Did Dinosaurs live with man?

Hey! We agree on something!

The buzzard is pretty damn puzzled by both the reply and the nickname. But he doesn't care.

Come on, Coy Boy, let's face it, it's only a random chance you and the cat don't agree on everything. The feline could easily be a good crypto-creo atheist quackademician with the back for you to pat. Or you could have been a contrary crank joining the cat in deriding the quackademia. You never know who you could have been.

Or what point you are trying to make with your continual posting of utter rubbish.

The only point the feline is pursuing here is spreading some doubt and confusion about the current quackademic dogma on dragons, Larn. So as to encourage more consideration and research about the issue. The Cheshire is a curious cat, he is quite intrigued by the dinosaur business and he would love to hear more different proposals to explain the fate of the beasts.

Just ignore him, Larni.
There is no point asking him questions: he won't reply with anything but nonsense; he can't reply with anything but nonsense.How many times would you ask a parrot to explain its thoughts before accepting that the parrot can only imitate human speech?

Then you have failed. You have certainly exhibited doubt and confusion, especially confusion, but you have not spread it. Apart from the birds, they would appear to be dead.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Inadequate, I know you lot's brains are fossilised so the state of current quackademic dogma can be examined by its student through simple picking of them on any subject. The cat is not as naive as to hope to have seeded any doubt in that mineralised area. But there are visitors here outnumbering you presumptuous baboonish lot. Birds are birds and dragons are dragons for the purposes of the feline. In any case, any such classifications and categorising is to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Also it is unfortunate, that it is only bible-pushers who carry on any doubt on this particular issue. The rest seem to be impressed with the quacks' assurance the quackademia have already figured it out once and for all. The feline would love to see those without either type of preconceptions joining the doubters. Simians like Charles Hapgood who had a lovely hypothesis to explain those phenomena. What do you reckon about Hapgood's ideas, Inadequate? Lovely, aren't they? It's actually Newton who first outlined the concept of shifting crust, if you don't know that.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Well, can we hear from any of these visitors of whom you speak?If anyone was tolerably sane on this subject before reading this thread, but has subsequently been driven insane by the influence of Maddenstein's ravings, and been inveigled under the spell of his schizophasic incantations to join him in a folie deux, then now would be a great time for him to step from the shadows and proclaim that whatever is wrong with our Alfred is contagious.Otherwise, my dear Maddenstein, I think that while you yourself may be confused, deeply confused, about what you are pleased to call "dragons", what you have inflicted on others is not a share in your confusion but rather a feeling of certainty concerning your mental incapacity.

Inadequate, why do you care so much about irrelevant issues? The Cheshire's being possibly mad and the bible-pushers being possibly wrong should be the least of your concerns and aspirations. As it is, you lot are hopelessly fixated on the bible and bible-pushers. You are totally dependent on them having no autonomous being of your own. You need to relax and cut the umbilical belt chaining you to the bible, Inadequate.

While your delusions about me are every bit as risible as your delusions about dragons, they are not nearly so relevant to the topic.

What delusions about you and the dragons does the cat have, Inadequate? It's you who got firm opinions on those two subjects - the dragons and yourself. Not the feline. The feline can't have his opinions any too firm. He is investigating these issues while having firm opinions on anything interferes with any inquiry. Your opinions may be very delusionary or not. They are not quite yours anyway. They are the current official line on what you and dragons are that you need to toe in your line of business to remain functional in its framework. You have little choice about what you have to assert and what you can have any doubts about. You can't question and investigate certain official figures and facts for yourself, can you? Even if you wanted to which you might not. Maybe you can on the sly. Doing it in the open will cost you your teaching job or whatever learned post you occupy.

If your delusional ravings about me and about dragons are in the nature of speculation, then you should not present them as though they were assured facts. You should instead preface them with some disclaimer such as: "Here is a daydream that I like to indulge in, even though I have no credible reason to believe it". Of course, we are aware that this is the case; but such a prefatory disclaimer would clear you of the imputation, which you apparently wish to deny, that you yourself believe that you are telling the truth.