Animal Planet's "Dragons"

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:00:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Other sites indicate that averages for both are around 1000 pounds and 3300
> pounds respectively. What can I tell ya, I haven't weighed too many polar
> bears or beluga whales.

Of course, about half of a beluga is fat, and I haven't seen a site
that says the baers generally take males, either. And 3-to-1 weight
ratios aren't 10-to-1, either. What's more, in terms of size they're
more like 1.5 to 1.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <KbOdnS6zoqvmRtXfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:7dGdndZpc4o2K9XfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
>> We're no longer talking about (previously ADMITTED)
>> exaggerated statements I've made,
>
>Not merely exaggerated; complete made-up bullshit.

Hmm. Why is it that "10:1" isn't an exaggeration of "3:1"? Or would you call
anyone's exaggeration "complete made-up bullshit"? or just Jeff's? Or were
you referring to some other statement of Jeff's?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <6MqdnQmLT6AaG9TfRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>news:d2bqab$8h7$1@knot.queensu.ca...
>> In article <KbOdnS6zoqvmRtXfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
>> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:7dGdndZpc4o2K9XfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
>>>> We're no longer talking about (previously ADMITTED)
>>>> exaggerated statements I've made,
>>>
>>>Not merely exaggerated; complete made-up bullshit.
>>
>> Hmm. Why is it that "10:1" isn't an exaggeration of "3:1"?
>
>I did not say it was not an exaggeration. I said it was not *merely* an
>exaggeration.

Oops. I think I misinterpreted what "merely" applied to. I thought you meant
his exaggeration was c.m-u.bs whereas you meant stuff in addition to the
exaggeration.

>> Or were you referring to some other statement of Jeff's?
>There are plenty that qualify.

I'm thinking there's a line between bs on the one hand and exagerration and
lack of care with words on the other. I have to admit that Jeff has often
crossed it, but not everything he has claimed does so. Maybe it has become
too hard, or not worthwhile, to distinguish between the two any more.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:d2catf$622$1@knot.queensu.ca...
> In article <6MqdnQmLT6AaG9TfRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"David Alex Lamb" <dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
>>news:d2bqab$8h7$1@knot.queensu.ca...
>>> In article <KbOdnS6zoqvmRtXfRVn-2g@comcast.com>,
>>> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:7dGdndZpc4o2K9XfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
>>>>> We're no longer talking about (previously ADMITTED)
>>>>> exaggerated statements I've made,
>>>>
>>>>Not merely exaggerated; complete made-up bullshit.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Why is it that "10:1" isn't an exaggeration of "3:1"?
>>
>>I did not say it was not an exaggeration. I said it was not *merely* an
>>exaggeration.
>
> Oops. I think I misinterpreted what "merely" applied to. I thought you
> meant
> his exaggeration was c.m-u.bs whereas you meant stuff in addition to the
> exaggeration.

I was likely not sufficiently clear. My apologies.

>>> Or were you referring to some other statement of Jeff's?
>>There are plenty that qualify.
>
> I'm thinking there's a line between bs on the one hand and exagerration
> and
> lack of care with words on the other.

Sure.

> I have to admit that Jeff has often crossed it, but not everything he has
> claimed does so.

The problem is, he mixes them both together into a big Humpty Dumpty salad.

> Maybe it has become too hard, or not worthwhile, to distinguish between
> the two any more.

The latter is certainly true.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:54:05 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:ge7h41th1qi1nag27a4g11lqbssqb0t3ke@4ax.com...
> > Sharks also happily eat people (and this happens in areas where seals
> > aren't common, so it's not only mistaken identity). So do wild dogs,
>
> Actually, sharks are remarkably particular about what they consume, far more
> so than originally thought. Bites on humans USUALLY appear to be little
> more than "tests", to see if they find humans tasty enough to eat. Given
> that most sharks capable of consuming people, the ones that are likely to be
> the culprits in shark attacks, are physically CAPABLE of tearing people
> clean in half if they so desire, that their bites don't result in more human
> fatalities is an indicator that they simply might be testing to see if they
> want to eat us. It's not conclusive, but the evidence of their extreme bite
> power is abundant, so why don't shark bites on humans almost ALWAYS end in a
> fatality?

Because we have good medical facilities.

Note, I never said all species of shark ate people. Most don't, but a
number do. Tiger sharks, and Great Whites definately do, and Makos and
Blues sometimes attack for no apparent reason.

Sharks normally scope potential prey out fairly carefully, especially
if it's large (like humans), and given how good their eyesight is (for
a water dwelling animal), their hearing, their sense of smell, and
that they can 'taste' without having to bite, I have my doubts about
the 'just tasting' theory. I'd say they were either 'defensive', like
a dog snapping at you, or along the lines of 'I'll give it a bite, and
see what happens'.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:49:57 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> I am fairly sure that the lions that we encountered were not even aware that
> the car had *ahem* "food" in it.

Yeah, right. I bet they knew perfectly well that they had a bunch of
naked apes inside.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:38:29 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Standard fare for lions is wildebeest, zebra and other decidedly "tall"
> quadrupeds. In comparison, we are generally no "bigger"(if big to animals
> equates to tall).

And if you look at how most lion attacks on humans are done, you'll
notice that they treat us with caution, and make due allowance for our
strengths and weaknesses. They attack at night, by surprise, don't
attempt pusuit over any distance, and retreat from groups armed with
lights, as a rule.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:24:23 -0800, "Malachias Invictus"
<capt_malachias@hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Funny that the Columbia Encyclopedia says they are aggressive.

According to our Jeff, they are only aggresive when there's something
to be aggresive at. Funny, that.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in
news:upje411is9sovgthiu4q8akvrkberab89s@4ax.com:

> Which I call bullshit on, since you don't even know the Hyenas are
> extremely efficient hunters.
>

Heck, he probably thinks Hyenas belong to the canine family.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
news:d2bqab$8h7$1@knot.queensu.ca:

> Hmm. Why is it that "10:1" isn't an exaggeration of "3:1"? Or
> would you call anyone's exaggeration "complete made-up bullshit"?
> or just Jeff's? Or were you referring to some other statement of
> Jeff's?
>

Because you claimed that predators existed that went ROUTINELY
after prey 10 times their size and ALWAYS won.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in
news:46adnVvGj6v_NtXfRVn-2w@comcast.com:

> I made a distinction between "real" predators and "other"
> predators. Yes, I
>

No, you stupidly created a distinction, making up YOUR definition
of the word "predator."

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
news:g46h411l7kh6elfnt1s75k1bhrjb7t80f7@4ax.com:

> Last I heard the megafauna's extinction in the Americas roughly
> coincided with the arrival of humans from Asia.
>
>

I don't know about that, seems much died out before do to climate
change, but I could err.

--
Marc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:0jci41llrqulmem332pj5g9uincpdkvb0k@4ax.com...
> > more than "tests", to see if they find humans tasty enough to eat.
Given
> > that most sharks capable of consuming people, the ones that are likely
to be
> > the culprits in shark attacks, are physically CAPABLE of tearing people
> > clean in half if they so desire, that their bites don't result in more
human
> > fatalities is an indicator that they simply might be testing to see if
they
> > want to eat us. It's not conclusive, but the evidence of their extreme
bite
> > power is abundant, so why don't shark bites on humans almost ALWAYS end
in a
> > fatality?
>
> Because we have good medical facilities.

I'd like to see the medical facility that can patch up a guy and his
masticated bottom half. 😉

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:j0di415h2gu39pdmcjcc8l0kioamtut37s@4ax.com...
> > "it's not common for lions IN GENERAL"... I thought it was pretty clear,
but
> > I guess not.
>
> Solitary, prideless males are a significant portion of the population,
> so ignoring them is foolish.

Solitary prideless males make up a significant portion of the MALE
population, I'll give you that, but the ratios of female to male in lions is
probably about 10 to 1.

> > Let's just say that without at least a 5 to 1 numbers advantage in favor
of
> > the hyenas, my money would always be put on the lions in that instance.
>
> Well, you're an idiot. The spotted hyena, which is the one we're
> really discussing here, averages 150+ pounds for an adult female. A
> lioness weighs about twice that. This suggests that a 2-1 ratio should
> easily be sufficient to attempt to intimidate a group of lionesses,

"Suggests"??? You're calling me an idiot, and you're using weight ratios to
determine how many hyenas could take on how many lions?

So, if I outweighed, say, YOU, by a ratio of 2 to 1, it would take TWO of
you to kick my ass, despite the fact that I'm just fat, not like buff and
tuff or anything? Geez, pump up my ego why don't you? 😉

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news😛O-dneh4KYACGNTfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> > I am fairly sure that the lions that we encountered were not even aware
> > that
> > the car had *ahem* "food" in it.
>
> Lions don't have a sense of smell?

Let me put it to you this way. They acknowledged the car and that's about
it.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:33:23 GMT, "Marc L." <master.cougar@gmail.com>
scribed into the ether:

>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>news:g46h411l7kh6elfnt1s75k1bhrjb7t80f7@4ax.com:
>
>> Last I heard the megafauna's extinction in the Americas roughly
>> coincided with the arrival of humans from Asia.
>>
> I don't know about that, seems much died out before do to climate
>change, but I could err.

Discovery has done a couple of specials on the extinction of various very
very large animals. Climate certainly had something to do with it, but they
were pretty conclusively able to link such extinctions with the arrival of
people, and not in isolated instances either.

Not too difficult to argue that the process is still going on with large
and endangered animals like rhinos/elephants/tigers/pandas.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:24:13 +1200, Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
scribed into the ether:

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:29:54 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
><autockr@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

>> That sounds like a plausible reason(too hungry to ignore ANY possible prey),
>> but it's not common for lions in general to spend a majority of their time
>> in solitary hunts.
>
>Wrong. Old males live that way.

As do young males who are between being kicked out of their birth pride,
and either haven't found a new pride to take over, or aren't big enough to
make the attempt. A time frame which can go on for a year or even two.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Leopards, tigers, and jaguars, OTOH seem to think humans are just
> another kind of yummy monkey, and whether they take humans or not is
> based solely on their assement of the risk-benefit ratio (though
> apparently tigers often prefer people's dogs over the person
> themselves).

That's also occasionally a problem with mountain lions around here
(south of the San Francisco Bay).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:51:31 -0500, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
>news:vr0g415g05259gni3ud1i82rrmeh3m37b8@4ax.com...
>> own food. That's a hunter who also scavenges. It's a relevant distinction,
>> because the animals that hunt but won't scavenge are in the vast minority
>> to the ones who will. Most animals won't pass up a free meal. If you
>
>Oh nonononono. No you don't. You don't get to do that. You don't get to
>make distinctions between the different types of scavengers. You bitched up
>and down that I was distinguishing between the different types of predators,
>and now you want to do the exact same thing with "scavenger"??

No, you were bitched up and down because you said that the other kinds of
animals were NOT predators because they fall outside of whatever fantasy
realm you live in where things need to actively chase after things of X
proportion to their size in order to qualify. Distinguish between !=
disqualify as.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <Xns9628BBCCEF4E2mastercougarhotmailc@207.35.177.135>,
Marc L. <master.cougar@gmail.com> wrote:
>dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
>news:d2bqab$8h7$1@knot.queensu.ca:
>
>> Hmm. Why is it that "10:1" isn't an exaggeration of "3:1"? Or
>> would you call anyone's exaggeration "complete made-up bullshit"?
>> or just Jeff's? Or were you referring to some other statement of
>> Jeff's?
> Because you claimed that predators existed that went ROUTINELY
>after prey 10 times their size and ALWAYS won.

I think you mean Jeff, rather than me.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:d55k41l45ecqlkl093ho8eleo92tc7mdcd@4ax.com...
> >not simply being powerful all around, eh, that's not good enough, eh?
>
> Since lions run from humans, it most definitely is not good enough.

Lions REGULARLY hunker down in the shade provided by safari trucks. They
must be preparing for that inevitable run from the humans, but they're
taking a breather, huh?

> > What you are saying is a COMPLETE non sequitor, it simply
> >does not follow. Animals will ONLY be afraid of humans if they have
REASON
> >to be afraid of humans, you simpering drool machine.
>
> Your assertion flies in the face of a billion years of evolution.

Prey animal have reason to be afraid of ANYTHING, this is true. It's much
more likely that deer and other herbivores will run from almost anything
that is either known predator or unknown entirely. Predators, on the other
hand, have not learned that fear.

Fear of other creatures is NOT inherant to predators. They are the ones on
top and have to LEARN how to fear anything they should fear.

> It is not all conjecture. The world did not spontaneously errupt into
> existance in the 20th century, comprete with endangered species and
> wilderness preserves. People have been in africa and keeping written
> records for a long time.

You can argue from the perspective of "long long ago in a galaxy far far
away" if you like, the rest of us live here and now.

> >Bottom line: I've been there, I've seen it, up close and personal, I
speak
> >from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
>
> Your personal experience has been comprehensively refuted by dozens of
> sources who, unlike you, know what they are talking about. I don't make
> statements about lion behavior based on seeing them in a zoo, you
shouldn't
> be making statements about ones in tourist spots who are exposed to a
> couple thousand people a year.

In your fantasy world, that's true, of course. In reality, you're just
blowing smoke and hoping nobody notices.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:12:50 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> As do young males who are between being kicked out of their birth pride,
> and either haven't found a new pride to take over, or aren't big enough to
> make the attempt. A time frame which can go on for a year or even two.

Yeah, though young males also form 'batchelor prides', of all-male
composition.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:38:45 GMT, Matt Frisch
<matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> You mean, appear passive to westerners who are accustomed to moo-cows?

ITYM "Who think they are accustomed to..." Cows can be bloody
dangerous if they have a mind to be, and anyone who treats bulls as
being safe, cute, creatures deserves what they get.

> Which even in prey animals, is false. Plenty of herbivores will attack
> predators pre-emptively to keep them away. Predators are immensely cautious
> because they can't afford even a minor injury, so these attacks are rarely
> fatal, but not for lack of trying on the "prey"'s part.

Watch 'domestic' cattle that are not used to being driven by farmers
with dogs. If the dog doesn't realise the cattle aren't driving as
expected, it's a mauled dog. Cattle can be hered by farmers with dogs
because they've been trained that way. Without that training some cow
will likely decide that the dogs are undesireable in her world, and
attempt to kill them (and cows are much more nimble on their feet than
most people give them credit for, and they can kick in more directions
than a horse can).


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ophidian wrote:
> Matt Frisch wrote:
>> The only bird that flaps its wings *constantly* are hummingbirds (and
>> maybe not even them).
> Yeah, they do tend to stop when perched, but rarely perch.

I just saw one last week outside my office window. It sat there for about a
minute, max. Funny story was about 3 weeks ago, one of the kids in my area asked
what would happen if they stopped, and I told him it would explode. He looked
real sad until I told him I was joking.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:ikfm4153ehhite81itfprfc8hv3bls2qtr@4ax.com...

> Nobody is arguing that a single hyena is going to successfully compete
> against a single lion, which is seemingly what you think we are arguing.

No, that is the strawman Humpty is hoping to knock over.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley