Salzella Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/16/jurassic-sea-monster-pliosaur-fossil ...its teeth are how big? pretty serious beasty. edit: this thread can also function as a celebration of my post count reaching the devil's number. hail satan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da_man Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I thought the devils number was 666? By my calculations, you are 49 posts short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ...its teeth were how big? Fixed. And I don't understand how this is shocking. Yes, it's a big dinosaur, but we already know that there were pretty large animals back then, of all kinds. It's not really surprising, or all that interesting, anymore. At least to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 There's always a bigger fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 There's always a bigger fish. Post of the year. Brilliance in writing, Rayston. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ztalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Fixed. And I don't understand how this is shocking. Yes, it's a big dinosaur, but we already know that there were pretty large animals back then, of all kinds. It's not really surprising, or all that interesting, anymore. At least to me. Q.F.T. Spinosaur is 17 metres long. In comparisson, much more incredible since it's a land animal and sea animals are capable of much bigger sizes like wales.... Anyway, Velociraptors rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltiades Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Fixed. And I don't understand how this is shocking. Yes, it's a big dinosaur, but we already know that there were pretty large animals back then, of all kinds. It's not really surprising, or all that interesting, anymore. At least to me. The beast had a bite four times as powerful as a T-Rex. Isn't that awesome? Meh, perhaps only to me, then. I was completely into Dinosaurs when I was younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'm still into dinosaurs. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'm still into dinosaurs. :/Same here, lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltiades Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Hehe, respect, guys. I'm still in awe of the big creatures, but the interest has faded. My brother's obsessed by it, though. He draws dinosaurs almost every day and knows dozens of kinds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I thought the devils number was 666? By my calculations, you are 49 posts short. I believe it's supposed to be 616, but it was originally misread as 666, but 666 took off more. As to the peliosaur, it's fascinating. I've always been fascinated by sea monsters, ocean life and theories regarding prehistoric sealife surviving (for more on supposed 'evidence', see the Zuiyo Maru - which is still ongoing.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 I thought the devils number was 666? By my calculations, you are 49 posts short. Astor Kaine and QI say 616, so it must be true. and i posted again since, and this one come to think of it, so at the time my claim was valid. it's not any more, but thats by the by. PS. for the cynics, and adavardes, even at 18 i am a dino geek, and easily impressed by big gnashers. makes me think of the scottish wizard from Monty Python's Holy Grail. "big sharp pointy teeth!" *mimes teeth* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 PS. for the cynics, and adavardes, even at 18 i am a dino geek, and easily impressed by big gnashers. makes me think of the scottish wizard from Monty Python's Holy Grail. "big sharp pointy teeth!" *mimes teeth* I just don't get it. They were big, yes, awesome, amazing, another creature to add to our ever-growing knowledge of ancient organisms long since dead, which I do believe is important. But that's it, they're long since dead, it's not like we're gonna see those "big gnashers" in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da_man Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 PS. for the cynics, and adavardes, even at 18 i am a dino geek, and easily impressed by big gnashers. makes me think of the scottish wizard from Monty Python's Holy Grail. "big sharp pointy teeth!" *mimes teeth* What? Is it behind the bunny? @Militades: Hey, I still like dinosaurs. I thought Jurassic Park was the best book EVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW01 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 It is always interesting to hear of a new species from that era being discovered, to me. I was also fascinated by the dinosaurs when I was younger - I always remember being quite terrified when reading about such huge beasts! It was the fault of the diagrams showing the little man beside a whopping great reptile... Anyway, the story of how the remains were discovered was good, too - spotted just as a team prepared to leave an excavation in 2007. To think that it was so close to being missed. Also, the story of the miniature 'scrawny chicken' Hesperonychus was intriguing, mainly due to the fossils remaining unexamined for twenty five years. The article is correct, I believe, in saying that we (meaning laymen in particular) do tend to overlook the smaller beasties when considering the dinosaurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salzella Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 I just don't get it. They were big, yes, awesome, amazing, another creature to add to our ever-growing knowledge of ancient organisms long since dead, which I do believe is important. But that's it, they're long since dead, it's not like we're gonna see those "big gnashers" in action. if it makes you feel any better (or, in all likelihood, worse), you could always imagine them closing around your head, and popping it like grape. plus, they're dinos, ergo, they are cool. irrefutable fact. What? Is it behind the bunny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralPloKoon Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Q.F.T. Anyway, Velociraptors rule. Huzzah! Erm, I mean, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 if it makes you feel any better (or, in all likelihood, worse), you could always imagine them closing around your head, and popping it like grape. plus, they're dinos, ergo, they are cool. irrefutable fact. ...But they're dead. Irrefutable fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 ...But they're dead. Irrefutable fact. Does -anything- make you happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerGod Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Huzzah! Erm, I mean, indeed. ...But they're dead. Irrefutable fact. because something is dead it makes it uncool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 because something is dead it makes it uncool If by uncool you mean uninteresting and another bit of historical information involved with creatures that make it rather unremarkable in their similarities, yes, being dead does make it uncool. Does -anything- make you happy? Sure, but long dead reptiles don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Things that are dead but still awesome: The Spartans at Thermopylae Sir Alec Guiness Yoda Lynyrd Skynyrd Dinosaurs I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adavardes Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Things that are dead but still awesome: The Spartans at Thermopylae Eh, war of any kind, however impressive the victories or defeats, never twiddled my happy stick like it does for some people. And 300 was a beautiful peice of art, but a crappy peice of cinema. Sir Alec Guiness Given. Yoda Fictional character, technically can't die, just died in the progression of the character. Lynyrd Skynyrd *snort* Dinosaurs They lose the novelty after a few books on them for me. But, again, that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 If by uncool you mean uninteresting and another bit of historical information involved with creatures that make it rather unremarkable in their similarities, yes, being dead does make it uncool. Let's see....discovering this new species could have an impact on our entire understanding of biological development and evolution, ichthyology, paleontology, and herpetology. That's not exciting enough, apparently. war never twiddled my happy stick *Jae pulls out electron microscope to search for twiddled happy stick* Nope, still too small too see, might not even be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 If they were still alive, you would find me hunting raptors every fall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.