2015 Hopes & Dreams

[Ultimatedinoking]

Safari's dinosaurs have been pretty strong in recent years; I don't think they have any reason to be especially worried about Battat's revival. I think a little competition is good incentive for both companies to produce the best models they can.

I don't see the big deal about these Dinos coming back, they look really low quality, sloppy paint jobs and poor molding. But I guess some of you like them, so I bet your happy they've made a comeback.

I would advise you to be cautious about comments like these, as well as your frequent posts regarding Tyrannosaurus feathers. Such commentary could easily be construed as deliberate efforts to incite conflict - in other words, "trolling". While your opinions are welcome, please employ a degree of tact when sharing them in the future.

I was just voicing my opinion that the battats weren't that good. Just as people go off about loving them, I don't like them. 

Again, T. rex did not have feathers.

[Alexxitator]

.message deleted by me

[John]

Remind me again why the Battat line went under the first time...I'm genuinely curious as to why.

Battat at that time felt that dinosaur figures were not popular enough to warrant continuation of the line,so they dropped it and moved on to something else.The line really started showing up in shops in late 1996 through 1997,when hype was high for "The Lost World:Jurassic Park".I would be willing to bet that the line's resurgence now is due to the similar circumstance of the upcoming release of "Jurassic World".

[Quen]

Safari's dinosaurs have been pretty strong in recent years; I don't think they have any reason to be especially worried about Battat's revival. I think a little competition is good incentive for both companies to produce the best models they can.

I don't see the big deal about these Dinos coming back, they look really low quality, sloppy paint jobs and poor molding. But I guess some of you like them, so I bet your happy they've made a comeback.

I would advise you to be cautious about comments like these, as well as your frequent posts regarding Tyrannosaurus feathers. Such commentary could easily be construed as deliberate efforts to incite conflict - in other words, "trolling". While your opinions are welcome, please employ a degree of tact when sharing them in the future.

I was just voicing my opinion that the battats weren't that good. Just as people go off about loving them, I don't like them. 

Again, T. rex did not have feathers.

I think what Patrx is trying to say is that it's not what you say, but how you say it that could come off as confrontational. For example: I am not particularly fond of Collecta models because I do not like the look of the facial color schemes, among other things. This is a real opinion of mine, but I worded it in a way that minimized the possibility of offending others. I did not use insult-type words like "ugly" or "sloppy," which a fan of Collecta models could take as, well, insulting. The other thing is that even if you have a very strong opinion about something, especially something that is still very much in debate, such as feathers on tyrannosaurus, you shouldn't state your opinion as if it were a fact, or those who feel differently will get much more upset by it. An easy to way to state such a controversial opinion without causing an argument is to simply add an "I think" or "in my opinion" or "based on research I found" before such a statement. Because to those who feel differently, saying something about a controversial topic, like "I told you, sauropods had trunks" comes off as "Sauropods definitely had trunks, end of discussion" to someone who feels very strongly that sauropods did not have trunks, which is what makes it a confrontational statement. A less confrontational approach would be: "I think sauropods had trunks because..." To sum that up, stating your opinion without using offensive language and stating that your opinion is an opinion is seen as respectful to those with differing opinions, and creates a much more positive environment for everyone. 

Also, my apologies for getting off topic! I'm glad to hear that Safari isn't going to wait until next year to announce their new figures!

[Patrx]

Thanks, Quendrega, that's precisely what I was driving at 

[Yutyrannus]

Safari's dinosaurs have been pretty strong in recent years; I don't think they have any reason to be especially worried about Battat's revival. I think a little competition is good incentive for both companies to produce the best models they can.

I don't see the big deal about these Dinos coming back, they look really low quality, sloppy paint jobs and poor molding. But I guess some of you like them, so I bet your happy they've made a comeback.

I would advise you to be cautious about comments like these, as well as your frequent posts regarding Tyrannosaurus feathers. Such commentary could easily be construed as deliberate efforts to incite conflict - in other words, "trolling". While your opinions are welcome, please employ a degree of tact when sharing them in the future.

I was just voicing my opinion that the battats weren't that good. Just as people go off about loving them, I don't like them. 

Again, T. rex did not have feathers.

I think what Patrx is trying to say is that it's not what you say, but how you say it that could come off as confrontational. For example: I am not particularly fond of Collecta models because I do not like the look of the facial color schemes, among other things. This is a real opinion of mine, but I worded it in a way that minimized the possibility of offending others. I did not use insult-type words like "ugly" or "sloppy," which a fan of Collecta models could take as, well, insulting. The other thing is that even if you have a very strong opinion about something, especially something that is still very much in debate, such as feathers on tyrannosaurus, you shouldn't state your opinion as if it were a fact, or those who feel differently will get much more upset by it. An easy to way to state such a controversial opinion without causing an argument is to simply add an "I think" or "in my opinion" or "based on research I found" before such a statement. Because to those who feel differently, saying something about a controversial topic, like "I told you, sauropods had trunks" comes off as "Sauropods definitely had trunks, end of discussion" to someone who feels very strongly that sauropods did not have trunks, which is what makes it a confrontational statement. A less confrontational approach would be: "I think sauropods had trunks because..." To sum that up, stating your opinion without using offensive language and stating that your opinion is an opinion is seen as respectful to those with differing opinions, and creates a much more positive environment for everyone. 

Also, my apologies for getting off topic! I'm glad to hear that Safari isn't going to wait until next year to announce their new figures!

To be honest, saying something has a sloppy paintjob is perfectly fine. Certain people have been saying that constantly about the recent Carnegie figures.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Safari's dinosaurs have been pretty strong in recent years; I don't think they have any reason to be especially worried about Battat's revival. I think a little competition is good incentive for both companies to produce the best models they can.

I don't see the big deal about these Dinos coming back, they look really low quality, sloppy paint jobs and poor molding. But I guess some of you like them, so I bet your happy they've made a comeback.

I would advise you to be cautious about comments like these, as well as your frequent posts regarding Tyrannosaurus feathers. Such commentary could easily be construed as deliberate efforts to incite conflict - in other words, "trolling". While your opinions are welcome, please employ a degree of tact when sharing them in the future.

I was just voicing my opinion that the battats weren't that good. Just as people go off about loving them, I don't like them. 

Again, T. rex did not have feathers.

I think what Patrx is trying to say is that it's not what you say, but how you say it that could come off as confrontational. For example: I am not particularly fond of Collecta models because I do not like the look of the facial color schemes, among other things. This is a real opinion of mine, but I worded it in a way that minimized the possibility of offending others. I did not use insult-type words like "ugly" or "sloppy," which a fan of Collecta models could take as, well, insulting. The other thing is that even if you have a very strong opinion about something, especially something that is still very much in debate, such as feathers on tyrannosaurus, you shouldn't state your opinion as if it were a fact, or those who feel differently will get much more upset by it. An easy to way to state such a controversial opinion without causing an argument is to simply add an "I think" or "in my opinion" or "based on research I found" before such a statement. Because to those who feel differently, saying something about a controversial topic, like "I told you, sauropods had trunks" comes off as "Sauropods definitely had trunks, end of discussion" to someone who feels very strongly that sauropods did not have trunks, which is what makes it a confrontational statement. A less confrontational approach would be: "I think sauropods had trunks because..." To sum that up, stating your opinion without using offensive language and stating that your opinion is an opinion is seen as respectful to those with differing opinions, and creates a much more positive environment for everyone. 

Also, my apologies for getting off topic! I'm glad to hear that Safari isn't going to wait until next year to announce their new figures!

Saurotrunks don't exist.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm not stating bald Rex's  as a fact, I said there's no proof T. rex was feathered, thus it should not be shown with feathers, the "sloppy" paint jobs are referring to the way the colors and marks blend with each other, and sometimes end up where they shouldn't be. I am not being confrontational, I am not being aggressive, I am not acting like a mythical creature, I am staining an opinion, and you should not treat me this way because That opinion may be "negative" to you.

[Yutyrannus]

Saurotrunks don't exist.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm not stating bald Rex's  as a fact, I said there's no proof T. rex was feathered, thus it should not be shown with feathers, the "sloppy" paint jobs are referring to the way the colors and marks blend with each other, and sometimes end up where they shouldn't be. I am not being confrontational, I am not being aggressive, I am not acting like a mythical creature, I am staining an opinion, and you should not treat me this way because That opinion may be "negative" to you.

Neither do bald raptors .

Okay, no, I admit, there is no direct evidence that Tyrannosaurus had feathers. However, it is far more likely than not because it appears that at least all coelurosaurs had feathers (not to mention possible feathers in ornithischians and pycnofibers and feathers possible being ancestral to archosaurs), AND many tyrannosaurs have been found with feathers including one that was not much smaller than Tyrannosaurus. Besides there is no "evidence" that, say, Zhuchengtyrannus had skin either .

I agree, they were being quite unfair.

[Ultimatedinoking]

Saurotrunks don't exist.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm not stating bald Rex's  as a fact, I said there's no proof T. rex was feathered, thus it should not be shown with feathers, the "sloppy" paint jobs are referring to the way the colors and marks blend with each other, and sometimes end up where they shouldn't be. I am not being confrontational, I am not being aggressive, I am not acting like a mythical creature, I am staining an opinion, and you should not treat me this way because That opinion may be "negative" to you.

Neither do bald raptors .

Okay, no, I admit, there is no direct evidence that Tyrannosaurus had feathers. However, it is far more likely than not because it appears that at least all coelurosaurs had feathers (not to mention possible feathers in ornithischians and pycnofibers and feathers possible being ancestral to archosaurs), AND many tyrannosaurs have been found with feathers including one that was not much smaller than Tyrannosaurus. Besides there is no "evidence" that, say, Zhuchengtyrannus had skin either .

I agree, they were being quite unfair.

Hey...

The only proof of hadro fuzz is on a few ceratopsians (and those are more like scale type ornaments) and one ornithopod (most likely fat or colleges remnants).

Thank you, they were.

[stargatedalek]

don't "hey", its true, theres no such thing as a bald "raptor", or to put it properly dromaeosaur (thats not to say bald raptors can't look cool, but theres no chance of it being possibly accurate )

ceratopsians are not especially closely related to hadrosaurs, so I wouldn't say integument (or lack thereof) should be assumed as shared between the two groups

"fuzz" on ceratopsians, I assume you meant quills? they aren't exactly very fuzz like, but theres also no way they were scales, perhaps you were confusing confirmed psittacosaurus quills with unconfirmed triceratops "quill bases"

ornithopod feathers have been found, its not known how widespread they were within the group but we can be sure at least some species were feathered

[Yutyrannus]

Saurotrunks don't exist.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm not stating bald Rex's  as a fact, I said there's no proof T. rex was feathered, thus it should not be shown with feathers, the "sloppy" paint jobs are referring to the way the colors and marks blend with each other, and sometimes end up where they shouldn't be. I am not being confrontational, I am not being aggressive, I am not acting like a mythical creature, I am staining an opinion, and you should not treat me this way because That opinion may be "negative" to you.

Neither do bald raptors .

Okay, no, I admit, there is no direct evidence that Tyrannosaurus had feathers. However, it is far more likely than not because it appears that at least all coelurosaurs had feathers (not to mention possible feathers in ornithischians and pycnofibers and feathers possible being ancestral to archosaurs), AND many tyrannosaurs have been found with feathers including one that was not much smaller than Tyrannosaurus. Besides there is no "evidence" that, say, Zhuchengtyrannus had skin either .

I agree, they were being quite unfair.

Hey...

The only proof of hadro fuzz is on a few ceratopsians (and those are more like scale type ornaments) and one ornithopod (most likely fat or colleges remnants).

Thank you, they were.

What are you talking about? I meant Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus (which are NOT fat or collagen).

[Quen]

Saurotrunks don't exist.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm not stating bald Rex's  as a fact, I said there's no proof T. rex was feathered, thus it should not be shown with feathers, the "sloppy" paint jobs are referring to the way the colors and marks blend with each other, and sometimes end up where they shouldn't be. I am not being confrontational, I am not being aggressive, I am not acting like a mythical creature, I am staining an opinion, and you should not treat me this way because That opinion may be "negative" to you.

I apologize if my remarks offended you in any way. That was honestly not my intent at all! Nor do I think you are trying to be confrontational or aggressive to anyone in any way. I was attempting to explain that the way some of your opinions have been worded or phrased could be misinterpreted by others as being confrontational. As my own remarks clearly have this problem as well, it is something I need to work on, too. And I don't think there's anything wrong with having a negative opinion, as I have many, many myself, it's just that negative opinions can easily come off as offensive to those with differing opinions, so you have to be careful with how you state them in order to avoid upsetting anyone, especially if that was not what you intended to do. Does that make more sense? And again, I apologize if I offended you, I'm really not trying to do that!  By the way, I don't think sauropod trunks existed either; it was just the first example I could think of!

[stargatedalek]

What are you talking about? I meant Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus (which are NOT fat or collagen).

nor are they ceratopsians

[Patrx]

For the record, I stand by the advice I provided. As you can see, this thread has become yet another debate about feathers, largely due to your attempts to provoke pointless arguments.

[Megalosaurus]

Really? This thread has become another feather vs scale debate?
Then my 2015 hope & dream is that all of us learn to respect each other opinions. 
And I want a Safari trilobyte species toob too. 

[Ultimatedinoking]

Saurotrunks don't exist.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm not stating bald Rex's  as a fact, I said there's no proof T. rex was feathered, thus it should not be shown with feathers, the "sloppy" paint jobs are referring to the way the colors and marks blend with each other, and sometimes end up where they shouldn't be. I am not being confrontational, I am not being aggressive, I am not acting like a mythical creature, I am staining an opinion, and you should not treat me this way because That opinion may be "negative" to you.

Neither do bald raptors .

Okay, no, I admit, there is no direct evidence that Tyrannosaurus had feathers. However, it is far more likely than not because it appears that at least all coelurosaurs had feathers (not to mention possible feathers in ornithischians and pycnofibers and feathers possible being ancestral to archosaurs), AND many tyrannosaurs have been found with feathers including one that was not much smaller than Tyrannosaurus. Besides there is no "evidence" that, say, Zhuchengtyrannus had skin either .

I agree, they were being quite unfair.

Hey...

The only proof of hadro fuzz is on a few ceratopsians (and those are more like scale type ornaments) and one ornithopod (most likely fat or colleges remnants).

Thank you, they were.

What are you talking about? I meant Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus (which are NOT fat or collagen).

Do I need to bring up the beluga again?

[Ultimatedinoking]

What are you talking about? I meant Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus (which are NOT fat or collagen).

nor are they ceratopsians

What's with all the Chinese names now? Does no one dig in America anymore?

[Yutyrannus]

What are you talking about? I meant Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus (which are NOT fat or collagen).

nor are they ceratopsians

What's with all the Chinese names now? Does no one dig in America anymore?

Well, most of the really cool recent finds are from China (although Kulindadromeus is from Russia). Also, are you forgetting Lythronax and Siats?

[Yutyrannus]

Saurotrunks don't exist.

And I'm not being confrontational, I'm not stating bald Rex's  as a fact, I said there's no proof T. rex was feathered, thus it should not be shown with feathers, the "sloppy" paint jobs are referring to the way the colors and marks blend with each other, and sometimes end up where they shouldn't be. I am not being confrontational, I am not being aggressive, I am not acting like a mythical creature, I am staining an opinion, and you should not treat me this way because That opinion may be "negative" to you.

Neither do bald raptors .

Okay, no, I admit, there is no direct evidence that Tyrannosaurus had feathers. However, it is far more likely than not because it appears that at least all coelurosaurs had feathers (not to mention possible feathers in ornithischians and pycnofibers and feathers possible being ancestral to archosaurs), AND many tyrannosaurs have been found with feathers including one that was not much smaller than Tyrannosaurus. Besides there is no "evidence" that, say, Zhuchengtyrannus had skin either .

I agree, they were being quite unfair.

Hey...

The only proof of hadro fuzz is on a few ceratopsians (and those are more like scale type ornaments) and one ornithopod (most likely fat or colleges remnants).

Thank you, they were.

What are you talking about? I meant Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus (which are NOT fat or collagen).

Do I need to bring up the beluga again?

This is a totally different situation, if you were talking about mosasaurs you might, and I say might, be able to get away with that. Seriously, there is like 0 evidence for any of the things you claim. Even the people who actually studied the Kulindadromeus fossils said maybe they were modified scales, but certainly not fat or collagen. Also, please move this conversation to the thread it belongs in instead of filling up this thread with it.

[Ultimatedinoking]

What are you talking about? I meant Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus (which are NOT fat or collagen).

nor are they ceratopsians

What's with all the Chinese names now? Does no one dig in America anymore?

Well, most of the really cool recent finds are from China (although Kulindadromeus is from Russia). Also, are you forgetting Lythronax and Siats?

Ah yes, gore king, a new tyrannosaur, siats (see ats?) in the news because it was believed to be bigger than T. rex.