Dinosaurs And The Gravity Problem (by Ted Holden)

[tracer]

daughter came home from school the other day and i asked her what she'd learned and she said, "pie are square", and i told her to tell her stupid teacher that pie are round - cornbread are square.

[Seldom]

i bought a french apple pi the other day at the supermarket...it's absolute value was $2.99

:lol: :lol:

[lordpiney]

daughter came home from school the other day and i asked her what she'd learned and she said, "pie are square", and i told her to tell her stupid teacher that pie are round - cornbread are square.

ha ha!! that are funny!

[Theorist]

Oh my goodness, where to start......

1. The Earth’s cores’ position (both inner and outer) are dependent on the positioning of the continental plates.

How?

4. When the cores shift from their central location, surface gravity decreases at points furthest away from the shifted cores and simultaneously increases at surface points that are closest to the shifted core. A surface gravity-gradient results.

In my humble opinion, shifting of the core is unlikely. The earth is spinning, like a giant centrifuge, if the core is as significant to the mass of the earth as you are saying, the earth would be out of balance, causing a serious wobble. Try throwing a ball of some type with a significant mass attached to the outside, and see how well it flies. Certainly not in a straight line, what would that have done to our orbit?

5. When Pangea formed, surface gravity was much lower on Pangea but much higher on the opposite oceanic side of the Earth.

6. The gravity gradient would result in the lowest surface gravity near the central, or equatorial, part of Pangea. Therefore, the largest life forms for a specific species, for a specific time period, would be in this region. (Note: this is why I made the comment that Quetzalcoatlus remains, which were found in Texas would not be found in either high northern or southern latitudes).

So everything would have generally moved away from the continent into the ocean, like rainfall. Bad time to be alive if you need water.

7. Larger terrestrial and marine life forms became possible. As in the current time, there is always a diversity of size regardless of the strength of surface gravity. In other words, lower gravity does not force all life forms to grow larger.

Large size in the ocean is dependent on lungs giving bouyancy. That is why bony fish have never gotten as large as whales, and sharks, with their much less dense skelton, can also gain some size.

8. As Pangea broke apart, surface gravity on Pangea increased and the rate of increase was greatest when the continents started rapidly moving apart longitudinally approx. 68-65mya. The result was an accelerated extinction rate for both terrestrial and marine life.

I thought the ocean side opposite of Pangea had more gravity, wouldn't the oceanic organisms that lived there have had an adaptive advantage and not gone extinct? Not to mention that somewhere in your band of changing gravity there would have been an area of identical gravity to today, where organisms wouldn't have noticed any change.

9. Since the time of the K-T boundary, the rate of increase of surface gravity has decreased as the continents have attained a more even global distribution as the cores have returned to a central position.

Any yet the mammals grew to enormous sizes. How about the trees? The maximum a tree can grow today is around 300 feet because of capillary action, its ability to move water from ground level to its tops. Tree growth has never exceeded this maximum. Which should have happened if the gravity had been significantly lower without any change in genetics (redwoods are alive today and back then).

I have been following this thread, and trying to stay out of it, but I couldn't resist, hopefully it will die soon.

Brent Ashcraft

Brent,

You are correct, “the Earth is spinning like a huge centrifuge.” This is precisely why , when the continental plates coalesced to a relatively small area of the rotating globe that something happened to counter the “lopsided” effect which would have caused what you describe as a “serious wobble.” That something is the shift of the Earth’s cores away from the Earth’s center; away from the consolidated plates.

Remember that the surface of the Earth is moving at a tangential velocity of about 1040mph at points near the equator. When the continents coalesced, the forces that would have unbalanced the Earth were considerable.

To give a crude “real world” analogy, consider a hammer thrower. No, not the wife when you forget the anniversary......the athlete. When the hammer thrower slowly starts to spin, he maintains an erect position. As he spins faster and the hammer’s tangential velocity also increases, the thrower must start to squat, moving his posterior away from his center of rotation and away from the hammer. This same shifting of a body’s center of mass (i.e., the cores) occurred when the continents coalesced. You can find YouTube examples of the hammer thrower.

“ So everything would have generally moved away from the continents into the ocean....”

Sorry, I don’t understand your comment.

“Large size in the ocean is dependent on lungs giving buoyancy.”

True, but the reason why any animal, marine or terrestrial, attains their particular size is that their size is optimal for survival.

Although the bulk of marine life is found in the epicontinetal or pericontinental seas, there might have been life forms that were able to exist in the high gravity ocean antipodal to Pangea. If there were, they more than likely were primitive, benthic types. However, just as a major increase in surface gravity would negatively affect animals that evolved and “made a living” in a lower surface gravity environment, the corresponding lowering of surface gravity would negatively affect animals or organisms that evolved in a high gravity environment and then were faced with a lowering surface gravity.

There would not be a “band” of unchanging gravity. Draw a circle with a dot at the center. Then shift the dot to the left. Every line drawn from the shifted dot to a point on the opposite hemisphere (which contained all of Pangea) would be longer than the radius of the circle, implying lower gravity.

When the dinosaurs became extinct, some mammals were able to eventually evolve to their maximum size. Just as dinosaurs benefitted as their competitors were eliminated in an extinction event 200mya, mammals similarly benefitted when dinosaurs became extinct. Changing gravity was not the only reason dinosaurs became extinct; it was the main catalyst. Mammal predation of all egg-laying animals was a prime factor.

Mammals at “enormous sizes?” Yes, but nowhere near the size of the largest sauropods.

Trees? My knowledge of trees is frugal at best but here’s my opinion:

Tree size, like animal size is based on survival. Therefore, trees evolved a host of characteristics to insure survival. Size, leaf size and shape, seed aeronautical design to spread seeds in the wind, etc. are just a few characteristics.

If I were studying trees to verify G-Theory, here’s what I would look for:

I would try to obtain complete fossilized trees. I would then study the size of the tree versus the size of its root ball or root system. I would expect a less robust root system for the trees that grew in the periods when surface gravity was theorized to be lower.

Welcome aboard Brent!

Although I don’t have a lot of time to respond to all posters, if patience prevails, I will respond to as many intelligent posts as possible.

[Auspex]

...“the Earth is spinning like a huge centrifuge.” This is precisely why , when the continental plates coalesced to a relatively small area of the rotating globe that something happened to counter the “lopsided” effect which would have caused what you describe as a “serious wobble.” That something is the shift of the Earth’s cores away from the Earth’s center; away from the consolidated plates...

Through this mechanism, the Earth's center of mass would be fixed at it's axis of rotation. How much more distance do you propose that this effect would have added between the surface of Pangea and the center of Earth's mass? Using your formula, how much would this have changed the force of gravity on Pangea's surface?

[tracer]

here's the problem - even if somebody on the forum was smarter than einstein and newton and all the other brainiacs who have more or less figured this stuff out, along came quantum field theory (heck yeah i looked up "gravitation" on wikipedia!) and here's what bugs me. i don't think anybody posting here, including me, comes close to really understanding gravitation and, even if they did, i don't think they understand physiology and aerodynamics and all the other highly complicatuse physmathologies necessary to begin to make snarge up concerning to what miniscule degree gravity affected dino and his buddies before they got whacked by natural disaster(s).

the bottom line, jadies and lentilmen, is that it don't matter how smart you are - you don't get to just ignore all other variables, claim gravity was a variable, and just fill in the blanks regarding what happened back in the cretaceous or jurassic or whenever you're worried about what couldn't hold its head up or fly right.

now, once again, i have evaluated priorities, and decided that mine is dinner.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I think that I have figured out why "Theorist" refuses to acknowledge that this inanity is patently absurd nonsense... it is his bread and butter.

One review of his(???) book pretty much nailed most of the responses here:

False representation of gravitational physics, pretending to be science, September 20, 2009

Although we are still working out the quantum mechanics of gravity, a few scientific facts are not at all in dispute, and one of these is that a celestial body's gravitational field is directly proportional to its mass.

And the Earth's mass has not changed appreciably since the theorized impact billions of years ago which created the Moon.

Moreover, however big and massive the continents might seem to be, as compared to the rest of the volume of the planet, they are like the thinnest rice paper on the surface of a basketball. The above-ocean mass of all the continents is but a tiny fraction of a percent when compared to the mass of the entire Earth.

As a point of fact, Earth's moon has a greater influence on the surface of the planet, including experienced gravitational fields, than does the mass of the continents. Likewise Earth's rotation (higher perceived gravity at poles, 0.5% greater). Or altitude (400km up, Earth's gravitational field still measures a healthy 8.5m/s2). The currently measured values of gravity at various places around the planet have less than half a percent difference -- which is negligible.

Putting all the continents on one side of the planet would certainly result in a different set of gravitational variance anomalies -- but again, no matter how you run the numbers, we're still only talking a fraction of a percent of the entire gravitational field for the planet. And somehow this is supposed to explain why some dinosaurs got so big? (And by the way, the largest animal ever to have lived was no dinosaur, but the extremely contemporaneous Blue Whale (aka Balaenoptera musculus).)

Yet this author posits that somehow the planet experienced gravitational fields variances far, far outside the currently measured average range -- without the Earth tearing itself to pieces in the meantime due to rotational wobble, with no particular mechanism to explain how or why this variance happened (sorry, but the continents just aren't massive enough to account for it and the mantle isn't going to suddenly flop to one side for no reason -- and then magically refix itself after a few hundred billion years), and no actual numbers as to how much lower the field strength must've been.

The author makes the amateur's mistake of confusing coincidence and false supposition with causality, and looking at his website I see one scientifically unsupportable attempt after another to conflate every planetary extinction event with his uninformed theory. I see nothing in this to suggest Mr. Stojanowski understands physics (basic or astro-), biology, geology, or paleontology, and no mention anywhere of his credentials as an expert in any of these fields.

(By the way, the current *scientific* theory is that the break-up of Pangea did quite possibly contribute to the demise of the dinosauroid megafauna -- but because it drastically altered the climate conditions that supported the natural selection of such, resulting in a rather colder, drier environment world-wide.)

It's a cute idea, and it's clear there are still plenty of

gullible people out there who were badly ill-served by their high-school science classes

, but even as science fiction this notion would be turned down as wildly implausible and demonstrably unscientific.

This theory is ridiculous and laughable

.

Once again, how apropos:

[JohnJ]

Following this thread has been, at times, entertaining and educational. Yet, like most discussions, it sometimes tends to lose focus. So Theorist, for the sake of review and clarity (primarily in my mind ), could you "bullet point" the fundamentals you are asserting? Thanks.

A few observations:

When fishing, you have to use the right bait.

When recruiting assistance make sure they're qualified.

When JohnJ is obtuse, tracer looks tame.

Oh, and good research, Tim.

[Ron E.]

A few observations:

When fishing, you have to use the right bait.

When recruiting assistance make sure they're qualified.

When JohnJ is obtuse, tracer looks tame.

Oh, and good research, Tim.

Is there a hit man somewhere we can call to kill this thread?

[Seldom]

Think solius symbiosus nailed it.

[ashcraft]

ame='ashcraft' date='22 September 2009 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1253640277' post='104099']

Alright, you initially interested me, but your answers are inane. I'll give you one more chance to keep my interest.

You are correct, “the Earth is spinning like a huge centrifuge.” This is precisely why , when the continental plates coalesced to a relatively small area of the rotating globe that something happened to counter the “lopsided” effect which would have caused what you describe as a “serious wobble.” That something is the shift of the Earth’s cores away from the Earth’s center; away from the consolidated plates.

Remember that the surface of the Earth is moving at a tangential velocity of about 1040mph at points near the equator. When the continents coalesced, the forces that would have unbalanced the Earth were considerable.

Continental plates are considerably less dense then oceanic plates, that is why they ride higher in the aestheonsphere. Assuming they contain more overall mass then the oceanic plates is a big stertch- I need to see some math.

To give a crude “real world” analogy, consider a hammer thrower. No, not the wife when you forget the anniversary......the athlete. When the hammer thrower slowly starts to spin, he maintains an erect position. As he spins faster and the hammer’s tangential velocity also increases, the thrower must start to squat, moving his posterior away from his center of rotation and away from the hammer. This same shifting of a body’s center of mass (i.e., the cores) occurred when the continents coalesced. You can find YouTube examples of the hammer thrower.

Your hamer thrower analogy is highly flawed. The hammer is significantly less massive then the thrower, and he is spinning at a relatively low rate of speed. If the mass of the hammer increased or the spin frequency increased, he would go careening off his axis, in this case, his throwing circle. The core is so massive in relation to the rest of the earth, that if it went out of balance, it would at least destroy the orbit, and at worst cause the earth to fly apart.

So everything would have generally moved away from the continents into the ocean....”

Sorry, I don’t understand your comment.

Gravity attracts everything, even light. A high gravity center in the ocean would attract weather towards it, probably creating a large hurricane like area, and greatly reducing the amount of moisture reaching land. (This analogy also has a problem, as a hurricane is a low pressure area, causing weather to be sucked towards it, in this case gravity would be sucking things towards it)

“Large size in the ocean is dependent on lungs giving buoyancy.”

True, but the reason why any animal, marine or terrestrial, attains their particular size is that their size is optimal for survival.

Although the bulk of marine life is found in the epicontinetal or pericontinental seas, there might have been life forms that were able to exist in the high gravity ocean antipodal to Pangea. If there were, they more than likely were primitive, benthic types. However, just as a major increase in surface gravity would negatively affect animals that evolved and “made a living” in a lower surface gravity environment, the corresponding lowering of surface gravity would negatively affect animals or organisms that evolved in a high gravity environment and then were faced with a lowering surface gravity.

Evolution does not work that way, it does optimize design, but it has to work with the genetics and physics it is given. Once again, that is why sharks cannot get as large as whales, and why bony fish cannot get as large as sharks. I suspect that any animal raised in a high gravity environment would grealy dominate a sudden shift to low gravity. Think about how far a man can jump on the moon, not to mention Superman, and how powerful he became when he arrived on earth.

There would not be a “band” of unchanging gravity. Draw a circle with a dot at the center. Then shift the dot to the left. Every line drawn from the shifted dot to a point on the opposite hemisphere (which contained all of Pangea) would be longer than the radius of the circle, implying lower gravity.

Animals are mobile, and the earth's overall mass hasn't changed in your paradigm, so gravity over all is equal, so somewhere between your high gravity point and low gravity point, there will be an area with the same gravity we experience today. Remember gravity pulls in all directions, and even affects time. Which brings up another difficulty for your world, as the earth spun with this unequal area of gravity, how did the moon and the sun deal with it? Did the orbits change like a yoyo? If you swing a bucet full of water (the earth) around with your arms (the sun), and let go (decrease in gravity) the bucket tends to move away from its orbit rather rapidly.

When the dinosaurs became extinct, some mammals were able to eventually evolve to their maximum size. Just as dinosaurs benefitted as their competitors were eliminated in an extinction event 200mya, mammals similarly benefitted when dinosaurs became extinct.

Actually that is incorrect, it wasn't until the triassic extinction that the protomammals were largely eliminated, allowing for the dinosaurs to fill their niches.

Changing gravity was not the only reason dinosaurs became extinct; it was the main catalyst. Mammal predation of all egg-laying animals was a prime factor.

You do of course realize that the average mammal at that point also laid eggs, why didn't they eat ourselves into extinction?

Mammals at “enormous sizes?” Yes, but nowhere near the size of the largest sauropods.

Scaling studies show that legs of the titanotheres were similar to saurodpods in cross section, which means they were affected by the same gravity. If they had more, as you propose, they would have had to have more strength in cross section. Weight determines bone strength, not mass.

Trees? My knowledge of trees is frugal at best but here’s my opinion:

Tree size, like animal size is based on survival. Therefore, trees evolved a host of characteristics to insure survival. Size, leaf size and shape, seed aeronautical design to spread seeds in the wind, etc. are just a few characteristics.

It is amazing to me that you use animal size as an argument, and haven't considered plants. Plants would be taller if there was less gravity. If you took two clones of a redwood, which reaches maximum size physics will allow, and planted one in California, and one on Mars, the one on Mars would get considerably taller because the treee could raise its water levels higher because of the reduced gravity (There are some planted around Barsoom, I believe)

Welcome aboard Brent!

Thanks, but I have been here a long time, just don't normally respond to posts of this sort. Kind of reminds me of humans killing all of the mega fauna.

Brent Ashcraft

[Seldom]

For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.

The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.

First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.

So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.

A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.

There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.

Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.

Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet. IMO

[Bear]

A most enjoyable read if ever I read one - thanks group!

A few observations:

When fishing, you have to use the right bait......

I was actually thinking the exact same thing as this myself, though I suspect from a slightly different perspective than many of you. I must say that this appears to be some great trolling, and the right bait as well. (no insult or disparagement of any kind intended)

Gravity is not constant and our planet has more than one "core". :lol: These "cores" somehow changed their positions relative to the surface resulting in gravity being very much stronger on one side of the planet than on the other for a long time so that dinosaurs could get really really big? :lol: Oy! Have you ever read "Morning of the Magicians"? Some great stuff in there along these lines.

I guess that there is no real need to suggest that anyone stick a wad of chewing gum on a top and give her a spin to get a peer - reviewed take on the resulting change in gravity (or comedy!)

Sorry, but the basic premise is downright silly, IMHO. I did like the little :jig: to the Japanese 'stuff can't fly' story too - that is some real dancing! *golf clap*

That simplest explanation thing is called "Occam's Razor" and it is a good tool to use in these discussions.

Sorry if my levity intrudes here. I enjoy a spirited discussion, and I do not mind trolls either - seriously. They often liven things up a bit, make some good jokes and remind us all not to take ourselves too seriously. No need to shut down the thread or get all serious either - heck we can all use a good laugh sometimes, n'est ces pas?

Make it a great day, folks. I am going to make some tacos for the fam and have a glass of Capt Morgan. :rock:

Thanks again for the laughs. Lets talk about the Frost Giants and the Hollow Earth Theory next - OK? :lol:

[fig rocks]

For years, it has been believed that electric bulbs emit light, but recent information has proved otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus, we call these bulbs Dark Suckers.

The Dark Sucker Theory and the existence of dark suckers prove that dark has mass and is heavier than light.

First, the basis of the Dark Sucker Theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. For example, take the Dark Sucker in the room you are in. There is much less dark right next to it than there is elsewhere. The larger the Dark Sucker, the greater its capacity to to suck dark. Dark Suckers in the parking lot have a much greater capacity to suck dark than the ones in this room.

So with all things, Dark Suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the dark spot on a full Dark Sucker.

A candle is a primitive Dark Sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You can see that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark that has been sucked into it. If you put a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, it will turn black. This is because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. One of the disadvantages of these primitive Dark Suckers is their limited range.

There are also portable Dark Suckers. In these, the bulbs can't handle all the dark by themselves and must be aided by a Dark Storage Unit. When the Dark Storage Unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable Dark Sucker can operate again.

Dark has mass. When dark goes into a Dark Sucker, friction from the mass generates heat. Thus, it is not wise to touch an operating Dark Sucker. Candles present a special problem as the mass must travel into a solid wick instead of through clear glass. This generates a great amount of heat and therefore it's not wise to touch an operating candle.

Also, dark is heavier than light. If you were to swim just below the surface of the lake, you would see a lot of light. If you were to slowly swim deeper and deeper, you would notice it getting darker and darker. When you get really deep, you would be in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats at the top. The is why it is called light.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in a lit room in front of a closed, dark closet, and slowly opened the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet. But since dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet. IMO

Seldom, I love your theory! I too believe that dark suckers are extremely important, after all we'd all be in the dark without them.

[tracer]

Seldom -

You're the king of galveston wit. I hereby authorize you to put D.S.B.S. after your name on all important documents.

[Theorist]

OPEN BOOK TEST

This is a challenge to everyone who expressed skepticism about shifting cores. This is an open book test.............no copying answers!

Here's the questions:

1. Explain the cause of the Cretaceous Long Normal Superchron.

2. Explain the Kiaman Long Reversed Superchron.

Now we'll separate the men from the boys!

[Gatorman]

I could not find any evidence that the reversal of the earths magnetic fields would have any effect on the earths gravity.

[grampa dino]

And it all comes down to

what kind of beer you drink

What side of the fence or if you on or what ever

it happened , get over it

if you are right or wrong you will still die

hope you become a fossil, to screw up

some one else down the road:hot:

[Seldom]

And it all comes down to

what kind of beer you drink

What side of the fence or if you on or what ever

it happened , get over it

if you are right or wrong you will still die

hope you become a fossil, to screw up

some one else down the road:hot:

No fossil jelly fish in new york sorry G-dino but a great idea

Seldom DSBS

Edited September 26, 2009 by Seldom

[Guest solius symbiosus]

I could not find any evidence that the reversal of the earths magnetic fields would have any effect on the earths gravity.

That is because there is none... it is just another of his fallacies. This time a "red herring". As to the question at hand, at least the former, it was probably due to a strong field as a result of changes in the flux across that "solid/liquid" boundary... perhaps, something to do with "deep" subduction of plates( google thermal buoyancy, heat flux,... ect).

Does the new incarnation of the forum have a "kill file" option? I haven't checked.

Theorist, what are your qualifications? A link to your thesis, dissertation, or any postdoc publications would be appreciated. Have you published anything other than that by Pangea Publication LLC?

Too, why are you here? Is it merely to "drum" up web traffic? Hoping that your, poorly thought out, "hypothesis" might garner support among some fossil enthusiasts?

Take it to George Noory/Art Bell. His audience is full of idiots that eat this kind of stupid, up.

[Bear]

The 'reversal of the earths magnetic field' thingie is indeed another red herring, a doe - see - doe to the left :jig: to dodge and redirect. Part of good trolling is to keep the audience off - balance and emotionally engaged. This is accomplished by obfuscation and redirection.

We may recall that the best defense is a strong offense. Answering direct, pointed questions with other questions is a strong offense if the marks will engage in the redirection.

Example....

Question: Please tell us how the center of mass ("core") in a spinning sphere can move from its stable location in the "center" of the "mass" to the periphery of same, using standard physics.

Answer: Explain how the magnetic poles have reversed over the last few billion years.

The "answer" is not an answer at all but another question. This is redirection. If you engage in trying to answer the second question, a third will emerge.

Remember - you only actually "lose" this game if you get angry or upset. Otherwise it is like any other pastime and should be appreciated as such.

*pulls up a comfortable chair to watch*

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Coprophageus idiota... hmmm!

By George! That explains it.

NOTE: ad homs are indirectly proportional to the validity of a debate... when they are relative.(isn't that superfluous???)

[Bear]

Well....could well be one of my relatives, so I guess it is indeed appropriate.

Had to look that one up....here I thought that my vocabulary was obscure!

[Guest solius symbiosus]

^^Not directed at you, sir, but others.

[Bear]

I assumed as much, not to worry, but I thank you for your concern. I am quite used to much more....riotous waters, as it were. I am relatively difficult to offend, though I must admit to a slightly overabundant sense of humour and a burning desire to laugh frequently.