Dichotomies (short)

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <wolverin@twcny.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re : For you T. Rex addicts out there! - Part 2


> Why does it *HAVE* to be one or the other?

To both hunt and scavenge is, as has been pointed out on this list every few
months, not a 3rd alternative or common ground or anything. If someone says
"hunter", this automatically implies that it didn't refuse a free lunch,
because today only cheetahs don't scavenge. (That's because they're too weak
to defend or conquer a carcass... probably unlike *T. rex*... :-} ) So the
question is indeed "obligate scavenger [like most vultures] or not", even
though _nobody_ assumes *T. rex* never scavenged.

> I guess I'm wondering is it truly media bias diluting the actual work, or
> does the scientific community really think in such absolutes on this
topic?
> I really want to believe that it's the media simplfying things for us
> laymen...

The absolutes are there. But their definitions haven't yet made it through
the media.