Re: When Dinosaurs Disappointed

[Larry Dunn <majestic_cheese@yahoo.com>]

--- Dinogeorge@aol.com wrote:

> Usual
> gaffes are too numerous to 
> mention, would require several pages of e-mail.

Which is the point, of course.  How many "usual
gaffes" would be tolerated in a program about, say,
human evolution?  Or about baseball?

If any, certainly not several-pages-of-e-mail worth.

Why is dinosaur science intrinsically less important
than (fill in virtually any other topic imaginable),
so that programs that do not adequately reflect
current thinking are nonetheless to be commended for
simply addressing the topic *at all*?  That's not
meant as a rhetorical question -- I'm genuinely
curious to hear responses to this query.

Imagine, if you will, a Larry Dunn with twenty horns,

===
Larry

"I've been ionized, but I'm okay now."

http://members.tripod.com/~megalania/index.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com