In that case da masta, we hit them with facts! Not with our opinions or what we believe. We cannot argue that our case is more likely and their means nothing on the wilyness issue for there is no evidence support our claim, and the opposition very well has a good reason to question it. You may believe that raptors were wily and smart, but if you have no evidence to back it up, then it means nothing. We're just hitting them with our opinions, and they just bonce right off because it has no facts to point towards it. We're just imagining optimistic stuff up to fit our theory. No, I don't think I'm weak to surrender, more like wise. There's really no special evidence to support wily raptors at all, and when people say they are wily, it's not based on facts, but what THEY would like to see the raptors as. I refuse to argue this kind of case. I rather argue on more concrete grounds like on raptor speed and killing ability. Not something so imaginary as wilyness, which seems to be largely created in our minds, not found in the bones. I think it would be wise of you to drop the wilyness thing and admit you have no date backing your claim and move to more concrete ground. Unless this is done, I will contuine to surrender, not as a sign of weakness, but as a sign of fairness. If we could all argue your way, then the hardcore rex fans can argue that it's most likely t-rex had atomic fire deathrays and could fly because it's what they believe, just that it's not found in the fossil record, and start asking "what if" questions. It works the same way as wilyness, it's not found in the fossil record, but its something we like to think, and we can't argue as there's no evidence for it. No, the wilyness thing is not only impossible to prove with the data at hand, it seems to me you are making an assumption based on what you like to see the raptors as, not actually based on actual data. If that was not the case, you would not have rallied behind a single word on an enclypedia you have not even read before. That's why I surrender, that's not the way to do things, no matter how much you want to win. You take your info from credible sources, and have evidence to back it up, not just blindly following stuff around. My surrender stands until I see improvement.
from A dissapointed raptor fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"Oh no! You have discovered my true identity! I am Osama Bin Mohamed Bin Laden! Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I killed all those innocent people! And I'm gonna kill more! Arrrghhh [drools] arggghhhhhhh! Hahahahahahha!
You will never find me in my hiding cave, and I will strike back, hard!"

Hmm, this kind of behaviour is utterly repundant and is very sick humour. It's not funny at all, not funny at all. Prehaps before you take the events of black tuesday lightly, please note that over 3,000 people died in a sensless act of violence, don't make light of that, that's total disrespect. Many people lost their friends, children, parents and loved ones over there. This kind of mockery and disrespect to their deaths is not one bit acceptable, not one bit at all. I am very dissapointed in you da masta, I request you get a time out from this page for a while until you can learn some respect, particuarlly to the innocent americans who lost their lives that day...>:(
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Entering the second year of the 21st century in T-minus four hours on my side of the world. Hmm, call it an obession with time-keeping, but I believe I was the first person to post here in the 21st century about 365 days before.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"Tom, There's a difference between scavenger and obgliate scavenger. Raptors most probably scavenged kills made by larger predators. The adaptations you mentioned are perfect for hinting small and fast prey like deer or pony-sized dinos."

Despite deer not existing in the mesozoic, I think you're right. T-Rex was an obligatory scavenger too. See my theory about raptors in the archives!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"Hey fellow rex fans, have you guys(and gals) read anything about the studies of T .rex tripping when it runs. They said that even when running at 25 miles per hour a trip would bring some considerable damage, do you people think this is true? It couldn't be that damaging, could it? When they did the tests did they include the tendons and connective tissues that might have dampen the impact? What was their weight estimate for T .rex when they did these studies? I think T .rex would only runs to hunt when its hungry, so it's weight might be a little lighter and won't get that hurt when it trips during a fast run. Or what if big bipedal dinosaurs evolve some natural twitch reflex in their tails that keeps them from tripping? Do these ideas make any sense at all!? Any ideas?"

Nick, despite the fact that the sorry Rex who trips while running is raptor food, such falls would be infrequent, since T-Rexe's large brain, I think he had total control over all his muscles when running.

A few infrequent accidents wouldn't stop Tyrannosaurs from running.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"I love T-rex. Who else does?"

Very many people, tyrent lizard king.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

I mean the science forum, op.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"i dont like raptors. i dont know why."

After your message to me on the message board, I'm very surprised that you're 7.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

I think that dromaesaurids ran in suspention, there is no reason why they shouldn't. If they tripped in running, they wouldn't be badly hurt.

But they did have quite abysmal Femur:Tibia ratios, so I guess that they wheren't too speedy, they where very manouverable.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Ah, welcome back Dan W. You can see that I'm in quite a sticky situation here. These guys have gotten out of control. They're attacking raptors, me, and Diloph. I can't wait till they calm down and I can talk with the regulars. The girls in your school must be quite a feisty bunch if they're all like that mystery writer. Have you got any idea whom it might be yet?
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"An annoyed dino fan," do you really think I actually LIKE doing this?!?

Because I'll tell you what, I HATE doing this. The thing I want more than anything right now, (except for man to stop playing God, pollution and poaching to stop,) is for this annoying argument to just dissappear, so I can stop offending people and have a wonderfull time here chatting with the regulars about dinosaurs.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Ah, Jenn, can I vote for both of them?

I do find Spino more attractive (not in the dirty way, for those with dirty minds;) though.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"FOR YOUR INFORMATION I HAPPENED TO LIKE SPINOSAURUS. AND NOT T-REX. WHY DOESN'T ANYBODY ELSE LIKE SPINOSAURUS??? jUST BECAUSE IN JPS THEY SHOULD SPINOSAURUS BEING STRONGER DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN TEASE SPINOSAURUS AS BEING WEAKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I like Spino.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Hmm...

George, tell me about T-Rex brains then. And what are you studying lately? Also, the "wrinkles" of brain impressions in rocks are not well preserved, so the casts do not show the wrinkles very well. What if dromaesaurids had very deep wrinkles? And I'm not saying that dromaesaurids where particularly intelligent, I'm saying that they displayed good knowledge of their job, and had a sort of "intelligence," used in hunting.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

OK everyone, I'll explain my actions.

The Rex fans where the majority, they started it, and they where the backbone. The rest where just weak people who wanted to get quick favour with the local big guys.

So they are the obvious target for me. If they quieten down I'll utter a sigh of relief and start quietly and pleasantly discussing issues that actually interest me. If they stop, the other fans will too, because they got no leader then you see.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Diloph, ignore them, that's what they deserve!

They are invisible! They aren't there! Anyway, they're not worth arguing your case to, they'll never agree, and if they don't want the truth, they don't deserve it. Say, they don't exist, the regulars do. See how nice and quiet it will be if we don't see any of their posts, they'll be left bickering among themselves if the regulars don't give them any attention!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

""But we need to stay calm, and hit 'em with solid scientific fact. They will never admit to being wrong, our objective is to make it obvious to anyone that they are wrong. And some of them really think that they are right. We've gotta wreck their self-confidence..."

This transcript sounds chillingly like the Osama tapes planning terror attacks against us. :-0"

Oh no! You have discovered my true identity! I am Osama Bin Mohamed Bin Laden! Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I killed all those innocent people! And I'm gonna kill more! Arrrghhh [drools] arggghhhhhhh! Hahahahahahha!
You will never find me in my hiding cave, and I will strike back, hard!

Jeez, you think I'm bin laden? Think again, the bin doesn't speak English.
from da masta, age ?, ?, I got nukes! Beware!, My base in Afghanistan!; December 31, 2001

Diloph, don't go!

They think that you're weakened, and they're trying for one big last push to get you out!

IGNORE THEM!

Put up a few posts about this rabble not being worth your attention and never read a post from the guys insulting you again. Don't leave and make them happy, whatever you do! This is a top priority post! (Please!)
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

I think T-Rex delt with falling quite well. He was beyond the point of return and nothing mattered anyway. At his mass, even a belly flop while he was standing still at could prove fatal. I think T-Rex avoided the problem by not falling at all. He didn't have a suspension mode of movement, so the risk of falling is greatly cut. Prehaps humans are such klutzs, but I can't picture agile, bipedial animals falling often or even doing so at all. Ostrichs have been know to die when they trip up at 45 miles per hour, breaking their necks, but they persist in running at such speeds. Farlow seems to imagine a suspensory mode of movement for T-Rex, hence his idea that the risk of a fall was immetent. The truth is, T-Rex with his counterbalancing mode of movement and with one foot always on the ground was a great deal more stable then your running ostrich.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"Diloph is too small-minded to see beyond his book. A pity, for it's his loss. And da masta is really dissapointing too, I though he was pretty smart until he decided to rally behind Diloph's stand on the book. da masta has had some sucess in forming alliances around, and that was fun. And now he's trying to argue for wily raptors, with considerably less sucess, because as I can see, he's not basing it on any evidence. It seems to me his wanting to get support for Diloph and supporting the wilyness are two eggs in the same carton, which is really dissapointing, for the sensible da masta is caught up in the position to argue for an unprovable point, much less without evidence at all. I thought of siding with him, but scrapped it for I did want to blindly follow alligences and support people just because they were friendly to me, regardless of if they were wrogn or right. Strictly, I can't see how we can even justify raptors as wily, and da masta has already gone a long distance to argue an ridiculus case, even going so far as to say it was more likely and the people saying it's not are all rebels and means nothing. This is extremely dissapointing from da masta, I thought he really knew something about the true abilities of the raptors and was about to help him against the rex-bullies, but as I can see, it's no point joining a side that's equally blind in outset. So this is it, I'm surrendering rex fans, you're happy? Well don't be, because it's not you who caused me to surrender, no, not one bit, but it was da masta's ridiculus wilyness incident. It was him, not you, so don't take credit and go saying stuff like we won."

One question, just out of interest. Why are you a raptor fan?

Now on to the topic. Surrendering like that because of the Diloph incident was not a very good idea. Makes you look weak, but before I was here nobody would say that, because you have favour with powerfull people now. You did not seem to notice why I was here. Not to cause trouble, or heroically break the Rex fans, personally, I do not like these topics, and I would prefer to discuss more interesting issues with the real regulars (Tim M, Brad, Tom G, T - Master, Honkie,) so don't all think I'll go on a cool B**t - kicking campaign. I neither do I want to, nor think I could acheive something like that. And don't you think JC would dissapprove if I where to suddenly turn into an evil bully, making everyone I don't like leave the site? And actually, I DO and DID beleive that deinonychus was wily, and I no-one can convince me that standing up for a friend was a bad idea, so don't evern try. The "where raptors better than T-Rex" issue just bores me. We've been talking about nothing else for God knows how long, and nobody part from me and some others are showing any sign of forgetting it. Both where cool, successfull predators, and trying to put down a living creature made by nature is a crime, in my opinion. Who cares "could a pack of raptors beat T-Rex?" They would never have fought, your argument is against the principles of nature!
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Ok ok, I surrender rex fans, there's you happy? You've completely spoiled my mood here.
from Raptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Jack, we've been through the T.rex falling bit quite a bit (in fact the paper you ripped off the net has been already put here long ago). And decided Farlow's paper was conclusive for limiting Tyrannosaurus speed to below 72 kph (if it could even reach that speed), but probably inconclusive for suggesting any speed limitations either then that. The entire problem of T.rex falling could be illusionary if T.rex was just very good at not falling. As people have said, would we argue that the lifestyles of mountain goats and falcons flying abouve 30mph are not possible because one slip would send the goat falling to death and one collision above 30mph with a solid object would mean death for the falcon? Or why not suggest us humans cannot fly commercial aircraft as we would die if the plane crashes at such velocities? Or what about claiming us humans could not talk as the lowering of our lynarx for to make speech more possible makes us more prone to choking? The fact is, nature takes extreme risks all the time, and T.rex probably found some way to deal with not falling, rather then moving slow, for his speed adaptations do indicate an insanely fast animal for his size (the fastest land animal in the world that ever lived, I believe). Try telling a giraffe that it cannot gallop at 28 mph because if they fall, they would take extensive damage. I think it's not very fair to limit nature in this way.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

Tom, There's a difference between scavenger and obgliate scavenger. Raptors most probably scavenged kills made by larger predators. The adaptations you mentioned are perfect for hinting small and fast prey like deer or pony-sized dinos.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

"I didn't see any posts 'bout raptors being scavengers. And they weren't."

You should look down the page further or something because some people said they are but i disagree. If raptors were scavengers then why would they be so agile, have the sickle claws, have a long stiff tail for balencing while making tight turns and have large arms.
this might be my last post of the year for me (its 10:00 on new years eve here).
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 31, 2001

This is part of an article i've read about that Nick.

The entire article is at:
www.abc.net.au/science/slab/trex/default.htm

"Next, Farlow and fellow researchers turned their attention to some theoretical constraints on galloping for a 6,000kg T. rex . Specifically, they were interested in the forces that would be exerted on the body of such an animal if it were to fall while moving at speeds of 10 metres per second or the higher speed of 20 metres per second.

The forces could be broken into two components, a vertical force and a horizontal force. The vertical force would be the same regardless of the speed at which the animal was travelling. Because T. rex had puny arms that would not effectively break the fall, the forces were calculated as direct drops of the mass of the torso and the head from their respective heights. The torso, falling 1.46 metres, would experience an impact force of approximately 260,000 newtons and a deceleration of around 6g while the head, falling 3.46 metres would impact with a force of 99,000 newtons and a deceleration of 14g. This should have been enough to do considerable damage to the skull and rupture vital internal organs.

Do the numbers not mean too much to you? Then think of it this way: the head of a T. rex is about the same size and make up as an adult pig. Imagine what would happen to this hapless piggy if you were to drop it from a height of 3.5 metres. Not a pretty site.

Things only get worse for T. rex when it starts moving and, the faster it moves, the worse it gets. The horizontal component of forces during an impact are more difficult to calculate and require such grizzly factors as the "skid distance" and a "friction coefficient". If the T. rex was running at 20 metres per second (72kmh) and skidded 3 metres on impact, the torso would experience a horizontal force of 300,000 newtons or 7g. The resulting net force of both the horizontal and vertical vectors would run out to 400,000 newtons or 9g for the torso and 110,000 newtons or 16g for the head. At 7g, a fighter pilot blacks out. At 16g his head would pop open.

Tyrannosaurus rex could avoid these lethal forces by not travelling at such high speeds but even at half that speed (10 metres per second or 36kmh) the risk of serious injury from a fall would still be very high. There is another benefit from going slower; the slower the animal travelled, the better the chance of being able to recover from a stumble before impacting with the ground.

So Farlow and his colleagues conclude that, even if T. rex could run at speeds of 72kmh (which seems unlikely from the strength of the leg bones), doing so could easily result in a lethal fall. They concluded that it was more likely for T. rex to occasionally reach the relatively low speed of around 10 metres per second (36kmh) but even then, only for short bursts over clear ground where the chances of a fall would be reduced."

hope this helps ya Nick!!
from Jack, age ?, Thats secret, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Diloph is too small-minded to see beyond his book. A pity, for it's his loss. And da masta is really dissapointing too, I though he was pretty smart until he decided to rally behind Diloph's stand on the book. da masta has had some sucess in forming alliances around, and that was fun. And now he's trying to argue for wily raptors, with considerably less sucess, because as I can see, he's not basing it on any evidence. It seems to me his wanting to get support for Diloph and supporting the wilyness are two eggs in the same carton, which is really dissapointing, for the sensible da masta is caught up in the position to argue for an unprovable point, much less without evidence at all. I thought of siding with him, but scrapped it for I did want to blindly follow alligences and support people just because they were friendly to me, regardless of if they were wrogn or right. Strictly, I can't see how we can even justify raptors as wily, and da masta has already gone a long distance to argue an ridiculus case, even going so far as to say it was more likely and the people saying it's not are all rebels and means nothing. This is extremely dissapointing from da masta, I thought he really knew something about the true abilities of the raptors and was about to help him against the rex-bullies, but as I can see, it's no point joining a side that's equally blind in outset. So this is it, I'm surrendering rex fans, you're happy? Well don't be, because it's not you who caused me to surrender, no, not one bit, but it was da masta's ridiculus wilyness incident. It was him, not you, so don't take credit and go saying stuff like we won.
from A dissapointed raptor fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I vote for Spinosaurus and T Rex
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Hey, raptors aren't so bad. Ok, JP and Joe Bob B. may have them a little wrong, but they aren't that bad.
from Raptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"But we need to stay calm, and hit 'em with solid scientific fact. They will never admit to being wrong, our objective is to make it obvious to anyone that they are wrong. And some of them really think that they are right. We've gotta wreck their self-confidence..."

This transcript sounds chillingly like the Osama tapes planning terror attacks against us. :-0
from Ron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"To any T-rex or other dino fans that think this is true, raptors weren't scavengers! If they were, then why do you think Utahraptor existed? Obviously, the bigger the animal, the bigger the food intake. Sure, a solitary 3-foot tall, 6-foot long Velociraptor might be able to live off shrew-like things, lizards, and the occasional rancid carcass, but it would be harder for a 10-foot tall, 20-foot long Utahraptor. If raptors were scavengers, then why were there big ones, too? Try to answer that, T-rex fans!"

I don't see people arguing for raptors being obgilate scavengers, just that they would have scavenged at some point of time. So there's really nothing to answer isn't it? Nobody argued along the lines of the argument you accused them of doing. Once again, you should read and understand the posts before you respond. :)
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"To any T-rex or other dino fans that think this is true, raptors weren't scavengers! If they were, then why do you think Utahraptor existed? Obviously, the bigger the animal, the bigger the food intake. Sure, a solitary 3-foot tall, 6-foot long Velociraptor might be able to live off shrew-like things, lizards, and the occasional rancid carcass, but it would be harder for a 10-foot tall, 20-foot long Utahraptor. If raptors were scavengers, then why were there big ones, too? Try to answer that, T-rex fans!"
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Hey fellow rex fans, have you guys(and gals) read anything about the studies of T .rex tripping when it runs. They said that even when running at 25 miles per hour a trip would bring some considerable damage, do you people think this is true? It couldn't be that damaging, could it? When they did the tests did they include the tendons and connective tissues that might have dampen the impact? What was their weight estimate for T .rex when they did these studies? I think T .rex would only runs to hunt when its hungry, so it's weight might be a little lighter and won't get that hurt when it trips during a fast run. Or what if big bipedal dinosaurs evolve some natural twitch reflex in their tails that keeps them from tripping? Do these ideas make any sense at all!? Any ideas?
from Nick, age 17, Denver, CO, USA; December 30, 2001

T-rex rules over raptors.

T-rex vs. Utahraptor

T-rex runs at Utahraptor. Utahraptor jumps and scars T-rex's belly. T-rex is not hurt. He picks up Utahraptor, and whaddaya know, crushes it.

I'm gonna make stoories 'bout T-rex in DinoFiction
from tyrent lizard king, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I'm the tyrent lizard king! I'm a T-rex. I love T-rex. Who else does? I think it rules over raptors.
from tyrent lizard king, age 67, wouldn't you like to know, you really want to know, allright, U.S.; December 30, 2001

I think that raptors would be able to kill a T-rex if there was 100 of them.
from aNoThEr CoRyThOsAuRuS FaN, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Wily? "Raptors", wily? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!! That's freakin' funny man. What's next, Diloph knows what he is talking about? HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA............
from Guest, age 15, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

i dont like raptors. i dont know why.
from op, age 7, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Hi guys i'm back! hope you guys had a happy holiday.mystery stop talking to da masta like that. even though i don't know who you are i don't like you!!!!!!!!!!da masta don't pay attention to what there saying. you can say what ever you want!
from DanW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I didn't see any posts 'bout raptors being scavengers. And they weren't.
from The True Rex fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

All right I won't go.
from Diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

To any T-rex or other dino fans that think this is true, raptors weren't scavengers! If they were, then why do you think Utahraptor existed? Obviously, the bigger the animal, the bigger the food intake. Sure, a solitary 3-foot tall, 6-foot long Velociraptor might be able to live off shrew-like things, lizards, and the occasional rancid carcass, but it would be harder for a 10-foot tall, 20-foot long Utahraptor.
If raptors were scavengers, then why were there big ones, too? Try to answer that, T-rex fans!
from JOE BOB B., age 10, Menlo Park, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"I'm tellin you, I'm only giving this place one more chance, and I'm only taking a little more insults before I'm gone.(Which will be a relief for some of you) Don't argue with me about wily, I'm only repeating what the enc. said, so you really shouldn't blame me for it."

Diloph don't go lots of the regulars like you.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I think its interesting that when compering Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus to T Rex it is always pointed out that T Rex's brain is twice as big and therefore more agile and that the cerebelem is much bigger. But when it comes to Raptors its said that intelligence doesn't matter and raptors are stupid compered to modern birds.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Will you stop teasing me, Varum, pulease. I wouldn't go jumping out the window, I'm not THAT stupid. And that IS what the book says, don't you guys gET IT??? look, I'm just telling you what the book sayd. I'm not trying to make trouble. Look it up and see for yourself. I didn't WRITE the encyclopedia!
from Diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I expected people to come and try to attack me now but no matter how much you will try to prove me wrong, well,I stand by my belief. And i will certainly not approve of "Diloph the genious."

I'm tellin you, I'm only giving this place one more chance, and I'm only taking a little more insults before I'm gone.(Which will be a relief for some of you) Don't argue with me about wily, I'm only repeating what the enc. said, so you really shouldn't blame me for it.
from Diloph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT DEINONYCHUS WAS WILY, JUST BECAUSE A LOAD OF PEOPLE DECIDED TO "REBEL" AND SAY THAT DEINONYCHUS WASN'T, DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING."

I'm sorry masta, but no paleontologist has ever said that raptors were willy, not the good ones. Wily as some people have correctly pointed out, is a descriptive term for behaviour, and wily behaviour is what is not know to us about Deinonychus from any evidence at all. We all know very little about dinosaurs, the "wily" description it seems to me, was just idle speculation on the part of the book. I don't believe any of my colleagues have formally stated that Dromaesaurids were willy at all. (Nor do I recall any formal paper stating that) Most likely, any description of the raptors as "wily" you might here are mainly personal opinions based on hardly any hard evidence. We just don't have enough data to know that. I don't think it's anymore likely the raptors would have been "wily". In fact, there is good reason to believe that this is not the case. You should listen to the "rebels" sometimes. A lot of what they have said about raptor intelligence is quite impressive. I wonder! if any of my colleagues have been slipping info out.

"EQ IS BRAIN CAPACITY TO BODY SIZE, AND BIRDS ARE MUCH SMALLER AND LIGHTER THAN DROMAESAURIDS. EQ MEANS NOTHING."

Not exactly masta, if you look at the Dromaesaurids, their body mass proportions and bulk are very well in proportion to that of land-dwelling birds like chickens and turkeys or even ostrichs for their size, with a similar build, and lightweight skeleton. So our EQ measurements are quite a fair test, as you can say. For flying avians, we compensate for their light weightness by skewing their EQ results to the expected proportion "density". In this case, the results do mean something. The brains of Dromaesaurids are also something to note. It is not as advanced or complex as that of our modern aves, and the part of the brain responsible for prehaps what you would deem "wily" and intelligence is reduced when compared with that of our modern aves counterpart. The raptor brain was mainly tuned to senses, with less dedication to thinking compared to our modern avians. What the "rebels" said about the raptors having about "ostrich intelligence" is consistent with the latest papers. After that, any 'wilyness' or any "conclusion" on raptor behaviour should be put down as speculation. But the book does sound a little juvenile for you to be basing your arguments from, prehaps you can pick up a more mature book written by an expert on the matter. Even now, most books are not written by the paleontologists themselves and are stuffed with misinformation by the well-intentions of the freelancers, and it's a real pain for us to correct sometimes...:-)

Best regards

George Sangresson
Evolutionary Vertebrae Paleontology

Just another undergrad studying for his PHD :-)
from George Sangresson, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I agree mystrey writer, I don't care what da masta says, but this guy is annoying the heck out of me with his overbearing nature. I hate to take sides in this really silly thing but da masta is driving the whole place nuts with his 7-11, 24/7 posts. ...
from An annoyed dino fan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Yes, you're right, but I did not say Americans invented these things alone, and I did not say otherwise. I didn't really mean EXCACTLY our type of government but certain important principles of it that would fit in other countries.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Why doesn't any body like Spinosaurs. I have an idea to stop all the maddness between Spinosaurus and T-rex. Like well T-rex is way better than Spinosaurus, etc. I am goind to set-up a voting stand between them. I will give the results on January 16. So please vote, vote, vote!!!!!!!! P.S: to vote just write it on this page and every night I will look at the standings and record them.
from Jenn, age 10 1/2, London, Ontario, ?; December 30, 2001

What is the name of the encyclopedia are we arguing over? I've seen some bad childish dinosaur books use the word "encyclopedia" in the title.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; December 30, 2001

FOR YOUR INFORMATION I HAPPENED TO LIKE SPINOSAURUS. AND NOT T-REX. WHY DOESN'T ANYBODY ELSE LIKE SPINOSAURUS??? jUST BECAUSE IN JPS THEY SHOULD SPINOSAURUS BEING STRONGER DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN TEASE SPINOSAURUS AS BEING WEAKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Hi, this is mystrey writer. da masta, I want you to SHUT UP and stop writing so much. You practicly fill up the whole web page. Some people liked to be reconized for their dino facts or tales, okay. And tell Dan W to back on this web site and talk!!!!! If you don't I 'll start writing to you!!!!!! And, oh ya did I tell you you're a *******!!!!!!!! LOVE Dan W. aND IF ANY BODY WRITES ANYTHING ABOUT THIS MESSAGE I LITALIRY KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

aCTUALLY dA mASTA, You ARE PRetty RudE YoURseLF. SoYOu DoN'T HavE Any RIght TEllING PeopLE THey ARe RuDe aND Wrong. AnD DuN SAy tHEY StARTEd It For IF You WEre ANy BETTer YoU WoULD Not HAvE AcTEd So RudELY.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Well, if you mean the first early computer-like instruments, maybe not. But the advanced, personal computers that are used today were invented by Americans."

Heh heh, I can't say that one bit. Most of our advancements in computer technology actually comes from other countries and we just put it together. Japan invented us a lot of stuff, like advanced monitors and RAM and such, Singapore the soundcards, Taiwan some chip stuff and so on and so forth. I wouldn't dare to claim the modern PC as an American invention without giving credit to the other countries who made it possible. Imagine your PC running on original US-monochrome monitors or having no soundcard. The modern PC is virtually an international effort. I propose we define invention as a trait of humanity, not as an acomplishment of what country or what.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Well, techniaclly, we did. For 4 centuries, Rennaissance scientists had been coming up with counting devices, and other computer-like machines that were not really computers. The first actual computer was "Eniac". Built at the university of Pennsylvania in 1947. After that, it was Americans who made most of the steps toward computer modernization. (Take for example companies like Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsytems, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, IBM, and Dell, which, alltogether suplly most of the Computers and software that are currently being used.) But of course, at least some of the credit must go to early scientists, who started it all. :)"

If what you say is true... TECHNICALLY, we did not invent the computer!!! Yikes, do you know how to use the word "technically"? It's a delicate word! Jury out on count on misuse of important word! Yikes! But we americans are grubby and greedy about our inventions changing the world, in actual fact, most of our inventions are actually joint projects involving people from other countries. And sometimes, we are too proud to admit it. Edison invented the light bulb, and disputed with the russian Nicole Tesla over the use of AC/DC current. It turned out if we hadn't taken the russian's advice, Edison's light bulb would be there, but would hardly work bue to the inefficency of the Edison-advocated DC. Without the russian, our country's electrical grid would not have progressed far enough as a natural step for our other "inventions". I think we should be fair here, inventions are for everyone and should not be claimed by one country as the whole world owns us because of that. Imagine what would have happened if England decided to claim exclusive production rights to the motorcar!!! Let's be fair, is America the greatest country? As an American I would be inclined to say so, but what makes it great? It's all subjective. And not everybody likes American culture, to each his own. What makes us the best? Nothing much really, it's all in the eye of the beholder. We didn't even score the best in the best places to live survey. Does this mean we are any less best in our own eyes? I think any country that respects human rights and gives its citizens a good standard of living is equally as deserving of being called a good country and place to live in as America, we all share the same earth after all. The rest of the world does not own us something. Is our government the best? In other countries, a US-style democracy does not work as well as the culture there is different, sometimes leading to much bloodshed and violence. I think sometimes we need to understand peo! ple before saying "Hey Mr.Taliban, please stop abusing human rights and turn over Bin Laden" from an absolute moral high ground while forgetting it was our lack of aid to Afganistan after the afgan war that actually created the groundwork for the Taliban! Other people probably think their country is the best too.
from No!!! That's not how it's used!!!!, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Garg, too much to post, and too tired!

I'll try to catch up tommorow.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

""most Tenontosaurus fossils have Deinoychus teeth nearby. What does this show:

1)Tenontosaurus where common prey for Deinonychus
2)Deinonychus can take down Tenontosaurus without any of them dyeing"

Actually, it's shows this more likely:

1)The 'punker' Tenontosaurs were fond of wearing jewelry
made of the teeth of deinonychus explains it all neatly . . .
*THAT REALLY IS NOT FUNNY. IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOU THINK, THEN I CAN TELL YOU THAT TENONTOSAURS HAD NEITHER THE BRAINS NOR DEXTEROUS HANDS TO MAKE OR WEAR JEWELERY.*
Common, Tenontosaurus is the baddest dino around, some lously deinonychus (note lower case as a mark of disrespect to lously deinonychus) can't kill them at all*NO, NOT THEM ALL, THAT JUST WOULDN'T WORK, NATURE WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT, BUT A LOT OF THEM.*."
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"See hardcore Rex fans, nobody likes that kind of behaviour, so it's quite sensible to stop. I'm not trying to annoy you, you have to realise that you have upset quite a few people."

What makes you think this is all the work of the hardcore rex fans at all? My impression is, they've only taken a bit in this, there are a lot of other dino fans very angry with the raptors, and I dunno why. By maybe it's becos some person here responds to people in caps and a annoying, I-am-so-victimised-you-evil-thing-listen-to-me-I-am-right-no-matter-how-much-info-you-pour-on-me-and-when-I-see-a-point-where-I-can-attack-I-will-embarrass-you-with-a-loud-attack attitude?
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

""Since I AM someone Very Wise I have something to say(since I'm giving this site ONE more chance).

I don't have to try harder, yOU have to try harder. You are disagreeing with an encyclopedia, for pete's sake, arguing with that won't get you anywhere. Face it, books know more than we do. Also, it said Deinonychus was wily. And if you say it isn't wily than you would be wrong. And encyclopedias are RIGHT, I suppose you're gonna say "Well, it's wrong" or something, but I won't believe it."

And how do you know this?

We know embarassingly little about intelligence and Brain capacity in extant animals ,how do we know what is intelligent for a dinosaur?not to mention the fesability of comparing dinosaurs to Mammals (big difference).

Youre trying to falsify assumptions with assumptions, just because you
consider them probable and in your book does'nt mean they are the reality.*IT'S MORE LIKELY THAT DEINONYCHUS WAS WILY, JUST BECAUSE A LOAD OF PEOPLE DECIDED TO "REBEL" AND SAY THAT DEINONYCHUS WASN'T, DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.*

The reality Is , we do not know, nor do we have enough conclusive evidence to fully support either hypothesis. And It is , by no means Absurd to fully and open mindedly examine all of the possibilities , unless you wish to ignore their possible implications.

However what you have done is to selectively block out the fact that raptor EQ*EQ IS BRAIN CAPACITY TO BODY SIZE, AND BIRDS ARE MUCH SMALLER AND LIGHTER THAN DROMAESAURIDS. EQ MEANS NOTHING.* is relatively low on the scale of modern birds and to ignore its implications, chosing to hide behind a simple word wily and challange people to come get you*BELIEVE ME, THE LAST THING DILOPH WANTS IS FOR PEOPLE TO "COME GET HIM."*. Seriously, grow up and stop hiding behind your book*PLEASE, I LIKE DILOPH.*. Da Masta needs us people to hit back with facts, not to play the anti-raptor guys game by hitting back with no facts*I CAN USUALLY SEE ABOUT PEOPLE, AND MY SENSES TELL ME THAT DILOPH IS SAFE.*. You'll ruin all od da masta's work*MY WORK HERE IS TO DEBATE DINOSAURS PEACEFULLY WITH OTHER DINOTALK CITIZENS. IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS, I TRY TO TACKLE THEM.*.

Da Masta, why are skilled people so hard to find on our side nowadays?
from Da Masta rocks!*IT'S NICE TO SEE THAT SOMEONE OUT THERE THINKS THAT I ROCK, THANK YOU, BUT YOU'RE MAKING ME LOOK CRUEL AND INCONSIDERATE, AND THAT'S AN IMAGE I DON'T WANT. I TRY TO BE NICE.*"
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"I don't have to try harder, yOU have to try harder. You are disagreeing with an encyclopedia, for pete's sake, arguing with that won't get you anywhere. Face it, books know more than we do*BOOKS DON'T "KNOW" ANYTHING, THEY JUST DISPLAY INFORMATION ON THEIR PAGES, BUT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT.*. Also, it said Deinonychus was wily. And if you say it isn't wily than you would be wrong. And encyclopedias are RIGHT*NOT ALWAYS. THEY DISPLAY WHAT WE THINK AT THE TIME, BUT IF A NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS FOUND, IT COULD DISPROVE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AND IT WOULD BE WRONG. BOOKS ARE MADE BY US, THEY CONTAIN OUR KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.*, I suppose you're gonna say "Well, it's wrong" or something, but I won't believe it.*GOOD TO STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS. I SUPPOSE THAT DEINONYCHUS WAS GOOD AT HUNTING IT'S PREY, AND WAS WILY. I GUESS IT COULD FORM SIMPLE PLANS AND KNOW THE HABITS OF IT'S PREY AND EXPLOIT THEM, ETC, SO I THINK IT MAY WELL HAVE B! EEN QUITE WILY. SADLY NO DEIN!ONYCHUS BRAINCASTS OR SKULL ROOFS HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND, SO THE ENCYCLOPEDIA MAY BE PROVED WRONG, BUT OUR OPINIONS COINCIDE HERE.*"

I like raptors, and I intended to stay out of this silliness, and I'm tending to side with da masta, but this "wily" thing is extremely silly and I think that not only arguing a book saying the raptors were wily is correct is stupid, it's pretty a dumb subject to bother with at all until Diloph the genious had to bring it up.

I don't buy that for a moment. Wily in what sense? For a dinosaur? That's not saying much. You see, this is another case of a single word being twisted by people who see what they want to see. If the book says that raptors were wily for dinosaurs (whatever wily means, but I'll assume it simply relates to EQ), then it will be correct, but in that case, it really means nothing much as a raptor will hardly be considered wily beside most modern birds and mammals. It's a nondescript and overgeneralized term really, and I doubt the word "wily" as intended by the book's authors are being used correctly by Diloph here. If you want us to follow you reasoning da masta, then we'll have to conclude Tyrannosaurus rex, Dryptosaurus, Allosaurus were all wily dinosaurs as they had intelligence above that of adverage dinosaurs. I seriously doubt the ability of raptors to "form" plans. Everything in raptor hunting would be probably instinctive and innate. The intelligence of the raptors were quite far below that of modern animals that do construct gameplans to attack prey. But most intelligent enough predators "plan" their attack, they choose which place to attack, and what prey to, as opposed to simple-minded predators like lizards, who just grab any 'ol fly. I suppose raptors could do this, but then again, any Allosaurus or Tyrannosaurus could do the same. But I think the idea of gameplanning (team a distract prey, team b takes them out) is quite far beyond the raptors. Any complex predatory behaviour would be innate and not a result of intelligence, postulating from their EQ.

But I agree it had to be a pretty simpleminded book to use the term "wily". I mean most books settle for a non-opinioned description of dinosaurs. I wouldn't mind them calling raptors "intelligent" for a dinosaur, but wily in the sense Diloph is implying? I don't think so. Let's look at the meaning of wily shall we?

Wily (Page: 1654)
Wil"y (?), a. [Compar. Wilier (?); superl. Wiliest.] [From Wile.] Full of wiles, tricks, or stratagems; using craft or stratagem to accomplish a purpose; mischievously artful; subtle. Wily and wise." Chaucer. The wily snake." Milton.

This false, wily, doubling disposition of mind. South.
Syn. -- Cunning; artful; sly; crafty. See Cunning.

As we can see, if the book's "wily" must be taken at face value, it means that the book is implying that the raptors were. Is there anyway of finding that out from the bones? Da Masta, if you wrote so zealously about hitting people with the facts and destroying their self confidence, I think you have to do a lot better then put your bet on a mere word in a book. In that case, I'm flipping through my dinosaur book now and it says that Triceratops had a sprawed stance, no argument about it. Shall I just say "that's what the book says, don't argue with me?" and put it as such? I seriously doubt any good refrence book will dare to describe raptor behaviour as "wily" if they knew good science, "wily" is a descriptive term for being CUNNING. Are we even sure raptors were full of tricks and stuff to be cunning when they at best were as smart as ostrichs? I think we have to respect the facts here. Intelligent for a dinosaur, yes, wily? I don't think so. Crows are what I call wily (which are about so many times smarter then ostriches), not an ostrich. The fact is, I don't think there's anything really THAT special about raptor intelligence that warrants our special labels and stuff. Animals like the troodons are smarter and close relatives like the ostrich-mimics and tyrannosaurs are very close behind, not to mention the so many species of birds that are certainly smarter. I doubt raptors are wily in any way. If you want to apply the lable, we have to say troodons, ostrich-mimics, tyrannosaurs, and a great load of modern birds. I think the "wily" point better be put to rest as a word not to be trusted in the book before we attract ridicue. Focus on the killing abilites of raptors instead, their intelligence wasn't anything too special at all.
from Deino freak, age ?, raptors, are, cool; December 30, 2001

"There, was that exciting enough?"

Whoever asked for "excitement" here? And by the way, you managed to put someone down with just your name now. Wow, that's a record. WELL DONE. You'll be really popoular with about 30% of the people here now.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Ah, I just thought I'd say that I'm not going to talk about whether Americans are fat and whether they invented all these things. Just dinosaurs for me.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Ugh! This will be my last post to this place because I've had it with all of these "dino-know-it-alls" who think they've got it all figured out without even having read a book in their lives! Guys, if you want to argue a point, cite a source like a book, a paper, or some other publication (websites hardly count, as anyone can post anything on the Internet*TWO POINTS. 1) A LOT OF THE INFO THE PEOPLE HERE GET IS FROM THE INTERNET, BUT FROM RELIABLE SITES. 2) MOST OF US DON'T SIT HERE WITH A BOOK, WE LEARN OFF BY HEART ALL THE STUFF IN THEM, WE REMEMBER WHAT WE READ. AND WE OFTEN FORGET WHERE WE READ IT.*). Arguing that _T. rex_ was a scavenger, _Triceratops_ was "obviously" built for speed, or that _Velociraptor_ was the smartest dinosaur of them all means nothing if you've got no evidence backing you up (and I'm not talking about quotes from popular movies, here). Too many people are letting their own biases get in the way of what might very well be! the truth. So, having said that, I bid you all fairwell, and wish each and every one of you luck with your dinosaur research*THANK YOU, SAME TO YOU.*."
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"What's your real name, da masta? If you tell me I'll tell you.(And I won't laugh)"

Hey, I believe you. You won't laugh, and you would tell me your name. (Telling me your name and then asking for mine won't work by the way, but if you search the archives you can find what some people call me, which is not near my real name at all!)

I'm not strictly speaking "English."
I've lived in England almost my whole life, but my parents are from Russia. I speak better English than Russian though, and I think English too. (To save Honkie the bother: "Seesh da masta, releive us of your sticky personal life, OK?")

Getting me to tell you this much is quite an acheivemnt, BTW, I like not to reveal too much.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Stegosaurus is my favorite dinosaur.The spikes on his back are super strong!It also has plates on his back that are either to protect or,to scare predators.Some people think it curls into a heagehog to attack.Is that true?I love Stegosaurus!Do you?"

Hey Ismail, I love all dinosaurs. And Stegosaurs. Stegosaurus could not curl into a ball, though. Their vertebrae would not allow it, and it was too heavy to do that kind of thing! The plates where most likely for display, to predators and other Stegosaurs. The plates where full of blood vessels you see, and if a predator bit them then the Stegosaur would bleed quite badly. It probably flashed it's plates red and swung it's spiky tail at predators, and it obviously worked, Stegosaurs where quite successful animals.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

See hardcore Rex fans, nobody likes that kind of behaviour, so it's quite sensible to stop. I'm not trying to annoy you, you have to realise that you have upset quite a few people.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Since I AM someone Very Wise I have something to say(since I'm giving this site ONE more chance*JEEZ, WE GOTTA LEARN TO IGNORE THOSE FOOLS.*).

I don't have to try harder, yOU have to try harder. You are disagreeing with an encyclopedia, for pete's sake, arguing with that won't get you anywhere. Face it, books know more than we do*BOOKS DON'T "KNOW" ANYTHING, THEY JUST DISPLAY INFORMATION ON THEIR PAGES, BUT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT.*. Also, it said Deinonychus was wily. And if you say it isn't wily than you would be wrong. And encyclopedias are RIGHT*NOT ALWAYS. THEY DISPLAY WHAT WE THINK AT THE TIME, BUT IF A NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS FOUND, IT COULD DISPROVE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AND IT WOULD BE WRONG. BOOKS ARE MADE BY US, THEY CONTAIN OUR KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.*, I suppose you're gonna say "Well, it's wrong" or something, but I won't believe it.*GOOD TO STAND UP FOR YOUR BELIEFS. I SUPPOSE THAT DEINONYCHUS WAS GOOD AT HUNTING IT'S PREY, AND WAS WILY. I GUESS IT COULD FORM SIMPLE PLANS AND KNOW THE HABITS OF IT'S PREY AND EXPLOIT THEM, ETC, SO I THINK IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN QUITE WILY. SADLY NO DEIN!ONYCHUS BRAINCASTS OR SKULL ROOFS HAVE EVER BEEN FOUND, SO THE ENCYCLOPEDIA MAY BE PROVED WRONG, BUT OUR OPINIONS COINCIDE HERE.*"
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Okay I'll give this site one more chance. ONE more chance."

Hey Diloph, forget chances. Stay here for good. Ignore those people attacking velociraptor out there now, we don't need them.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"This is totally getting out of hand. Why don't we just forget about raptors?"

You a Rex fan? Well done, thank you for trying to stop this.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"i think sarcosuchus is a gavial not a crocodile"

Gharials are very closely related to crocodiles, they are in the same order.
from da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"I'd like to point out that Americans did not invent the computer"
Well, techniaclly, we did. For 4 centuries, Rennaissance scientists had been coming up with counting devices, and other computer-like machines that were not really computers. The first actual computer was "Eniac". Built at the university of Pennsylvania in 1947. After that, it was Americans who made most of the steps toward computer modernization. (Take for example companies like Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsytems, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, IBM, and Dell, which, alltogether suplly most of the Computers and software that are currently being used.) But of course, at least some of the credit must go to early scientists, who started it all. :)
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I don't think this is the work of rex fans, da masta is just anyhow pointing out people to blame, ...
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Some people think it curls into a headehog to attack."
That's a cool idea, but I don't think that a big animal like Stegosaurus could roll itself into a ball to attack...
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I think a leopard can kill a raptor quite easily.
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"I'd like to point out that Americans did not invent the computer."
Well, if you mean the first early computer-like instruments, maybe not. But the advanced, personal computers that are used today were invented by Americans.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I don't think the US has the best form of government in the world, to say that is implying other countries are not as good as us. Frankly, we've done some things that we cannot be proud of (slavery and racism). We have a good government for our country, and that's good enough, I won't go as far as to say we have the best. Really, I doubt our system would fit in other countries. Countries have different cultures and people and their political systems are made to match them, a US system may not be the best for them. Sometimes, we take too much credit for things. We did not invent democracy, books, nor computers. We just promoted them. I don't think we should live as if the world owed us something, truly, that kind of attitude leads to isloation and resentment from out neighbours. Instead of understanding others, we just say we're the best and that they should listen to us.
from A proud American, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

No we did not invent democracy. This can be traced back to ancient Athens in the 6th century B.C. However,basing some parts of their government on the British government, formed the best type of government in the world. Soon, most other counties adopted this or a similar style of government.
from Tim M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Since they couldn't pronate or supinate their hands, how are the Dienos going to attack the Tenontosaurus if it needs to hang on? Or maybe they didn't attack? Maybe they just scavenged?
from Morton, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Actually Tom G, the Deino were most likely scavenging from the Tenontosaurus dead bodies, that's why you get a lot of teeth. When they attacked a live one however, they took heavy losses. Of course, now some even say that might not have happened, and that the bodies just turned out together after being sarried there by a river or something. Deinos, being small and lacking the power of the larger predators, lived pretty much like a Jackal, catching small animals to eat and scavenging from a bigger ones. A lot less exciting, but more probable.
from Morton, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"This is the kind of argument that really annoyes me. The fight where 4 Deinonychus died is ONE fight most Tenontosaurus fossils have Deinoychus teeth nearby. What does this show:

1)Tenontosaurus where common prey for Deinonychus
2)Deinonychus can take down Tenontosaurus without any of them dyeing"

Hmm, you seem to have convinced yourself that Deinonychus must have been able to hunt large prey efficently:

When we come up with a hypothesis in science, we try to phrase so that we are likely to REJECT it. Once you have an idea you really like (I know I have a few about dinosaurs myself), it is very easy to find evidence to confirm, at least to yourself, that you're right. But we want to try to get rid of our own personal biases as much as we can. Otherwise, we might overlook or subconsciously ignore contradictory or vague evidence.

So, we could start out setting up a hypothesis like this: Dromaeosaurids did not hunt in packs to bring down big prey like Tenontosaurus. We would call this your null hypothesis. Then we set up a different, or alternative, hypothesis like this: Dromaeosaurids did hunt in packs to bring down big prey like Tenontosaurus. In every case where the evidence is equivocal or vague, we fall back on the NULL hypothesis.

Let's look then at the Tenontosaurus situation.

Evidence 1: Deinonychus and Tenontosaurus are both known from the Cloverly Formation. Of course, just because two animals are found in the same locality doesn't mean that they interacted with each significantly. We fail to reject our null hypothesis here.

Evidence 2: There are teeth of Deinonychus present with Tenontosaurus remains at more than 16 sites in the Cloverly. Okay, we have teeth associated with this big herbivore. But here are some things to consider. The teeth may have been shed during an attack, but there is no evidence at any of these sites to outright reject the possibility that these Dromaeosaurids were just being opportunistic scavengers. The teeth could just as easily be shed by scavenging theropods as well as actively predating ones. Hmmm ... looks like we can't be sure again, so we fall back on our null hypothesis again.

Evidence 3: Some specimens of Tenontosaurus appear to have bite marks
in the bones and are also associated with Deinonychus teeth. Great! irrefutable evidence, right! But, wait! Who made the bites? How do we know that another dinosaur, or even something like an alligator, didn't make the bites? We don't. It's really tough to match up teeth marks with dinosaur jaws, because teeth can slip, or not penetrate in certain areas, or any other number of problems. And even if we were to show that indeed Deinonychus or another dromaeosaurid bit the Tenontosaurus, it wouldn't tell us whether the bite was made during an attack or as a scavenging mark. Too bad, but it looks like we have to fall back on our null hypothesis again.

Evidence 4: Tenontosaurus is too big for one dromaeosaurid to handle. Pack hunting was obviously necessary to bring them down. Well, okay, but this assumes that Deinonychus had pack instincts, something we can't directly observe. Plus, maybe once a Tenontosaurus got big enough, it was left alone. Maybe if Deinonychus was a pack hunter, it attack juvenile Tenontosaurs. And, it turns out, a subadult Tenontosaurus MOR 682 at the Museum of the Rockies was found in close association with 11 shed Deinonychus teeth. The skeleton appears to have ripped apart pretty good by some dinosaurs and perhaps this indicates that many Deinoychus were employing pack tactics to bring this smaller guy down. Or, this smaller guy was killed by a bigger theropod and then scavenged by Deinonychus. Or, this smaller guy died
of other causes and was later consumed by Deinonychus. And even if
these animals didn't have pack behavior, they could be drawn to a
stinking carcass like vultures. So again, our evidence is equivocal.
We fall back on our null hypothesis yet again.

Well, we could go on like this for a long time, but I hope you see
the point I'm trying to make. As scientists, we are duty-bound to be
skeptical of every new (or even not so new) claim until we find
evidence that positively supports that claim, or hypothesis. And
remember, every hypothesis and theory in science, in order to be
scientific, has have these four qualities: 1) It has to be testable;
2) It must be repeatable by other researchers; 3) It must be falsifiable; and 4) It should have predictive power.

Science is a tough business, and paleontology is extra hard because we don't have as much control over the evidence as do some experimental scientists. Even though it would be awesome if theropods hunted in organized packs, dispatching hadrosaurs and sauropods left and right with cool, calculated efficiency, we just don't have enough positive evidence to say, definitely, yes this is what happened.
from Matt B., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Wily raptors?

Sorry, but the only way to prove 'wilyness' is to observe it in living animals. Until you have figured out how to do this with dromaeosaurids, all the theorizing in the world and rubbish from your deserved-to-be-thrown-out-of-the-window-book will prove nothing. And I have no idea how you might prove a statement like "dromaeosaurs were wily animals", if they weren't already observed to be wily (in which case the "proof" becomes trivial).

On the other hands, there are a lot of reasons to believe why the raptors were not capable to be defined as 'wily'. For one thing, it's kinda hard to place Ostrichs as wily. Heck, if Diloph were to go by his book religously (who I seriously doubt as anysort of a good source of info), I wonder if he'll jump out of his window if it said Homo sapiens were capable of unaided flight.

I agree, Triceratops is the best. He can beat T-rex anyday.
from Varum, age 13, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

What makes everyone think this is the work of rex fans at all? I con count Triceratops fans, Allosaurus fans, Stegosaurus fans among the mix.
from Jane M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"I don't have to try harder, yOU have to try harder. You are disagreeing with an encyclopedia, for pete's sake, arguing with that won't get you anywhere. Face it, books know more than we do. Also, it said Deinonychus was wily. And if you say it isn't wily than you would be wrong. And encyclopedias are RIGHT, I suppose you're gonna say "Well, it's wrong" or something, but I won't believe it."

Wily? An encyclopedia used the term? It seems to me your encyclopedia is hardly credible if it uses such opinioned views! Wily is in itself a subjective term. What kind of encyclopedia is that? Is it a knowledge book for preschoolers? You better not trust it. Good encyclopedias present you with unopinioned facts (ie, they won't say T-man was a scavenger, rather they will say some paleontologists think he is). Have you ever though how they came up with the description wily and what it really means rather then accepting it blindly. In such a unclear and open to change pratice like dinosauria, how on earth can they come up with a description of "wily" as a "fact". Are you sure it's just not some oversimplified book to make dinosaurs easy to understand for minors? Please digest what you read and question it instead of accepting it blindly. What happens if another book comes along and say that the raptors were not "wily" would you be so confused your head explodes?(great loss) You unknowning acceptence of words whoes true weight they hold is truly disturbing indeed. Hello? Can we see some intelligence here? I wouldn't be surprised if your encylopeida was some JP or WWD kid's refrence.
from Damean, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"stupid hardcore rex fans, making up stuff just to put down raptors."

Um, take a closer look and you'll notice that the people raging against the raptors seem to be fans of other dinosaurs rather then Tyrannosaurus rex. (Though they seem to use Tyrannosaurus rex as a handy tool for their ammo) I think the annoyance of the raptor-as-deadilest-dino gag has gotten to everyone here too. But it's strange why the blame for any dino bashing always gets disproportinately put on the rex-fans.

"Yes, America on average consumes the most calories in a year (I don't know about unhealthy foods...)but we do not consume the most fat.(that is France) America is the third largest country in the world by population- 283 million people live in it. So there may be more obese people in America then their are in Britain and other countries, but there are still many Americans who are not obese."

I dunno, there's really nothing wrong (not medically speaking of course), with being obese, it's just a state of body. But if you're going to talk in technical terms, America is probably the country with the highest proportion of obese people in it. Well, every country has its oddities. In my country, an amazing 50 percent of the population is myoptic (short-sighted, even in children as young as 5!).
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"This is the kind of argument that really annoyes me. The fight where 4 Deinonychus died is ONE fight"

Was there even a fight at all? This is extremely ambigious information and open to anyone to form his own opinion about. The famous Tenontosaurus fossil in which four Deinonychus are associated with (and on which all raptor pack theory is losely based) hardly shows any more interaction then the mere association of the fossils. The Tenontosaurus fossils were badly abraded while the Deinonychus elements were quite intact. Either then the proximity of the fossils, no distinct predatory elements have been found, no clear bite marks, on the badly preserved Tenontosaurus elements. So in that case, it's up to anyone to guess. Both species could have died elsewhere and had been carried to the same spot by a river (the stone matrix in which they were fossilized indicated riverbed silt deposits). Or that, the Deinonychus had been attracted to a dead Tenontosaurus and died of some unknown cause, or that there had been an attack by a bunch of Deinonychus as suggested by Ostrom. It seems t! his story has gained to most popularity simply by the fact it sounds more exciting, rather then being more possible then the other theories.

"most Tenontosaurus fossils have Deinoychus teeth nearby. What does this show:

1)Tenontosaurus where common prey for Deinonychus
2)Deinonychus can take down Tenontosaurus without any of them dyeing"

This is strange indeed. I believe the term "most" is more of a misnomer. In fact, there is only one other fossil Tenontosaurus I can recall that seems to exibit Deinonychus bite marks and associated teeth, and that animal was a juvenile specimen. But even this hardly indicates an attack, merely that Deinonychus did feed on Tenontosaurus. The idea of Deinonychus scavenging on the Tenontosaur is equally possible. The only way we could prove that Deinonychus did attack a Tenontosaurus, was indeed, to find evidence of an unsucessful attack on a live animal, as was done in the case of Allosaurus fragillis and Tyrannosaurus rex. In any case, the idea of "most Tenontosaurus fossils have Deinoychus teeth nearby." is certainly not true and I don't buy it for a moment. 1 out of the 25 specimens we have is certainly not "most" as most people would consider it. But I do think that most of our most popular raptor ideas on their abilities requires a great deal of optimism and speculation, s! ometimes at the expense of good science.

BTW, my money is on the Leopard for the matchup between raptor and feline. It seems to me this extremely sucessful modern day feline predator is the best of the two.
from Honkie Tong, age 17, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

Did anyone here like dromaeosaurs before they saw Jurassic Park?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; December 30, 2001

I haven't been following the Deinonychus-Tenontosaurus discussion too closely, but here's a though:

As I understand it, the remains of four deinonychs and one tenontosaur were found together. We assume that more deinonychs were present at the site, and they killed the tenontosaur. But what if there were dozens of tenontosaurs there too? Perhaps we shouldn't attribute the death of four raptors to the single tenontosaur that died that day, but to the other tenontosaurs that got away! Many other ornithopods lived in herds, so I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest this for Tenontosaurus.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; December 30, 2001

Apatosaurus is a dinosaur. Brontosaurus is Apatosaurus. How could Brontosaurus not be a dinosaur????
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; December 30, 2001

Can people stop putting down raptors!!!

Saying any animal is stupid is just sad. All animals are good at what they were designed to do.
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"...Tenontosaurus where common prey for Deinonychus"

You're talking about the teeth found equals common prey? But that doesn't prove anything about predation. I'm sure there are species of carrion beetle that just love elephant flesh. But, to the best of my knowledge, no aggregation of intrepid beetles can bring down an elephant.

Not to mention the fossil record is selective, it only preserves when the conditions are right. If a bunch of Tenontosaurus died in a natural trap and got scavenged by the raptors, hence the many teeth, and if the area was perfect for making fossils, we'll get lots of Tenontosaurus with raptor teeth. All in all, finding teeth with a carcass hardly indicates predation at all. The raptor could have just been a great scavenger of Tenontosaurus, who knows? It's equally possible. I would conceed if we found evidence of an unsucessful raptor attack on an animal, but as of yet, none have been found. And not to question the true abilities of the raptors, I wonder why people automatically assume they were predators? Why not scavengers? Why do we immediately assume raptors could take on large prey above one ton? Have we found evidence of that? How come only Tenotosaurus? I mean some of our assumptions indicate raptors attacking animals over 5 times Tenontosaurus size. And even if raptor! s do kill Tenontosaurus, it just means that they could kill 900 kilo animals, quite out of the leauge of the multi-ton animals the larger predators kill. Why then do we consider them so effective? Is there even any scientific basis for that? Or is it just popular "science". I mean I saw a picture of a bunch of dog-sized raptors managing to kill an Anatotitan! If the human sized raptors don't show any sign of attacking any animals larger then 1 ton, if they even attacked, not scavenged, why assume even smaller raptors killing an Anatotitan?

And people keep talking about how intelligent the raptors were. But really, seriously, how much did it matter in their world? Even if they were intelligent for dinosaurs, how smart were they compaired to other animals? The truth is, the best we can put raptors is beside large, land dwelling birds like ostrichs. And though they are smart by dinosaur terms, that intelligence was still not enough to be considered any sort of a hunting advantage. A Allosaurus with less brainpower would do every bit as well in hunting. The raptors don't have enough brainpower by a long shot to make up plans and do anything complex like primates or wolves, so why do we keep saying they were deadly because they were wily or intelligent when it most probably didn't matter because they still weren't smart enough to make the grade?
from Ceratosaurus Ingens, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"most Tenontosaurus fossils have Deinoychus teeth nearby. What does this show:

1)Tenontosaurus where common prey for Deinonychus
2)Deinonychus can take down Tenontosaurus without any of them dyeing"

Actually, it's shows this more likely:

1)The 'punker' Tenontosaurs were fond of wearing jewelry
made of the teeth of deinonychus explains it all neatly . . .

Common, Tenontosaurus is the baddest dino around, some lously deinonychus (note lower case as a mark of disrespect to lously deinonychus) can't kill them at all.
from Tenoto king, age 13, Tenonto land, ?, USA; December 30, 2001

"Since I AM someone Very Wise I have something to say(since I'm giving this site ONE more chance).

I don't have to try harder, yOU have to try harder. You are disagreeing with an encyclopedia, for pete's sake, arguing with that won't get you anywhere. Face it, books know more than we do. Also, it said Deinonychus was wily. And if you say it isn't wily than you would be wrong. And encyclopedias are RIGHT, I suppose you're gonna say "Well, it's wrong" or something, but I won't believe it."

And how do you know this?

We know embarassingly little about intelligence and Brain capacity in extant animals ,how do we know what is intelligent for a dinosaur?not to mention the fesability of comparing dinosaurs to Mammals (big difference).

Youre trying to falsify assumptions with assumptions, just because you
consider them probable and in your book does'nt mean they are the reality.

The reality Is , we do not know, nor do we have enough conclusive evidence to fully support either hypothesis. And It is , by no means Absurd to fully and open mindedly examine all of the possibilities , unless you wish to ignore their possible implications.

However what you have done is to selectively block out the fact that raptor EQ is relatively low on the scale of modern birds and to ignore its implications, chosing to hide behind a simple word wily and challange people to come get you. Seriously, grow up and stop hiding behind your book. Da Masta needs us people to hit back with facts, not to play the anti-raptor guys game by hitting back with no facts. You'll ruin all od da masta's work.

Da Masta, why are skilled people so hard to find on our side nowadays?
from Da Masta rocks!, age ?, Da Masta rocks!, Da Masta rocks!, Da Masta rocks!; December 30, 2001

Big-T was one bad Tentonsaurus. He had respect, and he had his big
fat tail. He could smack any dinosaur who decided to mess with him.
Needless to say, no one messed with him. But today was different...
"What you doin on my turf, bird boy?" Demanded Big-T.
Bobby Raptor sneered. "This turf belongs to the Raptor Reds now,
so beat it."
Big-T responded by smacking Bobby with the broad-side of his absurdly
huge tail. Bobby hit a tree and chirped in outrage. "You just made a bad
mistake leaf-sucker!" he screamed. He reared up and made a bunch of funny
barking noises. "Are you congested?" asked Big-T derisively.
Just then, a bunch on Deinonychus came running. Thier feathers
displayed thier pack-colors; they were Raptor Reds, Bobby's possse.
"I don't see no pack with your fat tail" said Bobby. "Get ready to
join the food chain!" There was a chourus of snicking sounds as the
Raptor Reds flicked open thier switch-feet.
Big-T didn't have toe claws, but he didn't need them. He reared up
to his full height and whipped out a loaded 9mm. "I GOT MY PACK RIGHT
HERE!" he screamed, crudely holding the gun between his fore-feet. He
cocked the hammer back with his beak. He didn't have fingers, so he
pulled the trigger with his tongue. The gun roared. The recoil sent the
gun flying from Big-T's un-opposible-thumbed grip. It also ripped out his
tongue- boy, it really hurt.
But Big-T wasn't through yet; he still had his hand gernade.
"Stah, our ahl puuh ah in!" "He's bluffing!" screamed Bobby. "Take him!"
Big-T wasn't bluffing. The Raptor Reds tried to flap thier arms
hard enough to fly away, but it was too late. The disarticulation was
extreme.
With the carnage over, the Little Fuzzies emerged from the
undergrowth. They had patiently bided thier time for 100 million years,
raiding the occaisional nest, but with the competition taken out, they
were ready to move in and start SERIOUSLY grubbing some egg. Bad Rat, the
leader, climbed to the top of what was left of Big-T's inert corpse. "ARE
YOU READY TO RUMBLE?!" he screamed. His posse squealed in assent.
But first, they decided to give Big-T and the Raptor Reds a decent
burial.

There, was that exciting enough?
from Da Masta over da masta, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

"Deinonychus were effective predatory animals. It would not take them much time to overcome a Tenontosaurus. They have backward slanting teeth so they could grip an animal very well."

"ight...taking on Tenontosaurus without problems and in little time? Apparently whoever wrote this decided to ignore the blatant fact that they lost four of their own. No problems? Sorry, you're only fooling yourself boyo."

Bloody hell!!!

This is the kind of argument that really annoyes me. The fight where 4 Deinonychus died is ONE fight most Tenontosaurus fossils have Deinoychus teeth nearby. What does this show:

1)Tenontosaurus where common prey for Deinonychus
2)Deinonychus can take down Tenontosaurus without any of them dyeing
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001

I'd like to point out that Americans did not invent the computer and did not invent dermocracy. Don't go mental I was just pointing it out.

"(who are the slowest and laziest people around by population)"
Is that why Americans have produced most of the inventions you use every day (including your computer), the books you read, the best form of government in the world? If that;s slow and lazy, I'll take slow and lazy any day.
from Chas M., age ?, Oakland, CA, USA; December 28, 2001"
from Tom G, age ?, ?, ?, ?; December 30, 2001