Apr 15, 2009
Ernst Udet Profile
It's now becoming clear to me that most of the users on this forum actually like these troll-based arguments... (Mar 19, 2011 | post #52)
[quote]Even the most stretched out to beyond reality estimates say only 34mph. The most probable estimate would be about 25mph tops. Unless we are talking about young animals. In which case, 40mph isnt that far fetched. [/quote] How do you know? (Dec 11, 2010 | post #32)
I'm not really that much of a dino expert, but here's some facts I know. T-Rex, being top predator of its time and area, would have a very robust body suited for ambushing hadrosaurs (e.g. Edmonotsaurus) or taking the better of fierce herbivores (Triceratops and the like). The Tyrannosaurus is, undoubtedly, (at least I think) the largest carnivore of its type. I won't deny that T-Rex would be able to run to 40 mph - but for an incredibly short time (perhaps a spilt second) wherein it lunged suddenly at its hapless prey. After that, it would be quite tired, and dinosaurs like that wouldn't like taking long chases at their prey. Also I don't think it's a pack animal, is it? And, I've read somewhere that females are usually fiercer, larger, and more agressive than males, as with many reptiles. (Dec 11, 2010 | post #30)
Massive size advantage? Have you ever seen lions take down elephnats? Hyenas taking down lions? Dogs taking down humans? Predators don't retreat just because something's bigger than them, if they were longing for the meal they'd get once they took down their prey. (Dec 5, 2010 | post #580)
I've already proven you wrong in this very thread. You assumed that we were typical Christians, and that was stereotyping. Yes, I am not attacking you. You think this has nothing to do with the debate? You yourself said that I was attacking you, so I reasoned out why I was actually not. Yes, I say that you seem to be forcing it on people, because you keep labeling us as pathetic, and that we don't accept your facts. I don't have to come to Paleoplace and start another long debate of about 100 posts. You know I'm just too lazy to do that. I don't need to, really. (Dec 5, 2010 | post #94)
True, as a matter of fact, if you've proven that Spino can take the bite firstNo, we don't care only about bite forces. And don't you call us "nooby"; that's a bit impolite. We've been trying to argue in a proper way, and all you can do is shout crazily at how Spinosaurus can kick ass, which I don't quite agree with. Oh, and I don't think we're fanboys. We're stating why we think T-Rex wins, and you don't call that fanboyism; I myself think you yourself, Spino claw, are a fanboy, because of your multi-exclamation mark sentences and cursing you use against us, which is rather unsuited for such a forumI really can't understand why so many of you seem to think that Spinosaurus having fragile sail bones make the whole animal extremely vulnerable. No. Hell, I don't think an opposing dinosaur would aim for Spino's sail; it would aim for a more frontal part (neck, head, etc.). Why would, say, T-Rex have to tiptoe just to get a bite on Spino's sailNo, it wasn't just built for killing light animals. Spinosaurus' favorite dino prey were Ouranosaurs. Not that it could rival T-Rex's or Giga's bite forces, but Spinosaurus could also tear apart dinosaurs that lived within its own environment. (Dec 5, 2010 | post #578)
Then how come you keep saying we can't seem to understand your proof? Isn't that good as attempting us to agree to you? In which case, I believe that is "forcing " us. Let's seeMay I repeat that againSee? You assumed that we should agree to your statement, in which case, you're practically forcing us into your belief that God didn't create the universeI think you are because of thisYou are directly pulling us to the category of fundamentalist, do-it-or-else Christians. And that is what I mean a "steretype ". You don't even know us. You don't know our actual beliefs, and yet you blame us on thisOh, that again tells me you're trying to force us into agreement. I mean, yes, we can see what you're trying to say, it's just that we don't agree to that being the actual truthOh, so you're a Christian? I take back what I said. However, if you think we are all getting the wrong impression of God, then keep it to yourself. You yourself believes in that. Why do you want to preach it out, and start calling us "pathetic " if we disagree? Oh, and I don't so much like this in Paleoplace either. (Dec 4, 2010 | post #91)
That was no attack. I merely stated what was wrong in your posts about this. Remember my lineSo, was that an attack? Would you like to see an attack? It's this; "Paudie, you are completely wrong and disgusting. You shouldn't be here in the first place. I mean, we will NEVER EVER believe in what you say!! You are no more than a ******* atheist! Hell! If you don't want to believe in God, screw you!!!" See? Did my comment sound like an attackSure, and what if the omnipotent being simply didn't want toThis is actually funny. You are directly stating a law that should govern omnipotent beings. Why don't you look at an omnipotent being yourself? Meet it? See. That's the problem. You say that "an omnipotent can do this, not that. Not that! You're stupid! You clearly don't understand me!" without even trying to respond to our own statements. And I am not at all attacking you. I am stating that what you are doing here is completely wrong. Also, you shouldn't be trying to preach the way you believe in God. Not here. And that shouldn't be, in the first place, 'cause you're trying to make us agree to something that we won't. Mark that. (Dec 4, 2010 | post #90)
Then how come you keep saying we can't seem to understand your proof? Isn't that good as attempting us to agree to you? In which case, I believe that is "forcing " us. Let's seeMay I repeat that againSee? You assumed that we should agree to your statement, in which case, you're practically forcing us into your belief that God didn't create the universeI think you are because of thisYou are directly pulling us to the category of fundamentalist, do-it-or-else Christians. And that is what I mean a "steretype ". You don't even know us. You don't know our actual beliefs, and yet you blame us on thisOh, that again tells me you're trying to force us into agreement. I mean, yes, we can see what you're trying to say, it's just that we don't agree to that being the actual truthOh, so you're a Christian? I take back what I said. However, if you think we are all getting the wrong impression of God, then keep it to yourself. You yourself believes in that. Why do you want to preach it out, and start calling us "pathetic " if we disagree? (Dec 4, 2010 | post #89)
Look, Paudie, I'm laughing at how you yourself are some sort of preacher. Below are some reasons why your argument is completely irrelevant. First, we will simply not agree to what you force us to agree with. We have our own beliefs, which happen to be different with yours. Second, your last comment shows you are an utter stereotype. Hey, you haven't even seen our faces, and you can call one of us a "typical Christian"? And, hell, if you call this a "debate" , it's not. Third, you can't state the truth if you can't prove it. Yes, you can't prove it; if you have, we all simply would've shook our heads and say, "Paudie is right. All the while I believed in such illogical things like some omnipotent guy." Oh, and God doesn't need proof. It's more of "Faith" that keeps such idiots like us believing in an omnipotent superdaddy. Fourth, as I already stated, your logic is flawed. If you don't know that God isn't bound by simple logic, than I might as well forgive you. If not, my first statement in this paragraph is completely correct. Read my above comment why. Fifth, this isn't a thread for debates. In fact, this entire forum doesn't need you if you can start bragging about what you think is true, and force us to accept such a "truth" in it when we simply won't. I might as well call you some sort of atheist by now. An atheist preacher, perhaps. You're exactly how you stereotype us; extreme fundamentalists, fearing God will punish us if we won't do an omnipotent guy's bidding; us, who are such dunderheads to believe in something that can't exist, based on scientific facts and simple reason; us, who can't help fretting to disagree with you, because we're completely afraid of a God who will torture us if we won't obey. Hell, you yourself are what is said above, 'cept that you're more on the "logical " side, is it not? You yourself, are an extreme fundamentalist of simple logic, who can't see beyond it. You yourself; one whose brain is too limited on what you think is true. You yourself, who simply can't accept the fact that we continously disagree with you. Yeah, and there's a massive load of "believe in the truth or you're an idiot!" implication on your side. Hell, this shouldn't be even discussed here. You already said several posts ago you were leaving. Lol. As if you were. You find yourself discussing an offtopic debate, right in the middle of a subject completely different from the matter. And, crap, my comment about your forum is actually ontopic, and whoever voted it offtopic is sadly mistaken; why had you made such a website if this forum were alive and too well? Isn't the title of this thread "This Forum Has Lost Its Purpose."? And isn't your website directly reflecting that this forum, indeed, has lost its purpose? Yeah, that. And thanks again for fixing your site's registration problem. (Dec 4, 2010 | post #62)
That's a ruther hurried and forced argument you have there. All I can do is laugh at how you debateNever really met? Who cares! The point of this thread is what would happen if they fought one another! No one should care about their habitatPartly true. But Spino's teeth simply aren't that much designed to take on such big targets. Remember, Spino would rather eat fish than anything else. Of course, it'd take down an Ouranousaurus for all I care, but Ourano is much smaller than either T-Rex or Giga. Both Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus were designed for heavy fighting. Spinosaurus would already be the top predator of its place. Tyranno, especially, had many contestants; and there's the bone-breaking Triceratops for it to deal with. I'm guessing Tyrannosaurus, since it was well-suited for tackling rather harsh dinosaurs. (Dec 4, 2010 | post #561)
Oh, and thanks for finally getting me registered! (Dec 3, 2010 | post #58)
You can't state a rule here. Sorry, we've got different opinions and won't believe in you. Also, logic can't rule over God. And you're arguing logic. So your argument is pretty useless. (Dec 3, 2010 | post #57)
Look, claw, the only reason why we think your argument is ridicolous is because you stick to simple facts and then rage over how they can be useful. You say that "Spinosaurus is really BAD! It's got FIFTEEN INCH ARMS AND SEVEN INCH CLAWS! OMG! YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!!" when you can't actually prove it. You simply won't defend your answers properly (you could've said how those facts can rival Rex's or Giga's properties, such as "T-Rex has only 2-inch claws, Spino has 7-inch ones"), you just exaggerate yourself and then say that our arguments are useless. Your point of argument is useless itself. (Dec 3, 2010 | post #553)
Q & A with Ernst Udet
1896 - 3000
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Frankfurt am Main
I Belong To:
Germany and God.
When I'm Not on Topix:
I am flying.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
I have earned the Pour le Merite.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Ace of the Iron Cross
Drawing aeroplanes, flying, serving von Richthofen, taking part in a movie, etc.
On My Mind:
The Flying Circus.
I Believe In:
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC