Advertisement. is a user-supported site.
As a bonus, site members have access to a banner-ad-free version of the site, with print-friendly pages.
Click here to learn more.

(Already a member? Click here.) Dinosaur Forums
A Dinosaur Forum
Post Your Dinosaur Pictures or Stories
The Test of Time
A Novel by I. MacPenn
Dinotalk Archives:
Late Sept.
Early Sept.
June 16-30,
June 1-15,
May 21-30,
May 11-20,
May 1-10,
Apr. 21-30,
Apr. 13-20,
Apr. 6-12,
Apr. 1-5,
Mar. 21-31,
Mar. 13-20,
Mar. 9-12,
Mar. 5-8,
Mar. 1-4,
Feb. 26-28,
Feb. 21-25,
Feb. 15-20,
Feb. 9-14,
Feb. 4-8,
Feb. 1-3,
Jan. 30-31,
Jan. 25-29,
Jan. 20-24,
Jan. 15-19,
Jan. 12-14,
Jan. 8-11,
Jan. 5-7,
Jan. 1-4,
Dec. 30-31,
Dec. 28-29,
Dec. 25-27,
Dec. 23-24,
Dec. 21-22,
Dec. 17-20,
Dec. 13-16,
Dec. 10-12,
Dec. 6-9,
Dec. 1-5,
Nov. 29-30,
Nov. 26-28,
Nov. 21-25,
Nov. 16-20,
Nov. 11-15,
Nov. 6-10,
Nov. 1-5,
Oct. 29-31,
Oct. 26-28,
Oct. 21-25,
Oct. 16-20,
Oct. 11-15,
Oct. 6-10,
Oct. 1-5,
Sept. 26-30,
Sept. 21-25,
Sept. 16-20,
Sept. 11-15,
Sept. 6-10,
Sept. 4-5,
Sept. 1-3,
Aug. 26-31,
Aug. 21-25,
Aug. 16-20,
Aug. 11-15,
Aug. 9-10,
Aug. 6-8,
Aug. 1-5,
July 21-25,
July 26-31
July 16-20,
July 11-15,
July 1-10,
June 27-30
June 22-26
June 15-21
June 8-14
June 1-7
Late May
Early May
Late Apr.
Early Apr.
Late Mar.
Early Mar.
Late Feb.
Early Feb.
Late Jan.
Early Jan.
Late Dec.
Dec. 11-20,
Dec. 6-10,
Dec. 1-5,
Nov. 28-30,
Nov. 24-27,
Nov. 21-24,
Nov. 16-20,
Nov. 10-15,
Nov. 1-9,
Late Oct.
Early Oct.
Late May
Early May
Dino Talk: A Dinosaur Forum

Early Feb. 2001

I agree, T-rex was probably a hunter, not a 100% scavenger. There were (almostly positively) a lot more alive animals than dead ones back in the Mesozoic. Why waste time looking for a carcass when you've got "fast" food in front of your face? But if a Tyrannosaurus came upon a dead say, Triceratops, it probably would eat the remains rather than risk possible wounds, maybe even fatal ones, in battle, just like a modern-day predator. A tiger isn't going to leave the carcass of a dead rhino it found and go hunt the baby one a ways away that is with it's mother (safety in numbers, we have evidence it was going on way back then, it still happens today for many organisms)
from russell p, age ?, seattle, wa, usa; February 13, 2001

Fliers cheat, it takes very little energy to fly 3000 meters up and spot a body over a fifty clicks away. In that case, scavenging returns much more energy than searching for food. The case is not for ground based animals, they're better off hunting and scavenging to achieve the most efficent effort-energy return ratio.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 13, 2001

"Scavenging is the most advanced and most specialized way of acquiring meat"

I think this is true, and that's why I think Tyrannosaurus could not have been a 100 percent scavenger. You just have to give up too many things to become a full time scavenger, and even then, your attrition rate is pretty high as superspecialized designs are extremely prone to extinction via change. I think the reason the Tyrannosaurids survived so long was becasue they were generalists, not specialists. In short, it's much much harder to be a full time scavenger than to be a hunter/scavenger.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 13, 2001

Scavenging IS the most specialized way of getting meat...unfortunately T. rex didn't hunt that way. hehe. As I've said before, only fliers can be true scavengers.
from Chandler, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 13, 2001

Interview with Jack Horner

"Scavenging is the most advanced and most specialized way of acquiring meat."
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 13, 2001




JP3 LEGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



LEGO is making JP3 building sets! Unlike the June 2000 dino LEGO, the new sets feature dinosaurs that you can build. Cool. There are only two sets though, and they won't be out for a long time (probably July). Have a look and reply!

Playset 1 [Raptors and Pteranodon]

The dinosaurs in this set are a bit strange. There is a new head element and a new tail element. I will still prefer building raptors my way, but will love the opportunity to get some good sauropod skulls :) Possible retail price of $10 US.

Playset 2 {Spinosaurus and Airplane]

There is a very large, cool-looking Spinosaurus in this set. It incorportates many new elements, including great painted/textured dinosaur body and leg pieces. Although highly specialised, these pieces do look to be compatible with other LEGO parts (although you may need some TECHNIC bricks and pegs) Unfortunately, the spinosaur uses the same head as the Tyrannosaurus from last year's sets. The tongue is a red alligator head! The sail is not right, and I hope it is can be removed from the body. Although the dinosaur is what gets your attention, you will spend most of the time building on the other part of the set, the airplane. It looks very nice and detailed, with good old-fashioned building techniques. Also included is a movie camera stand with a camera man, if you want to pretend that you are filming JP3. To me this takes away from the set, so I'll use its parts on something else. This set may cost $35 US. Note: The stunt man catapult seen in the foreground of picture 2 is not part of this set, it was released as a seperate set last November.

The other JP3 items can be found at, if you are interested. Tiger, maker of the infamous Furby, has created an interactive robotic pet raptor.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 13, 2001

Well, I have nothing to say.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 12, 2001

I was always wondering about the dinosaur ALLOSAURUS when it finally hit me. He was a huge dinosaur and it fed on flesh. He was the most power ful dinosaur on earth. When it stalked it's prey he ran with a very fast speed and then suddenly pounced on it's prey. He is my favorite dinosaur
from Etezaz, age 9, Al Khobar, Eastern, Saudi Arabia; February 12, 2001 didn't bludgeon him with an ashtray or something? It'll do all of us a good favour. Here's a tip: try a metal chair.
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 12, 2001

The "Carnatosaurus" was just a spelling mistake, okay. I believe Charonosaurus is a bit more primitive than Parasaurolophus. I forget what was primitive, though. I found a site that had it, but I was at a relative's house and couldn't bookmark the site. I had to write it down on a piece of paper, but I lost that. Personally, I do think Charonosaurus is a subgenus of Parasaurolophus, but that hasn't really been officialy verified, so I used the name given to the known material.

Oh, by the way I went out to dinner tonight and sat right near Bill Gates (this doesn't have anything to do with dinosaurs, but I thought it was pretty neat. Please don't make it a big deal)
from russell p, age ?, seattle, wa, usa; February 11, 2001

I know you may be real great at dinos Brad, but you don't have to be a purist! Just let them be!
from Leonard, age 13, ?, ?, ?; February 11, 2001

Actually, I found the kill list rather creative (and that's not because T.Rex's my favourite! ). I prefer to look at it this way: You are bound to get a lot of insults from other dinosaur fans if your dino is the most popular, so instead of answering them one by one, this guy apperently came up with a clever solution: Describe virtually every dinosaur except T.Rex. But then again, the voting page is no science page, so just let the kids "slug it out".
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 11, 2001

Actually, the atheist tries to find evidence against creation, Brad. But they're doing it as good as the creationists do it...*sigh.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 11, 2001

I do agree insults have added alot of story to the site. BBD, Coolcat, Mr. Rogers, all of them have made this place a story. But do you remeber when you erased an insult sent by Monkeyman? It said not to go to this site, just like the kill list says not to vote for non Rex dinosaurs.
from Reuben B., age 7, Needham, MA, USA; February 11, 2001

If creationists do not seach for evidence that supports creationism, therefore having a one-sided argument, how can their argument stand up?
from DW, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 11, 2001

I will be his age on the 21st. I am not going to the museum for my party anyway. A man with hands-on science activities will visit my house. I think that the kill list on the voting page is a big insult to lots of kids. JC, remove it from the site immediatly. I personaly like T.Rex and my favorite is Triceratops. I also like Drommeosaurs, Othneilia, Trodon, Iguanadon, and tons of others. Everything on the kill list I knew!
from Reuben B., age 7, Needham, MA, USA; February 10, 2001
If I removed everything that anyone found insulting, most of these visitor-input pages would be empty. JC

has anyone ever played the game dino crisis 2 and beat it?
from anthony, age 14, sunrise, florida, usa; February 10, 2001

This is what I meant when I suggested that people at least know how to spell their favourite dinosaur's name-

"My favorate dinosaur is the "Velaso Raptor" I did not know anything about these magnifisant creatures until I came upon the movie Jurassic Park. Sad but true; It was then and there when I was marbeld by this dinosaur. Venacular eye vision, reaches speed up to 40 miles per hour, so I herd. It can also jump up to 4 feet, and has one sharp claw in each foot wich can rip thru flesh in seconds. I think this makes the velaso raptor the best predator of all."
from Gerardo R., age 20, Fontana, California, US; February 8, 2001

Not just young kids :(
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 10, 2001

Has anyone built my LEGO dinosaurs yet? You can get the instructions on the fan art page.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 10, 2001

So Russell, what's the difference between Parasaurolophus and Charonosaurus? Chandler posted his article when Charonosaurus was first discovered, I asked him about it, he couldn't find anything, so I suggested that Charonosaurus was a junior synonym of Parasaurolophus (although I kept the species seperate and suggested that Charonosaurus may be kept as a subgenus of Parasaurolophus). Chandler agreed that my theory could be possible. I still haven't seen diagrams or photos of the Charonosaurus fossils, so I really shouldn't be making judgements like this. What does a Charonosaurus fan have to say?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 10, 2001

The goal of an evolutionist is to find evidence for evolution.
The goal of a creationist is to find evidence against evolution.
Notice that nobody ever looks for evidence for or against creation.

from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 10, 2001

Actually, Carnotaurus is the valid name. (Carno = meat [eating], taurus = bull) 'Carnotosaurus' is a puzzling name that I do not know the exact nature of. It appears in older books, from the late 1980s or early 1990s, and descriptions indicate that it is Carnotaurus. 'Carnotosaurus' was likely a provisional name reported before the official description of Carnotaurus, and then used in popular books as valid. Just looking at the names, most people would think 'Carnotosaurus' would be the proper one, but it is not. Can anyone supply more info about how these names were confused?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 10, 2001

He's older than you, Reuben!
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 10, 2001

Hi guys! Sorry I've been absent so long and will be absent for longer(God help all Sec 3's). WwD on the IMAX would be very cool!
from DW, age 14, Sngapore, ?, ?; February 10, 2001

Brad, I like your statement. You're right about the T-rex doesn't have to be the only good dinosaur thing. Personally, I like T-rex, but it's not my favorite dinosaur. Most dinosaurs on these pages put up to "fight" against it didn't live in the same time or place as T-rex, so they wouldn't have interacted. Also, T-rex was a living organism, just like the predators of today. It didn't just kill for fun, like many people on this website seem to think( correct me if this is bad judgement). T-rex killed and ate because it needed to live, not to be top dino. My favorite dinosaurs are Parasaurolophus, Charonosaurus, and Pachyrhinosaurus- all herbivores. I admit, though, that predators, including Tyrannosaurus, could have killed these (to eat, not for pleasure, remember that). But I'm okay with that. I don't have any intentions to try to pit them out as the best dinosaur. T-rex and other carnivores are next and high on my list of favorite dino! saurs. But I accept the fact that T-rex and all other carnivores, extinct or modern, kill(ed) only to eat and live, not for pleasure or seeing bloodshed. If only T-rex existed (with no other "lesser"* dinosaurs), T-rex would over popluate and eventually die of starvation. Even in ancient times, everything depended on everything else, in a food web. YOUR FAVORITE DINOSAUR IS NOT NESSACARILY THE BEST OR THE WORST.
from russell p, age ?, seattle, wa, usa; February 9, 2001

Tell me about it man, anyway, I argued to this creationist aver the net about the dinosaur-bird connection, and he argued there were NO feathered dinosaurs. When I cited seven species of feathered dinos, he claimed they were ALL hoaxes. Additionally, he still buys into the old myth of T.Rex having extremely weak teeth. What can I say, creationists know very little about dinosaurs, but they sure are stubborn about the little they know.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 9, 2001

Tell me about it man.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 9, 2001

I have also seen "Dinosaur" and thought it was neat to watch, even if not very accurate. Carnatosaurus was too large, and called a "Carnotour". Sounds like a bad pun on Carnosaur. I would agree most of the lesser characters (Parasaurolophus, Pachyrhinosaurus*, Pteranodon, Styracosaurus, Microceratops, Stygimoloch, Struthiomimus, Talurus, and Velociraptors) werte nearly perfect. the "lemurs" were much too advanced to have lived alongside the dinosaurs. I don't think dinosaur eggs could have survived all the bumping, etc Aladar's got.

*The Pachyrhinosaur's nasal bosses looked like they were inflated skin in the movie, but in reality they were solid bone
from russell p, age ?, seattle, wa, usa; February 9, 2001

The book about James gurney's dino stamps is called "A world of dinosaurs"
from russell p, age ?, seattle, wa, usa; February 9, 2001

Jurassic is the name of a time in earth's history that was in the middle of the time of dinosaurs. Alot of flying and swiming reptles lived then too. In it, gigantic plant eaters apeared and the age of swimming reptles was happening. (for those who are wondering, I am discribing it simply because the kid I am writing to seems young)
from Reuben B., age 7, Needham, MA, USA; February 9, 2001

What's Jurassic?
from TylerC., age 8, LaurysStation, Pa, US; February 9, 2001

how dinosaurs life, any people around you
why you not exist anymore

from nadia, age 5, jakarta, ?, indonesia; February 9, 2001

Brad, you are a genius! WwD on the IMAX screen would be the coolist thing ever! I will contact the BBC to ask them about making it. It would contain sceens and naration from the 6 episodes, as well as specials such as the making, Big Al, Al Uncovered, and tests for the next series, Walking with Beasts. Everyone, I will be in Florida from Wendsday to the Saturday between vacation and going back to school so if you see mesages adressed Reuben but age 8, Satlite Beach, and FL it is me.
from Reuben B., age 7, Needham, MA, USA; February 9, 2001

Actually Brad, the largset of the new rexes is 30 percent bigger than Sue. But enough of all this, I have a theory to share:

The Darksucker Conspiracy

For years the electrical utility companies have led the public to believe they were in business to supply electricity to the consumer, a service for which they charge a substantial rate. The recent accidental acquisition of secret records from a well known power company has led to a massive research campaign which positively explodes several myths and exposes the massive hoax which has been perpetrated upon the public by the power companies.

The most common hoax promoted the false concept that light bulbs emitted light; in actuality, these 'light' bulbs actually absorb DARK which is then transported back to the power generation stations via wire networks. A more descriptive name has now been coined; the new scientific name for the device is DARKSUCKER.

This newsletter introduces a brief synopsis of the darksucker theory, which proves the existence of dark and establishes the fact that dark has great mass, and further, that dark particle (the anti-photon) is the fastest known particle in the universe. Apparently, even the celebrated Dr. Albert Einstein did not suspect the truth.. that just as COLD is the absence of HEAT, LIGHT is actually the ABSENCE of DARK... scientists have now proven that light does not really exist!

The basis of the darksucker theory is that electric light bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the darksuckers in the room where you are right now. There is much less dark right next to the darksuckers than there is elsewhere, demonstrating their limited range. The larger the darksucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Darksuckers in a parking lot or on a football field have a much greater capacity than the ones in used in the home, for example.

It may come as a surprise to learn that darksuckers also operate on a celestial scale; witness the Sun. Our Sun makes use of dense dark, sucking it in from all the planets and intervening dark space. Naturally, the Sun is better able to suck dark from the planets which are situated closer to it, thus explaining why those planets appear brighter than do those which are far distant from the Sun.

Occassionally, the Sun actually oversucks; under those conditions, dark spots appear on the surface of the Sun. Scientists have long studied these 'sunspots' and are only recently beginning to realize that the dark spots represent leaks of high pressure dark because the Sun has oversucked dark to such an extent that some dark actually leaks back into space. This leakage of high pressure dark frequently causes problems with radio communications here on Earth due to collisions between the dark particles as they stream out into space at high velocity via the black 'holes' in the surface of the Sun.

As with all manmade devices, darksuckers have a finite lifetime caused by the fact that they are not 100% efficient at transmitting collected dark back to the power company via the wires from your home, causing dark to build up slowly within the device. Once they are full of accumulated dark, they can no longer suck. This condition can be observed by looking for the black spot on a full darksucker when it has reached maximum capacity of untransmitted dark... you have surely noticed that dark completely surrounds a full darksucker because it no longer has the capacity to suck any dark at all.

A candle is a primitive darksucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the way of the dark flowing into the candle. It is of no use to plug a candle into an electrical outlet; it can only collect dark.. it has no transmission capabilities. Unfortunately, these primitive darksuckers have a very limited range and are hazardous to operate because of the intense heat produced.

There are also portable darksuckers called flashlights. The bulbs in these devices collect dark which is passed to a dark storage unit called a battery. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied (a process called 'recharging') or replaced before the portable darksucker can continue to operate. If you break open a battery, you will find dense black dark inside, evidence that it is actually a compact dark storage unit.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 9, 2001

That's great, Jeff! I don't know of any other dinosaurs discoveried in Indiana (although of course I could be forgetting some), so yours might be a historic first! How big do you think your dinosaur was?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 8, 2001

The "new posture" T. rex is about 12 to 15 feet tall. "Old posture" is about 19 or 20 feet. Some male rexes were only 35 feet long, and to be 35 feet tall they would need to be standing on the tip of the tail! The largest T. rex that has been measured is Sue, and she is 41 feet long. If its still in the ground, everything is still an estimate. When the new "10% larger" rexes are fully excavated and prepared for study, their size can be taken as fact.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 8, 2001

Well, for one thing, T.Rex was 20 feet tall, if he reared up (to the old posture style), he could get to 35 feet pretty easily. I guess T.Rex is a focal point for people voting for their own dinosaurs. I mean, nobody cares if your dinosaurus can kill Allosaurus, but everyone sits up and takes notice when you claim it can take on T.Rex. Obviously, the road to fame for your dinosaur is to claim it can beat T.Rex. Something the T.Rex fans in the voting section are obviously trying to stop or discourage. About that 99 percent prehistoric dinosaur thing, it was a pretty impressive effort.

About monstarr here, not that everyone here wants to bash him up, but after BBD, I guess everybody has opted for a zero-tolerance to morons like him.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 8, 2001

i think i found a dinosuar vertabra in a local indiana gravalpit
from jeff, age 34, north webster, indiana, usa; February 8, 2001

"So, think your dinosaur is good? Well, if your dinosaur is in the list below, it STINKS BECAUSE


[Complete genera list copy-and-pasted here]

There you have it! All the dinosaurs (and prehistoric animals) T-Rex could kill. If your favourite
dinosaur (or prehistoric animal) in in the list..IT STINKS! THIS IS A VOTE FOR T-REX
from Census, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001 "

Well, that was a creative idea, but do you really hate over 99% of all dinosaurs that much.....?

"What do you mean? Seismosaurus would have been easy meat for T.Rex. As Seismosaurus held its neck straight about 35 feet off the ground, all T.Rex had to do was to run up and bite into it. A long, thin neck is really hard to miss, influcting instant death on Seismosaurus. Rod, I donno what you're talking about, but most of it is not true anyway. Stop using T.Rex as a springboard to fame for your dinosaur, it's real lame, and people see through it anyway. This vote is for T.Rex."
from Rod M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

I find it hard ot imagine T. rex biting anything held 35 feet off the ground.

The voting page is just filling up with fights too, along the same "T-Rex can kill everytihng else it wanted to" theme. I think the Science Page may have been a step in the wrong direction, as it was made for the same purpose as the original Dino Talk. People need a place to fight and speak about off topic things without interfering with the original pages.

What's up with T. rex fans who absolutely despise all other dinosaurs? I've never felt like that about any dinosaur.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 8, 2001

It seems that more often than not, new participants make a few statements against T. rex, they are 'corrected', people get fighting, and the new person leaves. The message board fills up with completely off-topic posts, and then the cycle begins again. Let's try a different approach. If someone comes here insulting one theropod and defending one that you think is weaker, don't comment directly on it and don't say that they are wrong. This is just an experiment, okay? Try it. An imaginary battle between Tyrannosaurus, and Velociraptor, Utahraptor, Giganotosauurs or anything else that might arise is just not worth it. We cannot prove anything. Perhaps if these claims are responed to in a positive manner, the person will even try posting another topic. Perhaps we will even discuss dinosaurs other than theropods! I know maybe I'm exaggerating, and maybe nobody else here wants to talk about dinosaurs other than theropods, but just try, okay? Please?

One more word: Phytodinosauria :)
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 8, 2001

Dear FG dinosaurs died because an asteroid crashed the earth and made
clouds of gas and blocked the sun. So now you know why dinosaurs died

from sonic, age 8, speedlines, motor speed, mobius; February 8, 2001

Wow, that's quite a response...isnt anybody going to vouch for monstarr? Is he really that bad? Judging from the negative response, I guess so. But before things get worse, I think you people better tone down.
from flamebird, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 8, 2001

Say, monstarr is really good politican material: having more words than facts, consummate in covering up, and attacking the other party more than presenting his case! monstarr for president? Mabye when you reach there, you can ban Tyrannosaurus rex, but until then, you are making a clown outta yourself here.
from The Antidemocrat, age ..., WDC, ????????????????????????, A politics free America; February 8, 2001

Being a sparodic visitor to this page, I happened to chance across a message in this forum about caning in Singapore. Don't bother looking for it, for its erased now. But I'll still give my two cents worth:

Caining in Singapore is a painful and somewhat effective deterrant to crime. I'd like to clear up some misconceptions. No, you do not get cained for littering, no, vandalism is not always followed by caining, and no, you do not get cained for jaywalking.

Now, the cain is usually called in when an individual is unrepentant. For example, wilfully going on to commit the offense simply for the sake of fun. A depressed, sucidal teenager who scratches 16 cars will not get cained, but a bored teenager who does the same to 16 cars just for kicks will be told in a very serious way not to do it again, abet, by the swift application of a bamboo rod to the butt. But caining is only applied sparingly and in a case-by-case basis. There is no such thing as a standard number of lashes for a particualr crime. So in short, don't diss the judge.

Also, caining, while extremely painful, is not disfiguring for life. The worst you can get from a lash is an angry red bruise that will bother you for two weeks, something to think about before you decide to commit your next crime, no brekage of skin here. But I've yet to see people die from caining, and we don't do it middle-east style in Singapore.

Lastly, I'd like to rebuke Monstarr for saying caining will 'build character'. It's a deterrance, and a serious one too. It's not intended to 'build character'. For 'building character' we have something known as NS. In compairsism, monstarr, you lead a sheltered life, so clam up before the splash damage from your gibberish hit more people.

In Singapore, we've really made it really apparent that 'crime dosen't pay', what have you Americans done to protect your own people? You're the nation that needs character-building here.

Well, since this could be my only message in a few months, I'd like to say that I do agree with Honkie (and that's not because we're Singaporeans). After much deliberation, I've decided to say that T.Rex will win based on the merit of the cases presented here. As a consolation Monstarr, you can feed your dog or go fly a kite.
from Shian Wen, age 16, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; February 8, 2001

Personally, I find Monstarr's attitude towards "a friendly and civilized debate" totally discusting. Not only does he not know his facts, he also attempts to cover them up with personal assualts on his critics. What's up with this? Does he think that by simply writing all kinds of boombastic english and phrases to discredit his critics will actually booster his arguments? I think the real reason he's so aggressive is that they have trapped him in a corner and he has no way to go, but given his nature, he'd rather falsify and discredit his way out instead of admiting defeat. His latest statement about telling Honkie to go get caned is a prime example of such behaviour. I'm not insulting anybody, but who's the immature, back-stabbing, oxymoronic one here? Certainly, that canditade is monstarr.

While I do not know too much about dinosaurs, I find the arguments by monstarr's critics more convincing, realistic and conprehensive than the best agruments he can muster. So what does this mean? Well, if you ask for my opinion, I think monstarr's critics have made a stronger case (aka.T.Rex will win a fight with GIganotosaurus). And yes, a post lacking in dripping venom is a lot easier to read. This is about dinosaurs, not who-is-morally-superior (and I don't think monstarr is). Prehaps he should contuine feeding his dog, or was it a cat? It doesn't matter, even if it wasn't, he would insist it was till out sun runs out of hydrogen to convert, but that doesn't make him any righter. Send my best wishes out to T.Rex.
from Candace L., age ?, St Ives, St Ives, St Ives Compact; February 8, 2001

Well, after seeing people like Mr. Rogers, BBD, and Madhatter, I guess the 'regulars' here know what to do. Instead of wasting energy on trying to 'straighten out' a demented individual, they choose to give him minimal attention, or at best ignore him completely. That's they way to go people! Don't waste your time on monstarr! I do agree with FDnota, even us folks not involved in this fight don't really take him seriously. If he was really as mature, knowing about science and backed up by experts as he makes himself out to be, what the heck is he doing here? I think he loves the contention, but he also wants to win as much. I donno who's the real ego-tripper here, but it's more likely to be monstarr.

Oh yes, I do think T.Rex could beat Giggy in a one-on-one, anytime.
from Jon F, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 8, 2001

Prehaps you should highlight this phrase more for the sake of stability: " Policy: Any posts containing personal insults about other dinotalk participants will not be posted."

Obviously, some people don't know simple english...
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Monstarr isn't really taken very seriously. For example, he doesn't really explain or rebutt on many other other advantages (including superior bite, dexterity and agility) T.Rex had. From what I've seen, the opposition is not only presenting a powerful case, but knocking down his points like ninepins as well. And as a final insult, insults hurled at Honkie, Lillian and the other people I don't know don't help to make monstarr's case any stronger either, sorry. Hmm...monstarr's style kinda reminds me of Al Gore. No offense man, these are my candid views.
from FDNota, age ?, BB-62 Iowa, ?, America; February 7, 2001

I agree with you Norman. Frankly, I think some of us here are still living in the victorian era and thus, view asians as inferior and such. About caning, I'm not sure it's such a bad idea. It's quite a good deterant for out soft-to-crime America. That aside. I think monstarr has no right to pass such a comment on Honkie when Honkie is native Singaporean and knows much better about caning than monstarr can ever dream about. This is technically an international incident. But then again, monstarr is well known for having a quicker mouth than mind. Really, I lost all my respect for you when you issued that statement.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

My wreched views? You want me to be the 3rd party and you say my views are wreched? But nevermind, I'm not doing this for you. I'd like to say based on what I've read here, I honourably and formally think T.Rex will win.

Why is this so? Not because I find MOnstarr a hyprociate, but because I find his ideas not very solid. He seem to rely more on movie-logix and unclear arguments to advance his point. Example? He say Giggantosaurus has lighter skull and is easier to move. Not true. Giggantosaurus has skull weighing same as T.Rex, but is longer. If you know how to use the sumuari sword like i do, I can tell you a loner sword of the same weight is always less nimble and harder to handle than a shorter sword. Also, Giggantosaurus has weaker and longer neck muscle, so handeling a head like that is harder. Also, we have alot of evidence that T.Rex constantly bit each other on neck, those are terrible injuries, but T.Rex always survive them. So if one T.Rex can survive a T.Rex bite to the neck, Giggantosaurus is very difficult to kill T.Rex by 'hitting a vien' in fact, T.Rex teeth better equipped to hit a vien. Also, T.Rex is faster and more nimble, so its unlikely Giggantosaurus can bite it on the n! eck easily. I think T.Rex is many times more liklely to get in the first bite. Yes, monstarr is incorrect and I think he is better off feeding his dog than going around insulting people around here like anybody cares. Domo arigato, this is Moyjo of Kobe.
from Moyjo, age ?, Kobe, ?, Japan; February 7, 2001

What's going on in here? I though the entire thing was over? Anyway, I dropped by just to visit, and must say that I don't like carnivores at all. I don't really care who wins, but if you want my opinion, yes, I certainly think T-rex was deadiler, yes I think he can defeat Giga easily, yes I seriously disapprove of monstarr's so-called character attacks, yes I think his enemies are mainly imaginary, a product of his overdefensive nature. Happy? I gota go.
from Calvin L., age 12, Needham, MA, USA; February 7, 2001

Well, you wanted the opinion of a thrd party, you got it. I'd like to start off by saying this entire argument is real stupid and lame, but then again, all of you are probally twits to fight over this. Alright, moving on, I think someguy back mentioned a Bull Mastiff vs. a Great Dane and presented it as his point. I find that argument extremely convincing, convincing enough to refute all of what the other monster guy said about Giganotosaurus winning. But then again, I doubt monster really knows what he's talking about anyway. So my vote is, T.Rex will win.

Now, no Honkie vs. monster. Now what do you mean by that? It's it a actual fight or a verbal one or a moral one. Well, assuming its not a physical fight, I would say I found Honkie somewhat sarcastic, but less back biting, arrogant, self-assuming and certainly less political than his opponent. So Honkie gets my vote of confidence. Most of what monster's conspriacy theories and insults about him are pretty lame anyway.
from Rod M., age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

I don't think you people can ever settle this within yourselves (nor conceed each others view even if hell freezes over). So that leaves the third party, the people watching this dumb matter of T-rex vs. Giganotosaurus (or maore likely, Monstarr vs. Honkie). So pray may I ask, what are your wretched views, people of the third party?
from flamebird, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Well, it looks like Monstarr has returned a blistering salvo towards his opponents that...means...absolutely...nothing...

Why? That's because this debate was wrapped up a long time ago(about 48 hours) and certainly nobody wants to return to it. Besides, I've taken a look at some fo his arguments and they still don't seem any better. They only thing that seems to have improved is the intensity of his personal attacks (something I disrespect) to include that person's country as well. Well, all that aside, its blatantly obvious who won the argument over here, and Monstarr dosen't have to say he's wrong, it's obvious.

Lastly though, T-Rex may beat Giganotosaurus, but he's no match for Utahraptor.
from Utahraptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

I think I'm misunderstood, but I derive my pleasure from seeing you go into self-induced fits of self-denial and chest-beating to deny my victory. Ohh da argh brab snort bragbarbarbar. Live on caveboy!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Forget it people. I don't think Monstarr is worth your time. Monstarr, if you are convinced the people here are total morons and stuck-ups, then why waste your time typing long and complex posts back to them? It looks like you're the one needing a life. Besides, ever heard the hearing "Don't argue with a fool, people might not know the difference."? What can I say?
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

"Since HonkieTong ... Certainly the lesson learned will be more mind and character building than your sources of information on paleontology."

JC, I may be Malaysian, and I may have some differences with my neighbour down south, but I find Monstarr's refrences to the way South East Asian Countries do things extremely uncalled for. I hope action will be taken.
from Norman, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001
Done. JC

Actually, I'm am not any of the other people you are refering to. What on earth are you babbering???
from Monstar Babi, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Ignored this dumb post by monstarr.
from Lillian Tay, age 14, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Sorry Monstarr, but I'm afraid everybody here is tired of your holier-than-thou-oh-look-i'm-so-mature-you-kid attidude dude. Few are going to take you seriously, let alone entertain you. Frankly, I feel you are simply a 'mature' BBD, relying on more insults and character assination than science to get your point across. Frankly, I don't respect that, and I'm sure nobody here does too.
from Norman, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Brad, the exibit at the Museum of Science about dinosaurs is not very big. Alot of people like me are going to that exibit around now because for my entire life time, there has been a sign about how in-acurate the life-size T.Rex modle is. Now they are making a new one. It is very cool because you can see the workers carving and painting it. It will be done by the beginning of March. The head of the old one will be re-located to the entrance of the IMAX theatre. The exibit also has a Gigantosaur skull, a Triceratops, a Ultrasaur femur, a dino timeline, a fossil timeline, the making of a fossil, small dinosaur models, touchable footprints and petrified wood, a dinosaur that grunts if you put money in a machine, and the entrance to the rock exibit. Little kids can look at fossil books at the discovery center. Other exibits are Mathmatica, Investigate, Vurtual Fishtank, Powers of Nature,(ending March 4th) Playground, Human Body Conection, Modern Techno! logy Center,(starting Febuary 16th) and the Planetarium.
from Reuben B., age 7, Needham, MA, USA; February 7, 2001

The Tyrannosaurus rex, name for a revered lizard in Montana, is without peer in the world--fast and lean despite its tremendous weight, its firepower enhanced by brilliant technological precision. The dinosaur has a low-slung carriage and slender tail, with 60 bone crushing teeth arranged inside the 150cm jaw. The low silhouette looks both menacing and sleek, if one can picture six tons of sleekness barreling across field and forrest rows at forty-five or fifty kilometers an hour.
from Tyranno, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Hmm, I counted about 14 different T.Rex voters who voted more than once. But I at most, I have seen them put in about 6 votes, at best. If anything, I don't think they are contributing much to the increase in Tyrannosaurus votes. If you can find any multiple voters, please ask them to vote for Utahraptor!
from Utahraptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Besides, people who spell "valsa raptor" or "big tee" or "tyranosaurus" or "v.raptor" are mainly young. We'll just have to guess what they are meaning to the best of our ability. But don't expect to see T.rex overtaken anytime soon.
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

Hmm, there are too many votes for T.Rex, but I don't care. I think the a reason they also include the "rex" is because all the kids know it. Which kid will know Allosaurus fragilis??? Expect the number to climb to 4000, then 5000. The cloest dino is about 2500 votes behind. But then again, you constant voter theory dosen't sell. Assuming 'normal' constant voting fans put in 5 votes, at best, we'll need 200 constant voters to rise a thousand. And 200 fans is way more than the votes received for other species. All in all, I still think T.Rex is the 'coolest' if you're going by votes.

But waht do I care? I don't like T.Rex, and never will, I just can't deny he's the most popular, that's all.
from Utahraptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 7, 2001

To Leonard, your obstinancy makes me not waste my time in attempting intellectual discussion with you. I do have a life. You say your in college, it embarasses me to be suspect of that becuase you would not have the time to find your whole life "here" on this forum trying to booster you ego. So chow to you, buddie, as I always found that it came in a bag that I feed my dogs. While you are in college, I'll be yearning for you to advise me of what college and where and hopefully you dont come up with an excuse not to tell me. I know that you are not upto just beating people down to booster yourself and then disguise it by saying your just telling them the facts?????? Im not going to admit "Im wrong" for your satisfaction of having someone just say their wrong to make you feel good, despite them being right. So chow, as I have to leave and feed my doggie his dog chow.
from Monstar, age 17, ?, ?, USA; February 6, 2001

Lilian T.: It makes me happy to have you aboard the paleontology internet for the exchange of knowledge and trading ideas. Your learned status and high governing position of talisman(one who tallies votes) makes me stand by to hear and trade knowledge with you in our mutual explorations into the dinosaur world. It would please me a great deal if you would ask more questions instead of giving opinions before you judge me. I notice you agree with "regulars" who tune in, but if 1 lemming jumps over the cliff, you would not be a smart lemming to follow. You have certainly posted some good arguments, however it is called schitzophrenia, which if you dont know means multible personalities and IS a mental illness(generic term:crazy) it seems to me Ive seen with you using other names, just stick with one. Also I saw you come under my name "Monstar Babi", maybe a little flakey, but I like you and find you hilarious no matter what you call yourself. As for you calling me a "runner", unlike you being here all the time, I DO have a life and cannot spend all my time valuable time trying to imply basic knowledge to you. Peace out, Lilian Tay (AKA monster babi and a whole bunch of other names I dont know)
from Monstarr, age 17, ?, ?, USA; February 6, 2001

To Leonard: I think T.Rex could win because, Giganotosaurus and T.Rex are not alligators and crocs, Giganoto has a larger mouth and a longer head, stronger neck and size advantage. You minsinterprated what I said and I dont appreciate you putting words in my mouth. Giganotosaurus was built for efficiently killing large sauropods quickly, not in one bite, unless he snapped on the throat. Now, this argument is not JUST about a Vs. battle, but "who is more efficient". They both are equally efficient and dangerous. Giga, was more heavy, solid and thick, larger overall, and teeth that could rip flesh very fast and relatively easy, while t.rex was a bone cracker, maybe T.rex could get in the first fatal blow to the leg or side, but giga is so strong and light in the head, he could shred the veins and neck of the rex before he hit the dust. Leonard, your making the Tyrannosaur look "perfect" and unlimited to nearly any other land environment. If you switch ed their times and places, both would either change or "hit the dust". I see the T.rex as the Laurasian Giga, and vice versa. THey both couldve have killed each other. You quoting the Giganotosaur's behavior is not paleontological. We dont know if he went head on or was a stalker. Where T.rex was strong in cracking and crunching, Giga was nasty in shredding, slashing and tearing. I have always strived to engage in stimulating discussion and a positive exchange of ideas in an intelligent forum such as this could be and have opened my heart to contructive criticism and welcome anyone who can correct me if Im wrong and show me the correct path. I am amazed at the utterly cheap attacks and insults that were flung on me by this paleontological imposter known as honkie tong, who anytime challeneged, cannot give a viable argument, but flings an insult. Leonard, I really find your discussions interesting and your knowledge of paleontology for the most part is awesome, but I pray that you dont tag along behind honkie tong who tends to drag people along with him like the typical trailor trash school yard bully, who tends to cover-up his confusion and stupidity with personal assaults and scares the younger and weaker into aggreeing and following him without checking their resources. As you stated "Go Honkie", Id suggest you would do better and become intellectually stimulated, by wrapping yourself in a nice, warm, secure, teddy bear blanket and make sure you suck your thumb to feel safe. Certainly, you will find more stimulation intellectually by this process where as poor honkie tong, who I have sympathy for, because of his lack of any other life inhancing activity beside the internet, and trying to put me down. ... Certainly the lesson learned will be more mind and character building than your sources of information on paleontology.
from Monstarr, age 17, ?, ?, USA; February 6, 2001

Well Brad, as long as we don't have any conclusive evidence of that, it remains as speculation, no matter how obvious it may seem. But you may be right about T.Rex laying eggs not been pure specuation as I think I have heard somebody found a T.Rex egg, but I can't put my finger on that.
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 6, 2001

In a way you are right Brad, but when people refer to the informal term 'raptor', they are only refering to the dromaeosaurs. The name with the term 'raptor' behind probally carries as much meaning as a 'saurus' behind a dinosaur name. And that's why Meagraptor is not a 'raptor'.
from Josh, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 6, 2001

Well, speculation no more. I saw the 'Ultimate T.Rex' some time back and they featured a T.Rex hatching and egg. Abet, not as famous as Tinker, but equally as real.
from Leonard, age 13, ?, ?, ?; February 6, 2001

How much should people know about their favourite dinosaurs fro their votes to count? I mean, "Valasa Raptor"? How many dinosaues do you think these people are aware of?

Why is Tyrannosaurus rex the only dinosaur on the voting page with the species name included? What aout other species of Tyrannosaurus (If you believe they aren't seperate genera)?

I know people should be able change their opinion and vote for a new dinosaur (I do it myself), but what about the people who keep voting for the same dinosaur again and again and again? Why should those votes count? Tyrannosaurus going from 2000 to over 3000 votes in just months is mostly the work of the constant rex voters there.

And why aren't "non-dinosaurs" like Pterodactylus and Plesiosaurus counted? The technical definition of Dinosauria probably has nothing to do with people voting for the coolest dinosaur.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 6, 2001

Well, I've seen _T. rex: Back to the Cretaceous_ too. It is not set in the Cretaceous period, well, not entirely. It's kind of weird, and definately not _Walking With dinosaurs_ on an IMAX screen (although WWD on Imax would probably be the coolest thing ever).

I'll try to recall the plot- a paleontologist is looking for dinosaurs in Albeta, Canada. He finds a gigantic, intact egg, and takes it back to the lab. His daughter is writing a report on dinosaurs, and draws a Tyrannosaurus guarding some Tyrannosaurus eggs. Her dad tries to tell her that it would be pure speculation to draw Tyrannosaurus with eggs, since no Tyrannoasaurus eggs had been identified. The daughter gets locked in the dinosaur hall at night, and somehow travels back to the Cretaceous where she sees some dinosaurs (and meets Charles Knight, who has also travelled back to the Cretaceous to observe dinosaurs for his paintings). Some stuff happens, and in the end she proves that T. rex layed eggs.

The idea of Tyrannosaurus laying eggs is hardly pure speculation (think of all the Oviraptor and Troodon eggs....), so some parts of the movie seem kind of stupid. But it is a good movie just for including some dinosaurs, and would probably be better than a movie about the Antarctic.

Go see T. rex.

Does the Museum of science have a good dinosaur exhibit?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 6, 2001

God thats the birds real name. What does she want? Change the name? No!
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 6, 2001

I decided to make a list of dinosaurs ending in 'raptor'...

Araucanoraptor- probably paravian or troodontid
Archaeoraptor- bird/dromaeosaur chimera, name applies to bird part
Bambiraptor- avialain
Brontoraptor- tetanuran
Conchoraptor- oviraptorid
Eoraptor- very primitive theropod
Fukuiraptor- carnosaur, possibly related to Australian allosaur
Megaraptor- ?paravian, possibly adult form of Unenlagia
Microraptor- ?paravian, has dromaeosaur and troodont features
Oviraptor- oviraptorid
Ozraptor- neotheropod, possibly an early dromaeosaur
Pyroraptor- dromaeosaur
Santanaraptor- coelurosaur, ?maniraptoriform
Sinraptor- sinraptorid allosauriod
Utahraptor- dromaeosaur
Valdoraptor- carnosaur
Variraptor- dromaeosaur
Velociraptor- velociraptorine dromaeosaurid
Wyomingraptor- tetanuran, orginally assigned to Allosaurus

Conclusion: 'raptors' are only sometimes dromaeosaurs, often coelurosaurs, usually tetanurans, and always theropods.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 6, 2001

I suspect we have a runner here. In that case, this Giganotosaurus vs. T.Rex thing is over. The votes have been tallied, and we have T.Rex winning by a wide margin of votes. (I'm not saying this because my favourite dinosaur is T.Rex) So much for that. This must be the third or fourth fail attempt to replace T.Rex with GIganotosaurus.
from Lillian Tay, age 14, ?, ?, ?; February 6, 2001

I need help! It will be my birthday soon. I might be going to the Museum of Science for my party. If I do, I will go to the IMAX theatre if I do. Honkie, Firebird, I know you saw T.Rex: Back to the Cretatious. One of Debisaur's friends saw it too and said it wasn't that good. My friend Catherine's older sister saw it and said it was cool. Honkie, Firebird, did you like it or not? Debisaur thinks her friend didn't like it because she is not a dinosaur fan. I know most of you are dino fans, so if it has good ratings, I will see it. If not, I will see Shackton's Antarctic Adventure instead. JC, I think you should start a bird forum for this "Jackass" talk.
from Reuben B., age 7, Needham, MA, USA; February 6, 2001
No, I just wanted to know what you thought about it. JC

Well, I'm posting alot today. Well, I found this question on Straight Dope, and HEYYYYYY! Being chinese, it's a question that's potentially offensive (and certainly lacking in "political correctness")...but what the heck, it's a cool question....

Dear Cecil:

I hope that you can answer a question that has plagued me since childhood. If every man, woman, and child in China each stood on a chair, and everyone jumped off their chair at exactly the same time, would the earth be thrown off its axis? Also, if prior to jumping, they all yelled at the top of their lungs, would we hear it here in the United States, and how much of a time delay would there be? --Robert P., Los Angeles

Dear Robert:

Amazing as it may seem, I am actually going to answer this incredibly retarded question. But first Uncle Cecil wishes to have a word with his devoted readers.

As you can imagine, I possess phenomenal scholarly resources. I have converted the spare bedroom in my house into a research library containing 16 million volumes, which are dusted twice a day by a team of robed acolytes holding candles. I have instant access via my Apple 380S GT to all the world's data banks. Why, right here on my writing table next to the box of spare quills I have a dog-eared copy of 16,000 Unbelievably Complicated Physics Experiments for the Home and Garden, With Answers, which has helped me out of many a jam.

But despite this wealth of scientific knowledge, the Teeming Millions routinely write in with questions that not one sane person has ever asked in 6,000 years of recorded history. As a result, my usual sources of information are useless.

Nonetheless, I try. I have been in repeated contact with the Beijing government all week in an effort to persuade them to get all 1,027,000,000 Chinese (1980 estimate) to jump off chairs. I have pleaded with them that will signficantly advance the cause of science. However, they have not been cooperative.

They point out the China is a poor country, and lacks a sufficient quantity of chairs. Moreover, many of the chairs that are available are of nonuniform height, meaning that even if all the Chinese jumped off at the same time, they would hit the ground at different times, thus throwing off the results of the experiment.

Finally, they point out that discipline among the Chinese people has become notoriously lax since the Cultural Revolution, and many of the participants in the project could be expected to be fooling around when they were supposed to be jumping. The Chinese government suggests that instead of having the entire nation jump off chairs, I should get one representative citizen to jump and multiply the results by 1,027,000,000. I have, needless to say, rejected this solution as grossly inadequate.

The possibility of an actual test thus being remote, I have been forced to rely on my considerable powers of inductive logic, to wit: given the principle that every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction, when the Chinese get up on their chairs, they would essentially be pushing the earth down in the process of elevating themselves. Then, when they jumped off, the earth would simultaneously spring back, attracted by the gravitational mass of one billion airborne Chinese persons, with the result that the Chinese and the earth would meet somewhere in the middle, if you follow me. The upshot of this is that action and reaction would cancel each other out and the earth would remain securely in orbit.

Just for fun, however--after you've been doing this job for a while you get a pretty bizarre notion of what constitutes a good time--suppose 1,000,000,000 Chinese, give or take 27,000,000, were somehow to materialize atop chairs without their having to elevate themselves thereto. And suppose they jumped off.

Having performed astonishing feats of mathematical acrobatics (requiring the entire afternoon, I might note--sometimes I can't believe the c@#$ I spend my time on), I calculate that the resultant thud in aggregate would be the equivalent of 500 tons of TNT. Not bad, but nowhere near enough to dislocate the earth, which weighs 6 sextillion, 588 quintillion short tons. I refuse to even discuss what would happen if all the Chinese yelled at the top of their lungs.

from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 5, 2001

I see no reason to change the name. Heck we better stop calling a male donkey "jackass" from now on. There are many other animals with far less "politically correct" names or names that are insults. We should not change it or anything, because it's the insult stemming from the animal's name, not the animal's name stemming from the insult.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 5, 2001

Oh, this is stupid. Could you post the complaint up for us to have a better look at things? I still don't see anything thing wrong though. Heck, if we wnet by the same reasoning, I guess the vegeterians will start calling for you not to post the term "carnosaur" or to make ? "politically correct" any forms of meat eating as it's unfair to their idealogy. Heck, the next thing we know, parents will ask for an alternate name for Tyrannosaurus to make it easier to swallow for their kids who believe its as friendly as doclie as Barney. This political correctness thing never fails to amaze. Maybe the teacher in question should spend more time teaching her students that jackass is not always an insult and spend less time asking people to cover it up on the net. Seesh!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 5, 2001
The e-mail read (in totality), "Would it be possible for you to change the name of the Jackass Penguin to the Blackfoot Penguin or the African Penguin? This is not appropriate for a school. We would love to use this part of your site for research with 2nd graders but can't unless jackass is left out." About a month ago, we got another one, that read (again, the full text of the e-mail), "Please change the name of the Jackass Penguin to the more politically correct penguin names of African and Black-footed-" With two votes against this unfortunate bird (it is not only saddled with a politically incorrect name, but is also on the verge of extinction), I started to wonder. I had never thought that jackass was a bad word - just a mild insult. JC

Tyranosaurus will beat Gigatosaurus because he was stronger.
from Peter, age 8, ?, ?, ?; February 5, 2001

Tell that person this. A the education system in Singapore, supposedly a country with thougher laws and lack of freedom of speech, does not have any problem with a "Jackass" bird. What's up with you Americans? This PC thing can be ridiculus! You can't change the name of an animal just because its a pun!
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 5, 2001

Here's some links to real scientific papers.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 5, 2001

I took a look at the penguin page to see how bad it was, and saw you've already done the things I suggested. Scientific name, alternate names, explanation of the name.... that page is not offensive in any way. I don't think the taecher who e-mailed you bothered to look at it first either.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 5, 2001

I thought the Carnotaurs in Dinosaur were too large...if you stretched their snouts, removed the horns, and put two fingers on them, they're Tyrannosaurs! In addition, many of the featured dinosaurs would have never met, as they were a collection of animals from millions of years apart as well as continents away. It looked good though...
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 5, 2001

Keep the bird. You can't deny that it exists, and if you've researched it and made a web page you shouldn't have to take it down.

You can change the name on the printout to the proper genus and species (and I have no idea what that is) rather than the common name, but then it wouldn't really be a primary printout anyway (and you'd have to do it for all birds, if you wanted it to look right).

Explain the common name on the page, so people know it isn't supposed to be offensive. Include a sound file if you can find one to make it really clear.

Jackass penguin seems relatively minor, being named for a donkey, and there are probably other animals with worse names. I can't think of any right away, but I know I've seen some. It was given its name for a good reason, so there is a good reason for it to stay.

Of course, teachers can choose to skip mentioning that bird if they want to. There must be other penguins to discuss.

So, is my semi-scientific link about dinosaur mating going to be posted soon?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 5, 2001
Then CHAT!

from firebird, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 5, 2001

NOTE: I have a question (it's a bit off topic, but does concern birds, so it's about dinosaurs in a cladistic sense). I received e-mail from a teacher today who wanted us to change the name of the jackass penguin (it is listed on our page of bird information printouts. She said that it was "not appropriate for a (primary) school," because of the word jackass. This penguin is named the jackass penguin because its call sounds very much like that of the jackass (the term for a male donkey). We don't change facts for any reason (especially political correctness). What do you think? Should teachers change the real name of an animal (or omit its main name and substitute a less-used name) in order to avoid using certain terms that they think are not appropriate? JC

Here's a brilliant article about the side of dinosaur reproduction you won't find answers for on this site. 'Reader discression is advised.'
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 5, 2001

Yes, I have seen the Disney movie DINOSAUR. I thought it was great. It's no less accurate than Jurassic Park, is it? (appearance only, let's not be bothered by the talking dinosaurs!) I especially liked the Velociraptor scene. Generally, I thought the long shots were fantastic, but the close-ups were bad because the main characters were so mammalized. The lesser characters (Pteranodon, Oviraptor, Stygimoloch, Ornithomimus, Carnotaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, etc.) were nearly perfect in every way.

How realistic was the scene where the Iguanodon egg was dropped in the water, and then hatched later? Are dinosaur eggs waterproof, or should little Aladar have drowned before he could hatch?
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 5, 2001

Yes, the JP Velociraptor toy is bad. I have two of the normal one (different colours), and the first electronic one. The most obvious error is that there is no first toe on the foot!!! That really bugs me. The hands are also tremendously bad. I can understand why the Velociraptor is not to scale with your other dinosaurs, since it is from an action figure set, but it isn't even to scale with the action figures. :(

I think every dinosaur on you list is certainly possible. To make a good replica, I'd say a dinosaur should be
a) 5 to 25 metres long (metres=inches in 1:40 scale)
b) known from good fossil material

Here's what the three major replica manufacturers do make- * indicates a dinosaur in my collection.

Dilophosauurs (Safari, Schleich)
Ceratosaurus (Battat, Schleich)
Carnotaurus (Safari, Battat*; also Schleich later this year?)
Yangchuanosaurus (Safari*)
Allosaurus (Safari*)
Acrocanthosauurs (?Battat, also Safari later this year)
Spinosaurus (Safari*, Schleich)
Baryonyx (Safari*-one of the rarer replicas, only in Quebec?)
Deltadromeus (Safari*- yes, there is a Deltadromeus toy!)
Gallimimus (?Battat- I don't think I've seen these)
Utahraptor (?Battat- haven't seen this personally)
Deinonychus (formerly Safari, discontinued 1998)
Velociraptor (Safari*)
Therizinosaurus (Safari*)
Tyrannosaurus (Everyone- Safari* has recently redone theirs. I've never seen Battat's rex. Schleich's is more old-fashioned and is apatosaur-sized)

What's missing- cool new theropods like Giganotosaurus and Cryolophosaurus, feathered theropods.

Plateosauurs (Safari*, Schleich)
Mamenchisaurus (Safari*)
Adult Apatosauurs (Safari*, Schleich)
Baby Apatosaurus (Safari*, Schleich)
Diplodocus (Safari*, ?Battat- I've never seen Battat's. Safari's can be seen in the movie _Jurasic Park_)
Amargasaurus (Battat*)
Brachiosaurus (Safari*, Schleich)
Saltasaurus (Safari*- rare, but it exists)

What's Missing- mid-sized guys like the extremely well-known Camarasaurus and Shunosaurus. Shunosaurus is one of the coolest and most distinctive sauropods, why not? Also the impossibly huge ones I'd rather not have to buy (45-inch Seismosaurus replica?).

Ouranosaurus (Battat*)
Maiasaura (Safari*, Battat)
Edmontosaurus (Schleich*)
Corythosaurus (Safari*, Schleich*-- well, the Schleich model looks more like Lambeosaurus magnicristatus than Corythosaurus)
Parasaurolophus (Everyone- Safari*)

What's missing: Primitive iguanodonts like Tenontosaurus and Camptosauurs, some duckbills like Prosaurolophus and Saurolophus.

Stegosaurus (Everyone- Safari*, Battat*, and my mom has the Schleich replica hidden in our house... but we can't find it)
Edmontonia (Battat)
Saichania (Schleich*)
Euoplocephalus (Battat; formerly Safari*, discontinued 1998)

What's Missing: primitive stegosaurs, assorted ankylosaurs like Talarurus.

Pachycephalosaurus (Safari*, Battat)
Psittacosaurus (Safari*- new, 1:10 scale)
Protoceratops (formerly Safari, discontinued 1998)
Styracosaurus (Battat*)
Torosaurus (Schleich- new, very cool)
Triceratops (Everyone- old Safari*)

What's Missing: Lots of well-known ceratopids- Chasmosaurus, Centrosaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus...
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 5, 2001

If anybody is talking abput who will win if Gigantosaurus fought T-rex, I"ll bet all my money on Gigantosaurus because he is stronger than the T-rex.Even though it is dumber,it can still creme the T-rex because it will take a longer time to take out someone taller than you.
from Jeffrey, age 11, Alpharetta, Georgia, America; February 5, 2001

Though I'll like to think of the raptors having feathers, all our theories are formed by sheer extrapolation. I prefer to wait for solid evidence.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 4, 2001

Well guys, I've posted a Dino Warz article as a preclude to Season 3.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ....., ....., .....; February 4, 2001

Have any of you seen that one disney movie, Dinosaur? It was horribly inaccurate...but I thought the raptors or whatever those were are pretty on the mark (save for the lack of feathers).
from Sauron, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 4, 2001

Velociraptor is a misunderstood, if popular dinosaur. Most people go by the JP "Velociraptor", which is 400 percent oversized with too short a snout. It's intelligence has also been overrated in the movie, Velociraptor was among the least intelligent of the Dromaeosaurids. I suspect we're going to have a repeat of this with Spinosaurus. (sigh)
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 4, 2001

Brad, I liked the little "talk" about toy dinos. I have a Velociraptor that seems even worse than the one that was described. It is from Jurassic park, so it looks more like Deinonychus. It is about twice as big as any of my other dinosaurs. i especially liked your list of possible new models. I would like to see six other ones you didn't put on your list. These are:

from russell p, age ?, seattle, wa, usa; February 4, 2001

This is kind of old news, but I just noticed how cool the picture of this thing is, and it hasn't been discussed here yet. I really hope Saltriosaurus will not become the formal name of this critter, "Tridactylvenator", or "three-fingered hunter" would be a much better name.

Oldest Three-Fingered Dinosaur, "Saltriosaur" (with great illustration!)

News From Dino Data-
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 4, 2001

I hate T. rex as much as Baryonyx hates the smell of raw fish.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 4, 2001

T. rex's had over 60 thick, conical, bone-crunching teeth that were up to 9 inches (23 cm) long. Its jaws were up to 4 feet (1.2 m) long, that'll give him a serious advantage over Giggy the sissy's 70 smaller biting teeth.
from Lonavan, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 4, 2001

Well, I just read a dumb dinosaur book called "GIGANOTOSAURUS!" Packed with tons of misinformation and outdated paleobabble (brontosaurus??) and most of the book was on how they found Giganotosaurus (who wants to know all that?), with scarse mention about the dinosaur itself (what we want to know). All in all, it contained very little information about Giganotosaurus and the little it had was mostly wrong anyway. What a waste of seventy bucks! What an insult to my intelligence! I want my money back! In fact, the only people it'll appeal to is those who want to knock Tyrannosaurus off the top perce as it was packed full with dumb and simple anti-Tyrannosaurid propanganda anyway. Perfect for the unbalanced T.rex hater, and little else. Why did you think Giganotosaurus had such a bad reputation among the experts anyway? Even the "Raptors! The meanest dinosaurs" was far superior, even though some of the stuff it says is now wrong and outdated.
from Utahraptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 4, 2001

one third of dinosaur finds come from China, so you americans are overfunded and overstaffed for so little fossils while we work harder than you
from ?, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 4, 2001

T-Rex vs Giganotosaurus will be tatamount to pitting a Bull Mastiff (equals T-Rex) against a Great Dane (equals Giganotosaurus). Even if the Grate Dane had a considerable size advantage, the Bull Mastiff would rip the life out of the other dog. I think the differences between T-Rex and Giganotosaurus are pretty similar to the differences between a Bull Mastiff and a Great Dane, Comapirative anatomy 101. As in the battle between the dogs, having a shorter snout is not a disadvantage, so this is my judgment, T-Rex with the win!

But I think doggie bloodsports is a throughly pointless and cruel process though, so don't try pitting a Bull Mastiff against a Great Dane, of course, I figure how you can prevent the Bull Mastiff from killing you first, but I digress, just don't try it.
from Mornstar Babi, age ?, Johor Baru, ?, Malaysia; February 4, 2001

hmmm.if giganotosaurus and t-rex were in a battle,im sure that t-rex would win cause he could bone crunch any part of giganotosaurus.gooooodbye!
from adrian, age 10, esan pedro, laguna, philippines; February 4, 2001

Can we stop talking about Giganotosaurus vs. T.Rex? Not only is it inherently lame and obvious (T.Rex will win), its also interfering with the other topics coming in. If there are people coming here just for the sake of bashing T.Rex and "change the world" to see their point of view, go run for president.
from Nick L., age 9, Washington, DC, ?, U.S.A; February 4, 2001

2000 was the year of the dragon in China, and many new dinosaurs were described from there and elsewhere. Now that the year is over, I'm posting a list of all new dinosaurs from 2000. Reassigned species (ie, Stegoceras -> Prenocephale) were excluded, as they had been first described prior to last year. Also included is some basic information on each kind, in case you hadn't heard of it yet.

Bambiraptor feinbergorum (Maniraptor/LK/Montana)
Byronosaurus jaffei (Troodontid/LK/Mongolia)
Caudipteryx dongi (Oviraptorosaur/EK/China)
Ceratosaurus dentisulcatus (Ceratosaurid/LJ/Utah)
Ceratosaurus magnicornis (Ceratosaurid/LJ/USA)
Charonosaurus jiayinensis (Parasaurolphin lambeosaurine/LK/China)
Chuanjiesaurus anaensis ('Cetiosaurid'/MJ/China)
Edmontonia austalis (Panoplosaurine nodosaurid/LK/New Mexico)
Fukuiraptor kitadaniensis (Allosauroid/EK/Japan)
"Ginnareemimus" N. N. (Ornithomimidae/EK/Thailand)
Glyptodontopelta mimus (Ankylosaurid/?LK/?New Mexico)
Graciliceratops mongoliensis (Neoceratopsian/LK/Mongolia)
Huabeisaurus allocotus (Huabeisaurid sauropod/LK/China)
Ilokelesia aguadagrandensis (Abelisaur/EK-LK/South America)
Isanosaurus attavipachi (Sauropod/LTr/Thailand)
Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis (Ornithopod/EK/China)
Microraptor zhaoianus (Maniraptor/EK/China)
Nanyangosaurus zhugeii (Hadrosauroid iguanodont/EK/China)
Nomingia gobiensis (Oviraptorid/LK/Mongolia)
Nqwebasaurus thwazi (Coelurosaur/LJ-EK/South Africa)
Ponerosteus exogyrarum (Dinosauria Incertae Sedis/LK/Germany)
Pyroraptor olympius (Dromaeosaurid/LK/France)
Rocasaurus muniozi (Saltasaurine titanosaurid/LK/Argentina)
Sauroposeidon proteles (Brachiosaurid/EK/Oklahoma)
Tendaguria tanzaniensis (Eusauropod/LJ/Tanzania)

Wow! That's 25 new species!!!!!!!! (Well, Ginnareemimus doesn't have a species, but it will eventually and the genus has been named) I hope 2001 will be as good as 2000 was (we currently have one new species for this year). If we keep getting 25 new species each year, thin of how quickly that will become hundreds. Exciting time to be alive.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 3, 2001

from DONOVAN R., age 9, ?, SINGAPORE, DEFINATELY SINGAPORE; February 3, 2001

Of course, Monstarr never clarified why he stated T.Rex looked "pretty compressed" after he was refuted...couldn't he at least admit he was wrong?
from Leonard, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

I don't buy what Monstarr says. No matter how wide it's maw may be, Giganotosaurus lacked the shock absorbing equipment to deliever a powerful bite without injuring its skull, something that T.Rex had. All things being equal, a T.Rex bite was about three times deadiler than Giganotosaurus. So doing some math, Giganotosaurus has to put in three times the effort to kill T.Rex, four, considering T.Rexes higher pound for pound toughness. I assume there is no size advantage involved here, because if we pitted the biggest T.Rex against the biggest Giganotosaurus found...the fight would be over by the second bite, in T.Rexes' favour....

Ode to the Tyrant lizard.
from Joseph, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

Well, I don't see why we should go to such great lengths in this T.rex/GIganotosaurus squabble. It's simple. Giganotosaurus was based on a primitive, allosaur design while T.rex was hot off the drawing board off nature, an advanced dinosaur. A fight in this case would much be like pitting a WW2 fighter against an F-16. Not to mention, Giganotosaurus was already a fossil when T.rex was going around terrorizing the neighbourhood, pah. (Note this rule does not apply for Utahraptors though : )

Well, I have to admit that I hate T.rex. It's more popular than Utahraptor, and has legons of crazy fans. In fact, I've heard that 57 percent of people have T.rex as their favourite dinosaur. Yup, this is all too much. But Giganotosaurus is worse. At least while T.rex has some formidible killing power, the poorly funded South American "experts" tried to use T.rex as their springboard to fame. They not only put out tons of misinformation about Giganotosaurus, but also dispraged people when they raise serious questions about Giganotosaurus. I think Giganotosaurus was terribly overhyped for its paltry abilities. Thinking back, I guess T.rex was the lesser (and certainly more powerful) of the two evils.

Utharaptor was the meanest though.
from Utahraptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

Well, I don't see why we should go to such great lengths in this T.rex/GIganotosaurus squabble. It's simple. Giganotosaurus was based on a primitive, allosaur design while T.rex was hot off the drawing board off nature, an advanced dinosaur. A fight in this case would much be like pitting a WW2 fighter against an F-16. Not to mention, Giganotosaurus was already a fossil when T.rex was going around terrorizing the neighbourhood, pah. (Note this rule does not apply for Utahraptors though : )

Well, I have to admit that I hate T.rex. It's more popular than Utahraptor, and has legons of crazy fans. In fact, I've heard that 57 percent of people have T.rex as their favourite dinosaur. Yup, this is all too much. But Giganotosaurus is worse. At least while T.rex has some formidible killing power, the poorly funded South American "experts" tried to use T.rex as their springboard to fame. They not only put out tons of misinformation about Giganotosaurus, but also dispraged people when they say that G
from Utahraptor, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

So it's now Honkie vs. Monstarr, whatever happened to the topic of dinosaurs? Monstarr seems pretty amadamt to shift the focus of this argument to him and Honkie, hmmmm..... could it be because he knows that he can't win in this argument and is trying to shift the attention of everyone here or at the very least, try to discredit his opponent? Well, it's just speculation, nothing to get offended over....
from Grace T., age 12, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

Oh man...Monstarr has gone too far this time. But it's okay with me. It's an unwritten rule here that insulting others and not their points will only make one look dumber. So go on Monstarr! Go on! Read the archives and look at how many have taken the same approach like you, and they all failed. The rest best stay out of a personal-insult slugging match to allow that unwritten rule to work better!
from Lillian T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

I think T.rex would have beat Giganotosaurus in a fight. Some people here think Giganotosaurus was bigger, but they are wrong. So far, the biggest T.rex found is not Sue, but another unnamed T.rex found by Jack Horner that is up to 30 pervent bigger than Sue! And 15 percent bigger than the biggset Giganotosaurus. Given that, I think Giganotosaurus would have seen its own guts been splattered all over the place as the new super T.rex ate him. I donno about you, but I'll place all my candy-money on T.rex!
from Nick L., age 9, Washington, DC, ?, U.S.A; February 2, 2001

What do we have here? Another Tyrannosaurus rex vs Giganotosaurus debate? Well, I think that's real lame. People who support Giganotosaurus always site size and skull length as a factor, but that's a lame from of reasoning. Monstarr's acessment of Giganotosaurus biting prowness is also flawed. It's a joke! Tyrannosaurus rex would have certainly won, as Bakker said.
from Thomas, C., age ?, ?, Europe, Norway; February 2, 2001

I got a tyrannosaur pen today. The dino is fully sculpted, beautifully painted, and has the pen in the end of his tail. Expensive ($5), but extremely cool. A great way to say "I LOVE DINOSAURS" to your school. :)

Made by Merangue, part of the NatureRiter series. Series also includes an unidentified dinosaur (looks kind of like Tanystrophaeus or a prosauropod to me, kind of primitive and stretched out), and some modern reptiles. Zellers has them.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 2, 2001

I saw a new kid's book, _The Encyclopedia of Awesome Dinosaurs_, today. I think it was by Michael Benton, who has done some good books. But this is no encyclopedia, and 'Awesome Dinosaurs' seems awfully suspicious for a reference book. The art is nice and orginal (one of the artists featured in Don Lessem's Dinosaur Worlds book), but the text stinks. "Smackers" (or "Smashers", or something equally moronic) is used instead of Pachycephalosauridae. All of the dinosaurs get trendy dumb names, and it really bugged me. Nice art, still, but I just can't reccomend such stupid books. There aren't any particualrly 'awesome' dinosaurs either, just the same kinds you've already seen. :(
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 2, 2001

Marlin, Tyrannosaurus and Albertosaurus probably aren't conspecific. Albertosaurus is noticably more primitive, the most obvious difference being that Tyrannosaurus has forwardly-facing eyes, and Albertosaurus has eyes on the sides of the head. In fact, there's even a level above genus (the tribe), that is not the same. If you're wondering, tribes are the taxa ending in -ini, as in Albertosaurini and Tyrannosaurini. I don't think they're used a lot. Daspletosaurus (a tyrannosaurin) and Tyrannosaurus have been suggested as being in the same genus. In that case, the name Tyrannosaurus (created in 1905) would be used instead of Daspletosaurus (named in 1970). They is an unnamed transitional form between Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus, I have no idea what it will be named.

But let's continue with your scene. A paleontologist does a study of the Tyrannosaurinae, and decides to place them all in the same species. Tyrannosaur species have been called as similar as "breeds of dogs", so perhaps this is not entirely unreasonable. Skull structure in dog breeds must vary considerably. Well, I can't answer that. Daspletosaurus torosus would be gone, as would Gorgosauurs libratus (1914) and Tarbosaurus bataar (1954 or 1955, I think, I'm just doing tihs from memory). Albertosaurus sarcophagus and Tyrannosaurus rex were both described in 1905, and by the same man. I don't know which one has priority. I think we would keep Tyrannosaurus rex, though. There are more higher taxa named for it, and would we really let such a popular name be invalidized? I don't think so, Tyrannosaurus rex would stay.

But we must also notice that paleontologists don't recognize dinosaur subspecies. Even species are hard to determine with certainty, so most books just use the genus names. I wouldn't lump the tyrannosaurs any further than two genera (Albertosaurus and Tyrannosaurus), each with a few species.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 2, 2001

Report from the Buck or Two dollar store! There's a new batch of cheap plastic dinosaurs out, but some of these are actually good. They seem to be influenced by the Battat replicas, which is good. They have a date of 1999 stamped on them, are hollow but of decent strength (they keep their shape well), and are $1.00 each. First time the dollar store has gotten Stegosaurus ungulatus, I wonder what's next.

Stegosaurus. This one was my favourite. I almost bought it but decided to get some nice green and tan paint for my dinosaur art instead. It is very much like the Battat s. ungulatus replica. Good texture, and similar features like smaller plates and an eight-spiked thagomizer. The only 'error' is that the thagomizer is seemingly on sideways- half of the spikes point straight up, and half point straight down. Is this impossible? Cheap resonable steggys for a very low price. Good. Green and orange/tan.

Styracosaurus. This was also fairly good. It didn't contain any obvious errors, and I think it was in some kind of turning pose. I wasn't interested in another styracosaurus, but I'm not going to put it down. I remember it being blue and tan, sort of like the Battat.

Triceratops. Well, this is kind of unexciting. I mean, if the dollar store has dinosaurs, it has some version of this one. I didn't recall any errors on the Triceratops either, but I didn't look at it that closely. I can tell you that it is not spectacular, but probably not very bad either. It's orange.

Velociraptor. Probably the worst, paleontologically, of the bunch. Hands in incorrect position, digit I of the foot is long and seems to be adapted for grasping... kind of weird. Perhaps this is the aboreal Microraptor. No attempt at dino fuzz yet (still wrinkled skin), but maybe soon. Plus, its the same size as the 20-30 foot long herbivores descibed above. I'm not sure why they bother. This basically is as bad as all the other cheap Velociraptor toys made in the past eight years, and not really worth looking for. Green and yellow.

I'll probably get the Stegosaurus the next time I go to the dollar store, if they still have it. Dinosaurs need to interact with their own species, and it is a perfact match for the Battat steg.

If any dinosaur factories are looking around the Internet doing market research, here's some I'd like to find soon-

- Cryolophosaurus (this cool thing looks extremely sellable, don't ya think?)
- Albertosaurus (Tyrannosaurus can not hunt my Campanian herbivores!!)
- Melanorosaurus, or something else from that family
- Camptosaurus or Tenontosaurus (primitive iguanodont of some kind)
- Sinornithosaurus milleni, the fuzzy raptor
- Shunosaurus
- Pentaceratops

If anyone has answers on the possibility of the flipped tagomizer, let me know.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 2, 2001

dinos are exstint but how do we know what thier skin color looks like?
from leah Y., age 9, appleton, wi, usa; February 2, 2001

Un Oh, I'm starting to notice a certain sharpness of words here, come on people (excluding Monstarr) you know the drill, prevent another BBD at all costs. Look I know Monstarr may be wrong, but is causing so much unhappiness and making so many people leave this forum out of fustration just to "straighten" him out worth it? Was BBD worth it? Was Madhatter worth it? Was Mr. Rogers worthe it? You know history, so just accept your victory in peace Honkie and company. You people convinced me to put one in for T-rex, so here it's: I think T-rex will win. There, now stop all this.
from DucWing, age ., Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; February 2, 2001

T-REX gets my vote of confidence here, Giganotosaurus was too big, slow, dumb and weak biting to really present much of a threat to a carnivore. Beides, T-REX was bigger than Giganotosaurus.
from Jamie W., age 17, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

I think T-REX will win against GIGANOTOSAURUS. That's because while GIGANOTOSAURUS had many teeth that were ment to cut into flesh, T-REX had a jaw and teeth ment to kill. There just is no contest here. In open country, T-REX will outrun GIGANOTOSAURUS and tear into him until he dies, and in dense forrest, T-REX will have less trouble moving than the bigger and clumslier Giganotosaurus. Besides, I don't think GIGANOTOSAURUS was adapted to fighting in a forrest, given most sauropods keep to the plains. GIGANOTOSAURUS was an open-filed animal. T.REX is better, he could hunt equally as well in both enviromentents, so I think he'll win. GIGANOTOSAURUS is spoit anyway, used to hunting prey that's slow, big and easy to attack, and not used to T-REXES kung-fu, messy style of hunting. T-REX will win, and Monstarr weeps once again at seeing the dinosaur he wants so desperately to beat T-REX get devoured by the true Tyrant king.

Besides, I don't think you should take Monstarr too seriously. Way too many people are trying to knock T-REX off his perch as the deadilest dinosaur ever. The raptor fans tried that, and Spinosaur and Giganotosaurus fans are no different. But as of yet, not only have they not suceeded, doing so will only convince more and more people that T-REX is the deadilest. Yeah, T-REX lives forever!

Of course, my favourite dinosaur is Utahraptor, just in case anybody thinks I'm a T-REX fanatic.
from Jamie W., age 17, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

Well Honkie, I've known you since last year, and know you're not a stuck up (like somebody else), so ignore all the bashing you're getting and focus on the topic. If better, you can avoid returning all the personal letdowns to avoid another BBD. People like BBD (hint hint) will be forgotten, but people like you will be remembered. Monstarr's antalogies are simplisitc and full of holes anyway, from my opinion, I don't know if you share it, but you could attack them. The best you can do though, is to present your case to the people here clearly and lacking the personal letdowns that make some other guys (hint hint) posts a pain to read. It's your imperative to prevent people from buying into his view, but it's not your responsibility to make him agree with you. So far, people seem to be agreeing with you nine otta ten times, so good job Honkie! Despite all that Monstarr says, I do think you have the upper hand.

Enough with all that trival rubbish. I'll be posting a article on Dino Warz season 3 soon, watch it.
from Billy Macdraw, age 18, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

I'm still not convinced. Well, for two reasons, firstly, your rentless character-assualt on Honkie and Tyrannosaur is not only making you look bad, but also making you look like you're not open to correction at all.

Secondly, your points still lack the "ommph", (which you try to make up for by the personal attacks). Once again, Giganotosaurus was designed to take down sauropods, but not with a single bite. It would inflict multiple flesh wounds on its target unit it finally weakens and falls. Note that the ability to kill in one bite is not really need here, and for you information, most scientists agree that Giganotosaurus was not built for a head on confrontation(like T.Rex), and also agree that he could do much less damage in a single bite than T.Rex. Well, it's that way is because it's IMPOSSIBLE to bring down a sauropod in a single bite, so Giganotosaurus has evolved to give multiple smaller bites to finally bring its prey down by attrition. Not to mention, Sauropods could not run real fast too, Giganotosaurus didn't need to be tough, or strong like T.Rex, it impressive size was more of merit of its job, than its actual killing ability. Now, Tyrannosaurus was perfectly adapted to kil ling slightly larger prey in a bite, Giganotosaurus would have fallen perfectly into that range. While poor Giganotosaurus is trying to get in his weaker bites, the Tyrannosaur is putting in its ultra-powerful sucker-bites. In the end, it's much like a contest between an American alligator and an indian slender snout croc. Even if the slender snout outmasses the alligator by one half, the alligator's shorter and more comapct snout lends it a more powerful bite. THe alligator will always win. In fact the only problem I see here is your inability to accept T.Rex's the best, chow. Go Honkie!
from Leonard, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

Hey everyone! Lately I`ve been studying dinos a lot! God makes such amazing creatures! Did you know that it`s been said that when satan was thrown out of heaven his fall killled the dinos? It`s like the comet theory, but I believe it really was satan`s fall that killed the dinos because the arch angel (Michael) threw him out, so that would have caused an even greater explosive affect than a comet!!! It`s sad they died, but they must have been really cool when they were alive!!!
from Lauren, age 15, ?, ?, us; February 2, 2001

Honkie Tong mentions that he is adverse to quoting books, but a person with good judgement knows that reading good informed books is the pathway to learning and wisdom. In what great halls of academic learning did "Mr.16 yr old, OLD, WISE, Honkie Tong" become such an expert and the world discover that he is "always right"? I notice Honkie Tong, in every other word uses the term "in my personal opinion, its not a fact". How we all agree he truly is a 16 year old ancient wise man and definitely the father of modern paleontology. (Look out Dr.Bakker, he's coming to get you!). Honkie Tong, I wait for you to advise all paleontological experts on how YOU state "...the problem in paleontology is the dinosaur misinformed public", as this takes in such misinformed public as Steven Spielberg, corporate executives who donate millions of dollars for paleontology research(McDonalds, etc.) and to put yourself on such a high plain is such arrogance that I should t! end to be humble Monstarr, and either cry in pity or sing the "praises" of the august, all mighty, Doctor of paleontology, 16 year old, Honkie Tong.

Heres why I think Giganotosaurus could beat Tyrannosaurus, and vice-versa depending on area. If you havent noticed, a Giganotosaurus is a very large, heavy and mostrous animal. It held the same nich as tyrannosaurus, and has the construction to take out extremely large hunks of meat quickly and cleanly. T.rex is a animal who cracks bones, has a smaller maw and in coming into the vicinty to bite Giga., would get a huge gouge out of himself first. Giganotosaurus is a more instinct driven animal and with a long mouth, teeth designed for cutting meat rather quickly, and(being a sauropod hunter) quite a large amount of meat. Tyrannosaurus has a smaller maw, and is in for biting bone and having to turn and wrench before "chucking" the meat out. I consider them both equal, like scientist said, not that I agree cause they said it, but because it seems more logical. In a wider, more open,wetter place, T.rex might win. In a dense forest, T.rex's might be at Giganotosaurus' mercy. Theyre clearly equal, yet different. I notice you never focus on Giganotosaurus' deadly attributes to big(HUGE) game hunting compared to T.rex's to hunting animals his own size. Both are streamlined, large and built for quick dispatching. Besides, heavy as T.rex was, it wouldnt be too fast for giganotosaurus to catch or get ahold of. I look at their anatomy, and muscles and weight, and I think, yes, the longer legged T.rex would hurt Giganotosaurus bad, but its his maw. Its smaller and in similar size, took out less a gouge(muscle) than a Giga. bite. Giganotosaurus was more heavily built and more reinforced by muscle while T.rex was made for endurance and speed. Giganotosaurs were built to take out huge chunks of flesh quickly, while T.rex was runner and nipped and crunched the backsides and around that area of fleeing herbivores. But theyre more over equals, nonetheless. Giganotosaurus couldve killed a T.rex faster than the rex couldve killed it. But T.rex definitely could kill the animal. Stop being over obsessed with making T.rex the "best". Not to mention Honkie Tong, Your the public too.
from Monstarr, age 17, ?, ?, ?; February 2, 2001

The Gigantosaurus acually can kill a T-rex because it is bigger, stronger and deadlier! A T-rex is only 40ft. tall and Gigantosaurus is can be from 45-47ft. tall! If I were to see a T-rex fight a Gigantosaurus fight, I will bet all my money on Gigantosaurus.
Not to metion, female Gigantosaurus is even more agressive!

from Jeffrey, age 11, Alpharetta, Georgia, USA; February 2, 2001

Hmm, looking back, I'm not sure where the real extremists are. Are they the Tyrannosaur fans? Or those hell-bent on knocking them off? My guess would be the latter, as those are the ones who lace their arguments with negative refrences to their opponents. Hey, want to make your point look good and sensible in front of others? Go blast your opponent as an extremist and therefore, irrevelant.

Monstarr, I'm not sure Tyrannosaur fans would willingly accept anything to put their dinosaur on top. I mean, if they were really as you said them to be, then they would state that Tyrannosaurus could run at 70 clicks an hour, grow to TWICE the size of Giganotosaurus and so on and so forth. These are the extreme estimates made by experts on Tyrannosaurus, and if they were really the sort to take in anything to put Tyrannosaurus on top, why don't they convienently take it? I don't see them doing that, looking at the achrives. In fact, what I do see is that they do not follow anything blindly, nor are they desperate to put Tyrannosaurus on top. They are slowly but surely building up a case for Tyrannosaurus being the meanest big carnivore fact by careful fact. What have you done so far then endulge mainly in a spat of character assassination?

Don't get me wrong, I am not a big fan of Tyrannosaurus, nor are your opponents paying my to speak against you. These are my personal feelings feelings from following this debate. I have been character-assassinated before, and I know how this works. I afraid your attempts to paint your opponents in a negative light only makes your arguments look bad, real bad.

Oh, and you can go on to jump me, but will that do you any good? I'm not taking sides here, these are my candid views.
from Mervin J., age 10, LA, CA, USA; February 2, 2001

Say, I've seen a documentry about a fossilized dinosaur egg that nobody knew belonged to who until recently: It was the egg of a Tyrannosaurus rex. Some guy speculated there must have been some parental care as the egg was probally laid in small numbers. (only one was found) Does anybody have more information on this? I've also heard of cases of recently identified Tyrannosaurus hatchings coming up in musuems as they have been previously misidentified as "ostrich" dinosaurs, to which T.Rex was closely related. Also any more info on this?
from Leonard, age 13, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

Look guys, I don't want you to start comparing me to Monstarr, it might spark off a flamewar. Besides, the topic here is "T.Rex vs. Giganotosaurus, who will win?", not " Who's better? Monstarr or Honkie?" But I appreciate the support you guys are showing though.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

I have a question here, is Tyrannosaurus a subspecies of Albertosaurus or is Albertosaurus a subspecies of Tyrannosaurus? But whatever it is, I'm sure Albertosaurus/Tyrannosaurus Rex can beat Giganotosaurus in a one on one, anyplace, any time. Tyranno was just too good.
from Marlin Jr, age 12, Jackson, Mississippi, US; February 1, 2001

I'm posting here to show my support for Honkie. I do think that T-rex would easily kill Giganotosaurus in any enviroment and terrain. Personally, I'd prefer if the Monstarr guy stops mumbling all his "hollier-than-thou" stuff and start talking about his point of view, but that's the reason why I think Honkie has a stronger case: He says everything out into the littlest detail and allows us to think for ourselves. I do find his arguments stronger and a good bit more convincing than Monstarr's. But in the end, I'm not a T-rex fan, so why should I bother? But I'd like you all to know that I think T-rex would win, based on the arguments made here so far. I know if this was brought to a court of law, Honkie would certainly win even if the jury were all Giggy-sympathizers.

Well that's all folks! Chow!
from Mervin, age 10, LA, CA, USA; February 1, 2001

Paleontoligical correctness is the personal responsibility of oneself. Frankly, I am highly adversive to quoting books as half the stuff in there is likely to be inaccucrate. Nothing beats asking an expert by yourself, and at best arguing with him instead of taking his answer down wholesale. I've actually convinced an expert at my local dinosaur exibition that the Pachycephalosaurs did not ram heads. And presto! At the next talk he gave on the animal, he changed his position on the entire matter!

The point here is not that I'm "better" or anything, but I believe that the best way to be sure of yourself is to ask questions instead of buying into the "expert" opinion completely. If they tell me something I find hard to believe, I would ask them why they thought of it this way. It they fail to give a good explaination, I would classify their comments under "personal opinion", and not "fact".

That's the problem in paleontology, many experts speak about their facts and their personal opinions without prying them apart, confusing the public to think that ALL the dinosaurs were warm-blooded, that MOST had feathers, and that the asteroid theory is OVER and proven. These are almost certainly not true. And looking at the way your rather faithful recital of the "experts", I suspect you may be like the dinosaurian-misinformed public.

Besides, save for vauge explainations, you haven't really gone deep into explaining why you think Giganotosaurus could win this fight at all besides accusing us of being fanatics and too biased to listen to you. Not that I'm a fanatic, but to take your vague explainations in wholesale will be the act of an unthinking idiot.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

Tyrannosaurus certainly has the advantage in his ultra-powerful bite and ledgendary toughness. Not to mention he was quite likely faster. I figure he will outmanuver and move out of the range of Giggy and attack from the rear, just like he does with Triceratops. The shock and blood loss from having 70 kilos of flesh removed from the rear and a few possible broken bones from the bite would have disabled Giggy pretty good for the rest of the fight, ending it in very short order.

Giggy stands a better chance if he fights Tyrannosaurus head on, but not by much. A Giggy bite is not as efficently designed to do damage as a Tyrannosaurus bite, not to mention the compact and powerful Tyrannosaurus, is more agile in a close battle. A good bite on the head of Giggy will probally kill him, or at the very least, disable him badly. Given Tyrannosaurus toughness, he had more than enough "armour" to survive many attacks and give back twice the damage.

Bye bye Giggy, so this is my desision: Honkie with the win, Monstarr with the loss. (And that's not because Monstarr is American)
from Norman, age ?, KL, ?, Malaysia; February 1, 2001

Initially, I was inclined to give this "fight" to Giganotosaurus. But after reading Honkie's, Lillian's, Leonard's and Josh's arguments, I must say they are hard to refute, having built up a solid case. I do find their arguments very convincing and do agree that it's ability, not size that matters in such a fight, T.Rex will certainly win jaws down.
from Mayers M., age 12, ?, Alabama, USA; February 1, 2001

how did they die
from cody w, age 8, montoursville, pa, eldered; February 1, 2001

It depends on what you mean by "books". Some books are poorly made, completetly out of date (or contain incorrect information that was never right), and should certainly not be shown to the children they are intended for. Some books were made by Universal Studios or Disney, and contain information about movie creatures-- but since the names also apply to real dinosaurs, kids can have a hard time knowing what's facts and what's fiction. And some books feature a lot of plagarism, especially in the art department :(

But there are good dinosaur books, made for more advanced audiences and featuring the work of real paleontologists. Here is some I would reccommend-

Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia by Donald Glut. A massive encyclopedia that can replace every other book of dinosaur genera. Very detailed. Highly expensive, but definately worth it.

The Horned Dinosaurs by Peter Dodson. Everything you could want to know about the Ceratopsia.

The Dinosaur Heresies by Robert Bakker. A classic.

The Complete Dinosaur featuring many real experts, edited by James Farlow and M K Brett-Surman. Good articles.

The Scientific American Book of Dinosaurs, also featuring many experts, edited by Gregory Paul. Extremely up to date, there's a labeled picture of Bambiraptor in it!

Horner also has books, Digging Dinosaurs, Dinosaur Lives, and of course, The Complete T. Rex. Don Lessem's books, although written for kids, are usually interesting, up to date, and have great illustrations. Titles include Raptors: The Nastiest Dinosaurs, and Supergiants!, which is about sauropods. There was also a book by him about sixteen Mesozoic ecosystems, but I wore the cover off it. There is a fantastic dinosaur book based on James Gurney's dinosaur stamps, but it also is missing its cover.

Predatory Dinosaurs of the World has to be great, but unfortunately I've never read it.
from Brad, age 14, Woodville, ON, Canada; February 1, 2001

OK on this t.rex vs. gigantosaurus they could not fight each other ( as you are) unless one had a time machine. But if I had to vote I whould vote for gigantosaurus( bigger is always better) chow!
from Jennifer R, age 12, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

Are you really sure Monstarr? That's because good scientists don't like to measure the killing abilities of animals up against other species, much less write about it. Not to mention, very little reserch is done on Giganotosaurus killing abilities. All the "scientists" I met that claimed that Giganotosaurus was equal in killing to Tyrannosaurus also said that it was this "reason" that Tyrannosaurus didn't cross into the south Given their poor grasp of paleogeography, I'm not sure if they are saying that because they have a scientific reason behind it or mainly to make Giganotosaurus look meaner. I've also noted size and weight estimates of Giganotosaurus were incredibily inflated when it was first discovered. The South Americans also seemed pretty eagar to hype the dinosaur and compair it to T.Rex when it first came out. Are you sure you didn't just buy into their views?

Besides, what you say is contray to what I see in popular scientific opinion nowadays. It seems to be the majority opinion of the experts that T.Rex was superior to Giganotosaurus in terms of killing ability. Not that I'm saying you're lying, but I would just like to say that your point about the "popular" scientific view of Giganotosaurus being equal in meaness to T.Rex is inaccucrate.

Besides, what is all these based on? Did the experts you're qouting eleborate why they think that Giganotosaurus is equally mean? If not, it could represent a opinion not based on fact. While expert opinions are important, I do not advice you to base your case on them. Morever, paleontology is constantly changing. It certainly seems that it's the common opinion that T.Rex is meaner (both in here and outside) are you sure that the information you are qouting is not outdated?

Besides, any self-respecting paleontologist will not compair the killing abilities of dinosaurs and write them into a book (raptors being an exception). While Giganotosaurus may be good at taking on the slow moving Sauropods, get him to hunt any standard, north american late-cretacious herbivore like Anatotitan, he'll probally starve to death (or at least go extinct from competition from T.Rex) I believe the converse is true too. These animals were specialized in hunting their type of prey, and prehaps they were very efficent at that. But making them fight each other is a different ball game indeed. Fighting and hunting are two very different things! In that case, I'm quite sure the "killing ability" quoted in your books will not be valid when applied to a fight. You'll have to compair them from scratch. I'm sure no paleontologist have done that yet.

I'm also not sure you should blast Honkie like that. Personally, though I may not be as blunt as Honkie, I do feel that the points you make here very weak indeed. Don't feel offended, I am positively deconstructing your points, and also the points of your opponents, and feel that they have a stronger case. To understand why, just read the "Raptor did not hunt big prey" debate in the Dino Science. Though both parties were responsible for causing that flame war, in the end, it was the one with the stronger case that turned out better. Really, instead of scolding Honkie and saying you are correct because experts agree with you (which I don't think so), prove your point and convince us! Quote the experts if you have too.

Also, if two you would please, keep out the personal pulldowns out of this. We didn't come here to see you match yourself off in a battle of morals against another person Monstarr. Honkie, you too. Back to the paleontology, after you.

Have a great week.
from Josh, age 12, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

Monstarr, are you sure? From what I've heard from the dinosaur experts in my country while answering a kids question about how would win a fight, T.Rex or Giganotosaurus, the experts said they were pretty sure T.Rex had an extremely good chance of winning. Also, when I went to DINOSAURS and asked the same question, a fair bit of people seemed to think T.Rex would win, and none voted for Giggy.

Given all that, your "books" and "qualified authorities" are not as accucrate as they were cracked out to be. Hey, they could be right, but I don't think people would take you seriously if you based your entire case on their word, I know I wouldn't.

Besides, it was the "books" and "qualified authorities" who claimed not so long ago that the dinosaurs were slow, inactive, cold blooded, lizard-like reptiles. It's not the "books" and "qualified authorities" that make paleontology, we do!
from Lillian T., age 14, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

Hmm, your mummbop goobybufunk is real easy to understand. (Note extreme sarcasm)
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

I am quite sure it was as dominant as the lion is today. It was the lion of the Jurassic.
from Honkie Tong, age 16, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

Dear Honkie Tong, my points are not easy to "kill" or I must be one heck of a ghost.(you note sarcasm)If you knew what you were talking about you would know that scientists agree with my point that giganotosaurus vs. T.rex(if they did fight) does depend on surroundings. This is written and quoted from books and a discovery documentary by qualified authorities. I think everyone on this net engaged in this discussion will agree that your sesquipedion verbage is quite obvious in that you should tend more to research your facts instead of using this learining line of communication and means of open discussion as a way of venting hostility and venomous pent-up frustration because of your lack of having a real life to lead outside of your computer toy(definitly no sarcasm intended) I sincerely feel sorry for you and will pray that you would be rewarded with a real life other than a children's dinosaur discussion forum. Please respond in a intelligent manner, now try real hard to be grown-up about this. For all the others in this forum, this does not concern you.
from Monstarr, age ?, ?, ?, ?; February 1, 2001

Go to the top of the page.

Go to previous DinoTalk messages
What is a Dinosaur? Dino Info Pages Dinosaur Coloring Print-outs Name That Dino Biggest, Smallest, Oldest,... Evolution of Dinosaurs Dinos and Birds Dino Myths

Enchanted Learning®
Over 35,000 Web Pages
Sample Pages for Prospective Subscribers, or click below

Overview of Site
What's New
Enchanted Learning Home
Monthly Activity Calendar
Books to Print
Site Index

K-3 Themes
Little Explorers
Picture dictionary
PreK/K Activities
Rebus Rhymes
Cloze Activities
Essay Topics
Writing Activities
Parts of Speech

The Test of Time

Animal Printouts
Biology Label Printouts
Food Chain
Human Anatomy
Physical Sciences: K-12
The Earth
Japanese (Romaji)
US History

Other Topics
Art and Artists
College Finder
Graphic Organizers
Label Me! Printouts
Word Wheels

Click to read our Privacy Policy


Enchanted Learning Search

Search the Enchanted Learning website for:



Copyright ©2000 ------ How to cite a web page