved (Late Cretaceous that is) placental mammals damaged the
dinosaur population by eating their young. The adult Dinosaurs (just like
adult Galapagos turtles) would be invulnerable to mammal attack but their
young would not be so lucky. Question--- When did definable placental
mammals evolve? Was it not in the Late Cretaceous, at about the same time
that the number of Dinosaur species declined?
Newly imported mammal species also exterminated the "rulers" of Mauritius,
the Dodos, some 3 centuries ago and seem to be doing the same today to the
ruling Tuataras, Kiwis and Parrots of New Zealand. In addition, it is my
understanding that the largest predator of the Paleocene (post Dinosaur)
was the 2 metre tall Diatryma which was eventually superseded by mammalian
Creodonts and true carnivores. Is my understanding correct? If Diatryma was
destroyed by placental mammal competition why not Troodonts or
Velociraptors.
I do not claim that mammals were the sole or even a major cause of Dinosaur
extinction. I believe that it was a factor and should not be summarily
dismissed.
J. Clarke
May 1, 2016, 8:11:40 AM5/1/16
to
In article <d5bc71de-9759-4462...@googlegroups.com>,
ozone...@gmail.com says...
introduced into the Galapagos? Is there something magic about mammals
that makes them more effective predators of baby turtles than saurian
predators of similar size would have been?
> Why is it not a feasible possibility that
> newly evolved (Late Cretaceous that is) placental mammals damaged the
> dinosaur population by eating their young. The adult Dinosaurs (just like
> adult Galapagos turtles) would be invulnerable to mammal attack but their
> young would not be so lucky. Question--- When did definable placental
> mammals evolve? Was it not in the Late Cretaceous, at about the same time
> that the number of Dinosaur species declined?
Why would young dinosaurs have been more vulnerable to attack by mammals
than by other dinosaurs?
> Newly imported mammal species also exterminated the "rulers" of Mauritius,
> the Dodos, some 3 centuries ago and seem to be doing the same today to the
> ruling Tuataras, Kiwis and Parrots of New Zealand.
Same question--what reason is there to believe that mammals are more
effective at this than would be saurian predators of similar size?
> In addition, it is my
> understanding that the largest predator of the Paleocene (post Dinosaur)
> was the 2 metre tall Diatryma which was eventually superseded by mammalian
> Creodonts and true carnivores. Is my understanding correct? If Diatryma was
> destroyed by placental mammal competition why not Troodonts or
> Velociraptors.
Was it destroyed by competition or by predation?
Your argument seems to equate "mammal" and "predator".
ozone...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:13:01 AM UTC+7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > "Dinosaurs weren?t driven to extinction by that meteorite after all"
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:13:01 AM UTC+7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-meteorite-after-all/
> >
> > "New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
> >
> > Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
> >
> > I wonder how valid their count is?
> >
> > Lynn
>
> Well, here's what I wrote on the topic of dinosaur extinction nearly 20 years ago in the group sci.biology.evolution. My contention is that the newly evolved eutherian mammals played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. I used the word *placental* not *eutherian* back in 1996 but what I said back then still applies.
>
> sci.bio.evolution ?
> >
> > "New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
> >
> > Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
> >
> > I wonder how valid their count is?
> >
> > Lynn
>
> Well, here's what I wrote on the topic of dinosaur extinction nearly 20 years ago in the group sci.biology.evolution. My contention is that the newly evolved eutherian mammals played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. I used the word *placental* not *eutherian* back in 1996 but what I said back then still applies.
>
> Mammals as a cause of Dinosaur Extinction
> 10 posts by 7 authors
>
>
>
> AC2
>
> 8/19/96
>
>
>
> Why does Stephen Jay Gould completely ignore the possibility that mammals
> may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
> Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
> Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
> consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
> this theory from a 1950's textbook.
> Giant reptiles (turtles) have "ruled" the Galapagos islands for a long
> time. It is my understanding that recently imported dogs and cats have
> caused a decline in the turtle population due to their predation of turtle
> hatchlings. The same predation has also reduced the population of the other
> Galapagos "rulers", the Iguanas.
Would the outcome have been any different, if, say dromeosaurs had been
> 10 posts by 7 authors
>
>
>
> AC2
>
> 8/19/96
>
>
>
> Why does Stephen Jay Gould completely ignore the possibility that mammals
> may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
> Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
> Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
> consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
> this theory from a 1950's textbook.
> Giant reptiles (turtles) have "ruled" the Galapagos islands for a long
> time. It is my understanding that recently imported dogs and cats have
> caused a decline in the turtle population due to their predation of turtle
> hatchlings. The same predation has also reduced the population of the other
> Galapagos "rulers", the Iguanas.
introduced into the Galapagos? Is there something magic about mammals
that makes them more effective predators of baby turtles than saurian
predators of similar size would have been?
> Why is it not a feasible possibility that
> newly evolved (Late Cretaceous that is) placental mammals damaged the
> dinosaur population by eating their young. The adult Dinosaurs (just like
> adult Galapagos turtles) would be invulnerable to mammal attack but their
> young would not be so lucky. Question--- When did definable placental
> mammals evolve? Was it not in the Late Cretaceous, at about the same time
> that the number of Dinosaur species declined?
than by other dinosaurs?
> Newly imported mammal species also exterminated the "rulers" of Mauritius,
> the Dodos, some 3 centuries ago and seem to be doing the same today to the
> ruling Tuataras, Kiwis and Parrots of New Zealand.
effective at this than would be saurian predators of similar size?
> In addition, it is my
> understanding that the largest predator of the Paleocene (post Dinosaur)
> was the 2 metre tall Diatryma which was eventually superseded by mammalian
> Creodonts and true carnivores. Is my understanding correct? If Diatryma was
> destroyed by placental mammal competition why not Troodonts or
> Velociraptors.
Your argument seems to equate "mammal" and "predator".
Stanley Engel
May 1, 2016, 7:04:33 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:11:40 PM UTC+7, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article
> In article
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 3:13:01 AM UTC+7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > > "Dinosaurs weren?t driven to extinction by that meteorite after all"
> > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-meteorite-after-all/
> > >
> > > "New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
> > >
> > > Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
> > >
> > > I wonder how valid their count is?
> > >
> > > Lynn
> >
> > Well, here's what I wrote on the topic of dinosaur extinction nearly 20 years ago in the group sci.biology.evolution. My contention is that the newly evolved eutherian mammals played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. I used the word *placental* not *eutherian* back in 1996 but what I said back then still applies.
> >
> > sci.bio.evolution ?
> > Mammals as a cause of Dinosaur Extinction
> > 10 posts by 7 authors
> > > "Dinosaurs weren?t driven to extinction by that meteorite after all"
> > > http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-meteorite-after-all/
> > >
> > > "New evidence shows that dinosaurs were dying out 24 million years before bolide impact."
> > >
> > > Well, there goes a lot of perfectly good SF stories.
> > >
> > > I wonder how valid their count is?
> > >
> > > Lynn
> >
> > Well, here's what I wrote on the topic of dinosaur extinction nearly 20 years ago in the group sci.biology.evolution. My contention is that the newly evolved eutherian mammals played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. I used the word *placental* not *eutherian* back in 1996 but what I said back then still applies.
> >
> > sci.bio.evolution ?
> > Mammals as a cause of Dinosaur Extinction
> > 10 posts by 7 authors
> > Why does Stephen Jay Gould completely ignore the possibility that mammals
> > may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
> > Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
> > Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
> > consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
> > this theory from a 1950's textbook.
> > Giant reptiles (turtles) have "ruled" the Galapagos islands for a long
> > time. It is my understanding that recently imported dogs and cats have
> > caused a decline in the turtle population due to their predation of turtle
> > hatchlings. The same predation has also reduced the population of the other
> > Galapagos "rulers", the Iguanas.
>
> Would the outcome have been any different, if, say dromeosaurs had been
> introduced into the Galapagos? Is there something magic about mammals
> that makes them more effective predators of baby turtles than saurian
> predators of similar size would have been?
We'll never know what would have been the outcome if, say dromeosaurs had been introduced into the Galapagos, or New Zealand, or Mauritius, or New Caledonia, or wherever. I've never seen a dromeosaur in the flesh and I can't say what was their metabolism, their hunting habits or the nature of any characteristics would make them superior or inferior to eutherian competitors. We only know dromeosaurs from bones, not from life observations.
> > may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
> > Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
> > Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
> > consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
> > this theory from a 1950's textbook.
> > Giant reptiles (turtles) have "ruled" the Galapagos islands for a long
> > time. It is my understanding that recently imported dogs and cats have
> > caused a decline in the turtle population due to their predation of turtle
> > hatchlings. The same predation has also reduced the population of the other
> > Galapagos "rulers", the Iguanas.
>
> Would the outcome have been any different, if, say dromeosaurs had been
> introduced into the Galapagos? Is there something magic about mammals
> that makes them more effective predators of baby turtles than saurian
> predators of similar size would have been?
We do know that eutherian creatures like cats, pigs and rats have had devastating consequences to isolated ecosystems in Mauritius and New Zealand. Turtles and snakes are pretty much indestructible to all but human predation. Land based diapsids like tuataras and ground birds have fared rather poorly against eutherians. The biggest post K-T warm-blooded predator was the dinosaur/bird Diatryma and later in South America, the Phorusrhacos. Neither could compete with post K-T eutherians. Neither could the Thylacosmilus, a marsupial predator in South America. Neither could the Multituberculates that died out 30 million years after K-T.
What's superior about eutherians? Beats me, but there's something. If post K-T lifeforms generally failed to compete against them it seems likely that the pre K-T forms had problems resulting in their extinction.
> > Why is it not a feasible possibility that
> > newly evolved (Late Cretaceous that is) placental mammals damaged the
> > dinosaur population by eating their young. The adult Dinosaurs (just like
> > adult Galapagos turtles) would be invulnerable to mammal attack but their
> > young would not be so lucky. Question--- When did definable placental
> > mammals evolve? Was it not in the Late Cretaceous, at about the same time
> > that the number of Dinosaur species declined?
>
> Why would young dinosaurs have been more vulnerable to attack by mammals
> than by other dinosaurs?
>
> > Newly imported mammal species also exterminated the "rulers" of Mauritius,
> > the Dodos, some 3 centuries ago and seem to be doing the same today to the
> > ruling Tuataras, Kiwis and Parrots of New Zealand.
>
> Same question--what reason is there to believe that mammals are more
> effective at this than would be saurian predators of similar size?
>
> > In addition, it is my
> > understanding that the largest predator of the Paleocene (post Dinosaur)
> > was the 2 metre tall Diatryma which was eventually superseded by mammalian
> > Creodonts and true carnivores. Is my understanding correct? If Diatryma was
> > destroyed by placental mammal competition why not Troodonts or
> > Velociraptors.
> Was it destroyed by competition or by predation?
> Your argument seems to equate "mammal" and "predator".
Robert Carnegie
May 2, 2016, 2:56:39 AM5/2/16
to
> Why does Stephen Jay Gould completely ignore the possibility that mammals
> may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
> Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
> Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
> consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
> this theory from a 1950's textbook.
That mammals ate all the dinosaur eggs? But then why did
> may have been a factor in the extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 mya.
> Instead, he says that mammals and dinosaurs co-existed throughout the
> Jurassic and Cretaceous and that this demonstrates that mammals did not
> consume the Dinosaur young leading to the demise of that group. I remember
> this theory from a 1950's textbook.
dinosaurs keep going for hundreds of millions of years?
Did mammals only suddenly notice that dinosaur eggs are
tasty?
I suppose that would be exactly the sort of punctuated
equlibrium event that Eldredge and Gould would leap on.
They must have considered it and decided that the
evidence contradicted the proposition - and this is
without the competing idea of the asteroid impact and
global disaster, isn't it?
> Giant reptiles (turtles) have "ruled" the Galapagos islands for a long
> time. It is my understanding that recently imported dogs and cats have
> caused a decline in the turtle population due to their predation of turtle
> hatchlings.
Even Mock Turtle was extremely popular, but it seems to be
out of fashion now.
Walter Bushell
May 3, 2016, 1:51:28 PM5/3/16
to
In article <ng15s0$aus$1...@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > His mistake is in thinking that seagulls give a crap about water.
>
> Water, land, your head, your freshly washed car, in your drink, I think
> part of the hatred is they will crap on anything.
Me just glad that cows don't fly.
> > His mistake is in thinking that seagulls give a crap about water.
>
> Water, land, your head, your freshly washed car, in your drink, I think
> part of the hatred is they will crap on anything.
hamis...@gmail.com
May 3, 2016, 9:13:56 PM5/3/16
to
I believe they've just had the first successful clutches of eggs in a long time (decades) on one of the islands after a huge effort to eliminate the rats.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/01/19/galapagos-tortoises-comeback-rat-eradication/#.VylKvHq2Em0
gives some details.
As far as tortoises go I believe they were also very popular because you could keep them on ships for a long time without feed or much water and kill them when you needed fresh meat
The major impacts of introduced species that I know of are situations where there wasn't much in the way of predators in the local environment (NZ did have a rather large eagle iirc but nothing much in the way of ground predators)
So there's not a lot of demand for defensive adaption or paranoia.
0 new messages