Nevada Nipper

[Guest Smilodon]

You had a good comment going, then you went too far.

How different it might have played, had you not lit the fuse:

If Andreas didn't know the critter, it's highly unlikely anyone will.

The second sentence is completely unnecessary. Instead of pointing out the difficulty of the ID and paying homage to your friend, you offended a lot of people. Pretty counter-productive, no?

Apparently so, sheesh.

[Guest Smilodon]

At the risk of geting back to the subject I googled Nevada Fossils and could find nothing concrete to go on. Does anyone know where one could find a list of Nevada fossil Mammal Vertebrates? Strikes me as a logical jumping off point.

I keep humming:

".....and they called it...Puppy Love..."

Mayhaps I'm showing my age?

There you go, that's the way.

[Metopocetus]

And I am wrong, where? I didn't criticize the buyer, I didn't criticize the seller I didn't criticize the specimen - I opined something that is turning out to be true. What the heck is wrong with that?

You may not have criticized the buyer or seller but you criticized the entire forum, basically saying that no one here is smart enough. And rather than letting things go you have gone and reaffirmed your initial criticism in this post.

[Guest Smilodon]

Nicer than me? I doubt that seeing how I'm the only moderator/admin that hasn't decided to ban you for your pointless rudeness. In your short time here you have managed to irritate more members than any of the other members combined.

I'll have you know that I am actually bi-polar and I often find it difficult to not get irritated or upset at certain things but I have always remained nice to every member on this board even the ones who sometimes irritate me. Anyone that knows me knows that I am very nice.

Gee Anson,

I actually do have some nice relationships with forum members already- Those who actually look beyond the chatter and clutter. As for your personal assessment, which means so much to me;

[Seldom]

Just won this on Ebay for a very inexpensive price (yes I am gloating ). The description on this was A Canid from Nevada. Anyone know their puppies well enough to suggest which one this might be?

Nice Frank and gloat away he$$ I would hope you get a ID and let us know when you do.

[njfossilhunter]

NJ we had a nice thing going.

And I am wrong, where?

NO....We NEVER had anything going......... And yes you were wrong by insulting the intelligence of the forum members by stating that no one could ID this fossil......Its the way you say things and the way it comes across to others ........maybe you should listen to your self or read what you have written before you post it and consider other members feelings........Not once have you acknowledged what you have implied which tells me that you are not considerate of others. you are wrong and you should apologize to the forum and start all over again....... you may have alot to offer but not like that.......

[Gatorman]

Gee Anson,

I actually do have some nice relationships with forum members already- Those who actually look beyond the chatter and clutter. As for your personal assessment, which means so much to me;

Nice... per forum rules, try using more tact and be courteous. This is your first and last warning. Use Auspex as a lighthouse to show you the ways of acceptable behavior.

[MikeD]

Mr. Smilodon, I usually try to stay out of these things, "But hey, you could be wrong."

I think we could all benefit from your knowledge here, but sometimes you come off as a bit condescending. Go easier on those of us who aren't as knowledgeable. Don't poop on someone's parade, just because they are wrong or don't agree with you. There are ways to get your point across in a friendly fashion. Perhaps subtle redirection. I have seen some good posts from you, so I know you have it in you. You can actually learn something here, even though I know you said that you didn't come here for that. You can accept my opinion or not, it doesn't matter, but if you treat people the way you would like to be treated, then no one should have any problems.

[Guest Smilodon]

Mr. Smilodon, I usually try to stay out of these things, "But hey, you could be wrong."

I think we could all benefit from your knowledge here, but sometimes you come off as a bit condescending. Go easier on those of us who aren't as knowledgeable. Don't poop on someone's parade, just because they are wrong or don't agree with you. There are ways to get your point across in a friendly fashion. Perhaps subtle redirection. I have seen some good posts from you, so I know you have it in you. You can actually learn something here, even though I know you said that you didn't come here for that. You can accept my opinion or not, it doesn't matter, but if you treat people the way you would like to be treated, then no one should have any problems.

Thanks Mike, I will try my best.

[Guest Smilodon]

NO....We NEVER had anything going......... And yes you were wrong by insulting the intelligence of the forum members by stating that no one could ID this fossil......Its the way you say things and the way it comes across to others ........maybe you should listen to your self or read what you have written before you post it and consider other members feelings........Not once have you acknowledged what you have implied which tells me that you are not considerate of others. you are wrong and you should apologize to the forum and start all over again....... you may have alot to offer but not like that.......

Sorry I confused you with another New Jersey fossil hunter.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I see rampant speculation all over the site. While you may take that as valuable, I take it as hot air and of dubious value. I only comment on things when I am certain, if I am not certain I say so or say nothing.

... or you chime in with a patronizing, and presumptuous, remark.

"If Andreas didn't know the critter, it's highly unlikely anyone here will. Of course, I'm sure there will be rampant and useless speculation in 3..2..1..

[tracer]

i'm going to take this slightly sideways to speak generically for a moment on a problem or two i've noted with the thinking underlying some posts here. i have noted that some have argued at times for no moderation, and then at other times flip-flopped and taken the position that the board should be narrowly focused on the minutiae of fossil discussion, as they desire. i can understand having either point of view, but purporting to have both points of view at different times more or less screams that you wish to have free reign for yourself and have everyone else constrained.

why should the forum not be oriented in the manner desired by those who created and maintain it? i won't put any words in their mouths, but clearly they have all along had the ability to force discussion into a narrow path should they have so desired.

i just find it a bit beyond the pale to come into someone else's house and say "you need to redecorate to please me". which is why i have striven to operate here in a manner acceptable to the admins, and to modify or attenuate my behavior as necessary to stay within boundaries acceptable to them.

ok, a totally different point - at various junctures, i have seen a few of the most "knowledgeable" people here state that those who are not as knowledgeable should just shut up and listen. this is a completely unacceptable premise, for several reasons. number one, the problem is with the tolerance level and the lack of empathy toward others of those who would state such. it's strains the imagination for me to conceive of an assertion by those who believe in net anarchy for themselves to also believe in muzzling everyone else. additionally, basically every "classroom" (not that i think this place should just be like a classroom) i've ever been in encouraged questions and discussions by the audience as a means of getting at better understanding of the subject matter. and thirdly, here's a big point - on many occasions here i've seen pure knowledge fail, in that it was misapplied by someone who used it without an accompanying eye for detail, perspective, and/or analytical ability. i've seen bad analogies, illogical reverse syllogisms, etc. And i will even point a finger at myself to make a point. i have at times when rushing or when not focused thrown out thoughts which were "duhs" after other posters pointed out that i'd overlooked the obvious. there was a reason that kings had court jesters.

yes, i said it. there are times when people here who "know" more than others incorrectly perceive and/or analyze. i have no background in fossils, but very much believe that i can contribute to analytical discussions of "what could this be?" or "how could this have occurred?" i can spot logical fallacies. i am keenly aware of the difference between what is known, what can logically be assumed, and what can be analogized. i routinely research matters under discussion, and both learn in the process and at times find helpful material to which i link for the benefit of other forum members.

i am saying "i" too much here, which illustrates a major component of the problems when they occur. several times in the past there have been posts to the effect that "i'm too busy to wade through everybody else's snarge here so they shouldn't be allowed to post anything i'm not interested in." soooo....rampant censorship should occur to make the place more convenient for single-purpose visitors? we live in a crowded, chaotic world, and the net reflects that, and those of us who are "little s, big R" (stimulus/response) just have to learn to deal with it, or remove ourselves from the environment(s) we find overly antagonizing or stressful.

anyway, my naturally over-talkative brain has again run amock on me, but that is part of who i am, and should therefore be tolerated as long as i'm not breaking any forum rules.

the most important thing any poster here should remember is that this forum is a place where people who like fossils come to relax and enjoy reading about and discussing things that interest them, to include fossils. it is most certainly not a place where anyone is going to change the world through forcing others to agree with them. don't be mean here. and don't attempt to force others to see things your way. it can't be done, so all it does is upset people who already have enough stress and upset in their lives.

a final point. if you are a person who finds yourself seeking out stimulation/exhilaration through controversy, through fighting, through pouncing on others, especially others less-well-armed intellectually, then your motives in any discussion that turns ugly will be suspect and will harm your chances of convincing anyone else of anything. it automatically makes others question your judgement, and therefore your points. what i usually think is, "does this person really believe what they're saying or are they just being a troll for kicks?" it distracts from the point under consideration..

anyway, sorry for the long post. hope you didn't read it if you didn't want to. i'll try to stifle myself for....three whole days to make up for having subjected you to it.

have a good week!

[Traviscounty]

Nicely put Tracer. You must have eaten you Wheaties this morning.

[Auspex]

A plethora of excellent points!

Thank you tracer.

[BobC]

I am extremely intelligent.

[Xiphactinus]

I am extremely intelligent.

I are to.

[Shamalama]

Yesterday I couldn't spell engineer... now I is one!

[Frank Menser]

Shazaam Tracer! You put so many words together here it wouldn't even scroll down!

Let me start by saying I'm an ignorant cuss, being mostly self educated. And as such, I have found that sometimes all the fancy book learning can occasionally get in the way of fresh observation, like the boy who came up on a scientist evaluating the snake before him. "I sure done know any of that Latin stuff yer talking," he said, "but I can tell you that you best detach him from your leg or you'll be hurtin."

Sometimes the very informed can place too much importance on prior knowledge (and facts have a bad habit of changing as we learn more) and so draw conclusions too quickly. So that seemingly ignorant observation, may open the door to a different direction to evaluate. So to my thinking any opinion has potential value.

Speaking of value...I'm guessing as an ID thread - this has become basically useless. Thanks to those who did try to contribute to the item in question.

i'm going to take this slightly sideways to speak generically for a moment on a problem or two i've noted with the thinking underlying some posts here. i have noted that some have argued at times for no moderation, and then at other times flip-flopped and taken the position that the board should be narrowly focused on the minutiae of fossil discussion, as they desire. i can understand having either point of view, but purporting to have both points of view at different times more or less screams that you wish to have free reign for yourself and have everyone else constrained.

why should the forum not be oriented in the manner desired by those who created and maintain it? i won't put any words in their mouths, but clearly they have all along had the ability to force discussion into a narrow path should they have so desired.

i just find it a bit beyond the pale to come into someone else's house and say "you need to redecorate to please me". which is why i have striven to operate here in a manner acceptable to the admins, and to modify or attenuate my behavior as necessary to stay within boundaries acceptable to them.

ok, a totally different point - at various junctures, i have seen a few of the most "knowledgeable" people here state that those who are not as knowledgeable should just shut up and listen. this is a completely unacceptable premise, for several reasons. number one, the problem is with the tolerance level and the lack of empathy toward others of those who would state such. it's strains the imagination for me to conceive of an assertion by those who believe in net anarchy for themselves to also believe in muzzling everyone else. additionally, basically every "classroom" (not that i think this place should just be like a classroom) i've ever been in encouraged questions and discussions by the audience as a means of getting at better understanding of the subject matter. and thirdly, here's a big point - on many occasions here i've seen pure knowledge fail, in that it was misapplied by someone who used it without an accompanying eye for detail, perspective, and/or analytical ability. i've seen bad analogies, illogical reverse syllogisms, etc. And i will even point a finger at myself to make a point. i have at times when rushing or when not focused thrown out thoughts which were "duhs" after other posters pointed out that i'd overlooked the obvious. there was a reason that kings had court jesters.

yes, i said it. there are times when people here who "know" more than others incorrectly perceive and/or analyze. i have no background in fossils, but very much believe that i can contribute to analytical discussions of "what could this be?" or "how could this have occurred?" i can spot logical fallacies. i am keenly aware of the difference between what is known, what can logically be assumed, and what can be analogized. i routinely research matters under discussion, and both learn in the process and at times find helpful material to which i link for the benefit of other forum members.

i am saying "i" too much here, which illustrates a major component of the problems when they occur. several times in the past there have been posts to the effect that "i'm too busy to wade through everybody else's snarge here so they shouldn't be allowed to post anything i'm not interested in." soooo....rampant censorship should occur to make the place more convenient for single-purpose visitors? we live in a crowded, chaotic world, and the net reflects that, and those of us who are "little s, big R" (stimulus/response) just have to learn to deal with it, or remove ourselves from the environment(s) we find overly antagonizing or stressful.

anyway, my naturally over-talkative brain has again run amock on me, but that is part of who i am, and should therefore be tolerated as long as i'm not breaking any forum rules.

the most important thing any poster here should remember is that this forum is a place where people who like fossils come to relax and enjoy reading about and discussing things that interest them, to include fossils. it is most certainly not a place where anyone is going to change the world through forcing others to agree with them. don't be mean here. and don't attempt to force others to see things your way. it can't be done, so all it does is upset people who already have enough stress and upset in their lives.

a final point. if you are a person who finds yourself seeking out stimulation/exhilaration through controversy, through fighting, through pouncing on others, especially others less-well-armed intellectually, then your motives in any discussion that turns ugly will be suspect and will harm your chances of convincing anyone else of anything. it automatically makes others question your judgement, and therefore your points. what i usually think is, "does this person really believe what they're saying or are they just being a troll for kicks?" it distracts from the point under consideration..

anyway, sorry for the long post. hope you didn't read it if you didn't want to. i'll try to stifle myself for....three whole days to make up for having subjected you to it.

have a good week!

[siteseer]

Just won this on Ebay for a very inexpensive price (yes I am gloating ). The description on this was A Canid from Nevada. Anyone know their puppies well enough to suggest which one this might be?

Well, "canid from Nevada" isn't much to go on. The matrix looks like "Esmeralda" Formation, Middle Miocene, Barstovian age, from a site near Tonopah, Nevada. It looks like someone put a lot of glue on it, knowing to lay it on thick - another possible clue that it is a Tonopah specimen (some people pour on the glue on everything, however). Years ago, I saw mammal teeth in matrix like that (mostly Merychippus but also Merycodus and a Tomarctus jaw section) but haven't seen any since.

The teeth look like "dog" and the size of the teeth narrows the field down to Tomarctus or early Aleurodon.

[Frank Menser]

Well, "canid from Nevada" isn't much to go on. The matrix looks like "Esmeralda" Formation, Middle Miocene, Barstovian age, from a site near Tonopah, Nevada. It looks like someone put a lot of glue on it, knowing to lay it on thick - another possible clue that it is a Tonopah specimen (some people pour on the glue on everything, however). Years ago, I saw mammal teeth in matrix like that (mostly Merychippus but also Merycodus and a Tomarctus jaw section) but haven't seen any since.

The teeth look like "dog" and the size of the teeth narrows the field down to Tomarctus or early Aleurodon.

Ok, Thought I had responded but...

Thanks, that at least gives me options for the label!

[siteseer]

Ok, Thought I had responded but...

Thanks, that at least gives me options for the label!

There are numerous mammal localities in Nevada. I said Tomarctus or early Aleurodon only if they were from that Tonopah site or a site the same age (Barstovian). I'd ask your source where he got it. The Esmeralda stuff is light green like that.

[Frank Menser]

There are numerous mammal localities in Nevada. I said Tomarctus or early Aleurodon only if they were from that Tonopah site or a site the same age (Barstovian). I'd ask your source where he got it. The Esmeralda stuff is light green like that.

It is Barstovian...