Re: Unidirectional [...] Science

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

--- On Sat, 1/16/10, Alaric Shapli <alaric7@verizon.net> wrote:

> While I'm not knowledgeable enough to contribute
> meaningfully to this discussion, I'm pretty sure that the
> word "to" quoted here ("makes TO claim that sauropods were
> amphibious") is a typo for "no", as in "than there was
> before the publication of the croc respiration paper which
> makes no claim that sauropods were amphibious."

Quite logical but which _still_ begs the question; WHO is making that 
"sauropods were amphibious" claim? And in what way are they basing that claim 
on that paper?