<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_1812206</id>
	<title>Dinosaur Posture Still Wrong, Says Study</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243967940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader sends along a piece in Cosmos about new <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2786/dinosaur-posture-revised-again">dissension to the current prevailing wisdom on dinosaur posture</a>. The researchers admit that blood pressure presents an unresolved obstacle to their model of dinosaur heads held high. <i>"The current depiction of the way giant sauropod dinosaurs held their necks is probably wrong, says a new study. 'For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low,' said co-author Matt Wedel, who researches biomechanics at the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, California. But 'our research [now] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect, based on everything we know about living animals,' he said."</i> The researchers worried that some other team might beat them to publication, so obvious did they consider their methodology of looking at living animals to gain insight into the biomechanics of extinct ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader sends along a piece in Cosmos about new dissension to the current prevailing wisdom on dinosaur posture .
The researchers admit that blood pressure presents an unresolved obstacle to their model of dinosaur heads held high .
" The current depiction of the way giant sauropod dinosaurs held their necks is probably wrong , says a new study .
'For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low, ' said co-author Matt Wedel , who researches biomechanics at the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona , California .
But 'our research [ now ] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect , based on everything we know about living animals, ' he said .
" The researchers worried that some other team might beat them to publication , so obvious did they consider their methodology of looking at living animals to gain insight into the biomechanics of extinct ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader sends along a piece in Cosmos about new dissension to the current prevailing wisdom on dinosaur posture.
The researchers admit that blood pressure presents an unresolved obstacle to their model of dinosaur heads held high.
"The current depiction of the way giant sauropod dinosaurs held their necks is probably wrong, says a new study.
'For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low,' said co-author Matt Wedel, who researches biomechanics at the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, California.
But 'our research [now] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect, based on everything we know about living animals,' he said.
" The researchers worried that some other team might beat them to publication, so obvious did they consider their methodology of looking at living animals to gain insight into the biomechanics of extinct ones.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186931</id>
	<title>Giraffes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243933440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Head-held-high seems to work fine for giraffes, though I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the rate of occurrence of heart problems in that species.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Head-held-high seems to work fine for giraffes , though I 'll be the first to admit that I do n't know the rate of occurrence of heart problems in that species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Head-held-high seems to work fine for giraffes, though I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the rate of occurrence of heart problems in that species.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189039</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>againjj</author>
	<datestamp>1243942560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The original paper (at <a href="http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html" title="app.pan.pl">http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html</a> [app.pan.pl]) basically says that the "osteological neutral pose" (ONP) (basically the pose where the bones make maximal contact with each other) is not necessarily the pose most commonly held.  Apparently, the first and only good study of neck and tail position concluded that the then currently accepted pose was unlikely and that ONP was probable, and then every one else simply accepted that without further study.
</p><p>
The authors went looking at current animal poses and concluded two things.  First, in modern animals, ONP is not always the pose held by default, and in fact assuming ONP as default in sauropods has some difficult-to-explain ramifications (though a vertical default does as well).  Second, even if ONP is the default pose, there is generally much movement away from that pose for various activities in modern, like drinking and running, and so it is likely that sauropods had that too.
</p><p>
The authors also, of course, hedge their bets and say that their ideas may be totally off if there is something they aren't aware of, like specialized tendon structure for the neck or other such things.
</p><p>
In short: the authors say that the conclusion that sauropods have horizontal necks was based on assumptions that are unsound.
</p><p>
Oh, and TFA:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>BRISBANE: The current depiction of the way giant sauropod dinosaurs held their necks is probably wrong, says a new study.
</p><p>
"For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low," said co-author Matt Wedel, who researches biomechanics at the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, California.
</p><p>
But "our research [now] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect, based on everything we know about living animals," he said.
</p><p>
<b>Unrealistic posture</b>
</p><p>
According to the report in the report in the journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, sauropods held their necks up in the same way as many living vertebrates, in a swan-like 's' curve, rather than in the horizontal pose commonly shown in everything from museum reconstructions to plastic toys.
</p><p>
For many decades, scientists supposed that sauropods had long necks so they could browse high in the treetops and depicted them, like giraffes, with their heads held high. But a 1999 Science paper led to a shift in the way sauropods were shown.
</p><p>
The authors of that paper argued that the habitual pose of an animal's neck could be easily found by lining up the vertebrae in maximum contact, which gave a horizontal pose for most sauropods. Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height.
</p><p>
<b>Blood pressure problem</b>
</p><p>
"The problem is, living animals don't hold their necks in that posture," Wedel said. After stumbling across a paper from the 1980s that showed that most land animals held their necks vertically, Wedel's team looked for clues to sauropod posture in X-rays of living animals.
</p><p>
They found that reptiles and amphibians held their necks mostly horizontally, while mammals and birds (which are more closely related to dinosaurs and share their upright leg structures) all held their necks vertically.
</p><p>
Studying the neck movements of living creatures also suggested that sauropods had a greater range of movement than previously thought.
</p><p>
While scientists had assumed that the dinosaur neck vertebrae overlapped each other by around 50\%, that's not true for living creatures like ostriches and giraffes, which can extend their necks till the vertebrae hardly overlap at all.
</p><p>
Their method was so simple that the team was worried someone else would publish the findings before they could. "We did get a bit paranoid... it just seemed so obvious that if you want to know what extinct animals did, you should look at what living animals actually do," Wedel told Cosmos Online.
</p><p>
John Hutchinson, a biomechanics researcher at the University of London's Royal Veterinary College, in Britain, said that the study's methods had the advantage of being firmly grounded in actual observations of animal anatomy and behaviour, but there is still work to be done to confirm the findings.
</p><p>
"A conundrum that remains unresolved is how sauropods would have pumped blood to their heads if held so high," he said. "The blood pressures, and hence heart sizes, required are quite large."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original paper ( at http : //www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html [ app.pan.pl ] ) basically says that the " osteological neutral pose " ( ONP ) ( basically the pose where the bones make maximal contact with each other ) is not necessarily the pose most commonly held .
Apparently , the first and only good study of neck and tail position concluded that the then currently accepted pose was unlikely and that ONP was probable , and then every one else simply accepted that without further study .
The authors went looking at current animal poses and concluded two things .
First , in modern animals , ONP is not always the pose held by default , and in fact assuming ONP as default in sauropods has some difficult-to-explain ramifications ( though a vertical default does as well ) .
Second , even if ONP is the default pose , there is generally much movement away from that pose for various activities in modern , like drinking and running , and so it is likely that sauropods had that too .
The authors also , of course , hedge their bets and say that their ideas may be totally off if there is something they are n't aware of , like specialized tendon structure for the neck or other such things .
In short : the authors say that the conclusion that sauropods have horizontal necks was based on assumptions that are unsound .
Oh , and TFA : BRISBANE : The current depiction of the way giant sauropod dinosaurs held their necks is probably wrong , says a new study .
" For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low , " said co-author Matt Wedel , who researches biomechanics at the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona , California .
But " our research [ now ] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect , based on everything we know about living animals , " he said .
Unrealistic posture According to the report in the report in the journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica , sauropods held their necks up in the same way as many living vertebrates , in a swan-like 's ' curve , rather than in the horizontal pose commonly shown in everything from museum reconstructions to plastic toys .
For many decades , scientists supposed that sauropods had long necks so they could browse high in the treetops and depicted them , like giraffes , with their heads held high .
But a 1999 Science paper led to a shift in the way sauropods were shown .
The authors of that paper argued that the habitual pose of an animal 's neck could be easily found by lining up the vertebrae in maximum contact , which gave a horizontal pose for most sauropods .
Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height .
Blood pressure problem " The problem is , living animals do n't hold their necks in that posture , " Wedel said .
After stumbling across a paper from the 1980s that showed that most land animals held their necks vertically , Wedel 's team looked for clues to sauropod posture in X-rays of living animals .
They found that reptiles and amphibians held their necks mostly horizontally , while mammals and birds ( which are more closely related to dinosaurs and share their upright leg structures ) all held their necks vertically .
Studying the neck movements of living creatures also suggested that sauropods had a greater range of movement than previously thought .
While scientists had assumed that the dinosaur neck vertebrae overlapped each other by around 50 \ % , that 's not true for living creatures like ostriches and giraffes , which can extend their necks till the vertebrae hardly overlap at all .
Their method was so simple that the team was worried someone else would publish the findings before they could .
" We did get a bit paranoid... it just seemed so obvious that if you want to know what extinct animals did , you should look at what living animals actually do , " Wedel told Cosmos Online .
John Hutchinson , a biomechanics researcher at the University of London 's Royal Veterinary College , in Britain , said that the study 's methods had the advantage of being firmly grounded in actual observations of animal anatomy and behaviour , but there is still work to be done to confirm the findings .
" A conundrum that remains unresolved is how sauropods would have pumped blood to their heads if held so high , " he said .
" The blood pressures , and hence heart sizes , required are quite large .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The original paper (at http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html [app.pan.pl]) basically says that the "osteological neutral pose" (ONP) (basically the pose where the bones make maximal contact with each other) is not necessarily the pose most commonly held.
Apparently, the first and only good study of neck and tail position concluded that the then currently accepted pose was unlikely and that ONP was probable, and then every one else simply accepted that without further study.
The authors went looking at current animal poses and concluded two things.
First, in modern animals, ONP is not always the pose held by default, and in fact assuming ONP as default in sauropods has some difficult-to-explain ramifications (though a vertical default does as well).
Second, even if ONP is the default pose, there is generally much movement away from that pose for various activities in modern, like drinking and running, and so it is likely that sauropods had that too.
The authors also, of course, hedge their bets and say that their ideas may be totally off if there is something they aren't aware of, like specialized tendon structure for the neck or other such things.
In short: the authors say that the conclusion that sauropods have horizontal necks was based on assumptions that are unsound.
Oh, and TFA:
BRISBANE: The current depiction of the way giant sauropod dinosaurs held their necks is probably wrong, says a new study.
"For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low," said co-author Matt Wedel, who researches biomechanics at the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, California.
But "our research [now] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect, based on everything we know about living animals," he said.
Unrealistic posture

According to the report in the report in the journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, sauropods held their necks up in the same way as many living vertebrates, in a swan-like 's' curve, rather than in the horizontal pose commonly shown in everything from museum reconstructions to plastic toys.
For many decades, scientists supposed that sauropods had long necks so they could browse high in the treetops and depicted them, like giraffes, with their heads held high.
But a 1999 Science paper led to a shift in the way sauropods were shown.
The authors of that paper argued that the habitual pose of an animal's neck could be easily found by lining up the vertebrae in maximum contact, which gave a horizontal pose for most sauropods.
Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height.
Blood pressure problem

"The problem is, living animals don't hold their necks in that posture," Wedel said.
After stumbling across a paper from the 1980s that showed that most land animals held their necks vertically, Wedel's team looked for clues to sauropod posture in X-rays of living animals.
They found that reptiles and amphibians held their necks mostly horizontally, while mammals and birds (which are more closely related to dinosaurs and share their upright leg structures) all held their necks vertically.
Studying the neck movements of living creatures also suggested that sauropods had a greater range of movement than previously thought.
While scientists had assumed that the dinosaur neck vertebrae overlapped each other by around 50\%, that's not true for living creatures like ostriches and giraffes, which can extend their necks till the vertebrae hardly overlap at all.
Their method was so simple that the team was worried someone else would publish the findings before they could.
"We did get a bit paranoid... it just seemed so obvious that if you want to know what extinct animals did, you should look at what living animals actually do," Wedel told Cosmos Online.
John Hutchinson, a biomechanics researcher at the University of London's Royal Veterinary College, in Britain, said that the study's methods had the advantage of being firmly grounded in actual observations of animal anatomy and behaviour, but there is still work to be done to confirm the findings.
"A conundrum that remains unresolved is how sauropods would have pumped blood to their heads if held so high," he said.
"The blood pressures, and hence heart sizes, required are quite large.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28190859</id>
	<title>What We Know</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1243954620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Animals have valves in their veins to help regulate blood flow and pressure.</p><p>Present day long necked animals called giraffes can quickly raise their head from ground to high up or lower it as quickly without passing out or having a stroke, thanks to that regulatory device.</p><p>As a species, paleozoologists react to a threat (like publication precedence) by jumping from one precariously perched presumption to its complete opposite, all the while flying in the face of data from present day animals despite claims this was their basis for the jump.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Animals have valves in their veins to help regulate blood flow and pressure.Present day long necked animals called giraffes can quickly raise their head from ground to high up or lower it as quickly without passing out or having a stroke , thanks to that regulatory device.As a species , paleozoologists react to a threat ( like publication precedence ) by jumping from one precariously perched presumption to its complete opposite , all the while flying in the face of data from present day animals despite claims this was their basis for the jump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Animals have valves in their veins to help regulate blood flow and pressure.Present day long necked animals called giraffes can quickly raise their head from ground to high up or lower it as quickly without passing out or having a stroke, thanks to that regulatory device.As a species, paleozoologists react to a threat (like publication precedence) by jumping from one precariously perched presumption to its complete opposite, all the while flying in the face of data from present day animals despite claims this was their basis for the jump.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186731</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>bb5ch39t</author>
	<datestamp>1243975800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>gravity is gravity</i> <p>
You are assuming that <b>G</b> is constant over time and space. Some avant-garde scientists are beginning to wonder if this is true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gravity is gravity You are assuming that G is constant over time and space .
Some avant-garde scientists are beginning to wonder if this is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gravity is gravity 
You are assuming that G is constant over time and space.
Some avant-garde scientists are beginning to wonder if this is true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186895</id>
	<title>Gravity...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243933320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read an article once that claimed a solution to the issue of the blood pressure with such a long neck and other issues of size with the dinosaurs, and also why they became extinct, and if that werent enough it also explains why the earth *is* only 5000 years old and dating methods are wrong.</p><p>You wanna know what it was?</p><p>The universal constants like the speed of light, gravity, etc are changing over time!  For instance, gravity is increasing, so back then the gravity was much less so there was no problem.  As it increased, they died off for obvious reasons.  And since the speed of light is changing, that effects our dating methods, etc.</p><p>It certainly was an interesting read...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read an article once that claimed a solution to the issue of the blood pressure with such a long neck and other issues of size with the dinosaurs , and also why they became extinct , and if that werent enough it also explains why the earth * is * only 5000 years old and dating methods are wrong.You wan na know what it was ? The universal constants like the speed of light , gravity , etc are changing over time !
For instance , gravity is increasing , so back then the gravity was much less so there was no problem .
As it increased , they died off for obvious reasons .
And since the speed of light is changing , that effects our dating methods , etc.It certainly was an interesting read.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read an article once that claimed a solution to the issue of the blood pressure with such a long neck and other issues of size with the dinosaurs, and also why they became extinct, and if that werent enough it also explains why the earth *is* only 5000 years old and dating methods are wrong.You wanna know what it was?The universal constants like the speed of light, gravity, etc are changing over time!
For instance, gravity is increasing, so back then the gravity was much less so there was no problem.
As it increased, they died off for obvious reasons.
And since the speed of light is changing, that effects our dating methods, etc.It certainly was an interesting read...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187439</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's your source for the "submerged dinosaur" hypothesis being established?  Are you sure it's accepted by the vast majority of paleontologists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's your source for the " submerged dinosaur " hypothesis being established ?
Are you sure it 's accepted by the vast majority of paleontologists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's your source for the "submerged dinosaur" hypothesis being established?
Are you sure it's accepted by the vast majority of paleontologists?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187117</id>
	<title>There is a theory</title>
	<author>G00F</author>
	<datestamp>1243934280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall reading about a theory where the moon impacted with earth, and earth gained it's core and the moon didn't have enough energy to escape, and ended up trap in orbit.  Best I can find is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant\_impact\_hypothesis" title="wikipedia.org">Giant impact hypothesis</a> [wikipedia.org], but I think it was a variation of this.</p><p>Something like that could explain mass extinction, and forcing more change with creating tides, seasons, etc.  Not to mention, taking a mostly iron core could change gravity enough here where larger animals have a harder time.  And look around at other planets, how many have a liquid cores, strong magnetic field, and active tectonic plates. I recall neither Mars or Venus, and so far they are the most like earth out of all other celestial bodies we have found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall reading about a theory where the moon impacted with earth , and earth gained it 's core and the moon did n't have enough energy to escape , and ended up trap in orbit .
Best I can find is Giant impact hypothesis [ wikipedia.org ] , but I think it was a variation of this.Something like that could explain mass extinction , and forcing more change with creating tides , seasons , etc .
Not to mention , taking a mostly iron core could change gravity enough here where larger animals have a harder time .
And look around at other planets , how many have a liquid cores , strong magnetic field , and active tectonic plates .
I recall neither Mars or Venus , and so far they are the most like earth out of all other celestial bodies we have found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall reading about a theory where the moon impacted with earth, and earth gained it's core and the moon didn't have enough energy to escape, and ended up trap in orbit.
Best I can find is Giant impact hypothesis [wikipedia.org], but I think it was a variation of this.Something like that could explain mass extinction, and forcing more change with creating tides, seasons, etc.
Not to mention, taking a mostly iron core could change gravity enough here where larger animals have a harder time.
And look around at other planets, how many have a liquid cores, strong magnetic field, and active tectonic plates.
I recall neither Mars or Venus, and so far they are the most like earth out of all other celestial bodies we have found.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28190499</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1243951860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had the same thought -- maybe they just swung their heads down periodically (grazing posture) and that acted as a blood pump. Maybe they had valve structures in the big arteries that prevented blood from flowing back down their necks. Who knows? But holding a neck that heavy out straight in front requires an awful lot of ass end to balance the weight, *plus* extremely strong shoulder structure.</p><p>As to modern critters -- Giraffes are as big as some of the midrange dinos, and don't seem to have a huge problem with blood pressure, yet their heads are held aloft...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the same thought -- maybe they just swung their heads down periodically ( grazing posture ) and that acted as a blood pump .
Maybe they had valve structures in the big arteries that prevented blood from flowing back down their necks .
Who knows ?
But holding a neck that heavy out straight in front requires an awful lot of ass end to balance the weight , * plus * extremely strong shoulder structure.As to modern critters -- Giraffes are as big as some of the midrange dinos , and do n't seem to have a huge problem with blood pressure , yet their heads are held aloft.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the same thought -- maybe they just swung their heads down periodically (grazing posture) and that acted as a blood pump.
Maybe they had valve structures in the big arteries that prevented blood from flowing back down their necks.
Who knows?
But holding a neck that heavy out straight in front requires an awful lot of ass end to balance the weight, *plus* extremely strong shoulder structure.As to modern critters -- Giraffes are as big as some of the midrange dinos, and don't seem to have a huge problem with blood pressure, yet their heads are held aloft...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186405</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>rouge86</author>
	<datestamp>1243974480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I spent the last half hour looking for Jurassic Park 4 because of you.  Now, I am disappointed because it was most likely canceled with the death of Michael Crichton.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I spent the last half hour looking for Jurassic Park 4 because of you .
Now , I am disappointed because it was most likely canceled with the death of Michael Crichton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spent the last half hour looking for Jurassic Park 4 because of you.
Now, I am disappointed because it was most likely canceled with the death of Michael Crichton.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939</id>
	<title>geese</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that was a quick slashdotting.  Hopefully they'll be back up soon.<br> <br>Re: modern pseudo-analogues -- based upon the geese I raised as a kid, I never could quite grok the 'head-held-low' posture.  Geese only hold their heads low to screw or to attack.  It seems very inefficient for a large creature to hold that much weight horizontally away from the body (remember those physics lessons re: levers and distance from the fulcrum?).<br> <br>Dinosaurs are awesome, as most five-year-olds will tell you.  Armchair paleontology is fun too.  And since we slashdotters are so fond of pretending expertise on subjects we know little about, and TFA seems to be slashdotted, I'm looking forward to a very amusing (but maybe not quite so enlightening) discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that was a quick slashdotting .
Hopefully they 'll be back up soon .
Re : modern pseudo-analogues -- based upon the geese I raised as a kid , I never could quite grok the 'head-held-low ' posture .
Geese only hold their heads low to screw or to attack .
It seems very inefficient for a large creature to hold that much weight horizontally away from the body ( remember those physics lessons re : levers and distance from the fulcrum ? ) .
Dinosaurs are awesome , as most five-year-olds will tell you .
Armchair paleontology is fun too .
And since we slashdotters are so fond of pretending expertise on subjects we know little about , and TFA seems to be slashdotted , I 'm looking forward to a very amusing ( but maybe not quite so enlightening ) discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that was a quick slashdotting.
Hopefully they'll be back up soon.
Re: modern pseudo-analogues -- based upon the geese I raised as a kid, I never could quite grok the 'head-held-low' posture.
Geese only hold their heads low to screw or to attack.
It seems very inefficient for a large creature to hold that much weight horizontally away from the body (remember those physics lessons re: levers and distance from the fulcrum?).
Dinosaurs are awesome, as most five-year-olds will tell you.
Armchair paleontology is fun too.
And since we slashdotters are so fond of pretending expertise on subjects we know little about, and TFA seems to be slashdotted, I'm looking forward to a very amusing (but maybe not quite so enlightening) discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186287</id>
	<title>Coiled up on top</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1243973880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on people, CLEARLY the large long-necked dinosaurs kept their necks curled back and their heads resting on top of their backs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people , CLEARLY the large long-necked dinosaurs kept their necks curled back and their heads resting on top of their backs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people, CLEARLY the large long-necked dinosaurs kept their necks curled back and their heads resting on top of their backs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186451</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>OctaviusIII</author>
	<datestamp>1243974660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, if only... last I heard an atmospheric analysis of the dinosaur's era showed a significantly higher oxygen content than our own atmosphere, meaning any clone would probably be unable to breathe properly.  And, since our sauropod problem deals with blood, something tells me the atmosphere would wreck the posture experiment.  Damn shame, too, although at least we won't get anybody wondering what a t-rex was like and cloning one of <i>it</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , if only... last I heard an atmospheric analysis of the dinosaur 's era showed a significantly higher oxygen content than our own atmosphere , meaning any clone would probably be unable to breathe properly .
And , since our sauropod problem deals with blood , something tells me the atmosphere would wreck the posture experiment .
Damn shame , too , although at least we wo n't get anybody wondering what a t-rex was like and cloning one of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, if only... last I heard an atmospheric analysis of the dinosaur's era showed a significantly higher oxygen content than our own atmosphere, meaning any clone would probably be unable to breathe properly.
And, since our sauropod problem deals with blood, something tells me the atmosphere would wreck the posture experiment.
Damn shame, too, although at least we won't get anybody wondering what a t-rex was like and cloning one of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193015</id>
	<title>Don't you realize!</title>
	<author>soldoutactivist</author>
	<datestamp>1244020980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.dinoextinct.com/index.htm" title="dinoextinct.com" rel="nofollow">That the Earth's gravity was less powerful back in the time of the dinosaurs?!</a> [dinoextinct.com] That's how the necks could be so long! For reals, guys!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That the Earth 's gravity was less powerful back in the time of the dinosaurs ? !
[ dinoextinct.com ] That 's how the necks could be so long !
For reals , guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the Earth's gravity was less powerful back in the time of the dinosaurs?!
[dinoextinct.com] That's how the necks could be so long!
For reals, guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188549</id>
	<title>Re:geese</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243940100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think it's dangerous to try to compare a two legged winged creature to a four legged creature</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, I know it's dangerous, which is why I only make that comparison in a hardened secret laboratory.  Last time I tried it, the explosion nearly blew through the 2nd-level blast enclosure.<br> <br>Seriously, though, modern birds may be the closes living relatives to dinosaurs.  And while I'd very strongly suspect that the long neck of geese evolved independently of the long necks of sauropods, it may be relevant.</p><blockquote><div><p>(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, this is an ongoing issue, and one of the primary reasons the position du jour has been lowered-head.  But there is a ton we don't know about dino biology, and it is quite possible there are alternate means of pumping blood up the column (such as smooth-muscled vasculature that could help pump, especially in concert with valves like those in giraffes and other animals used to cut off blood flow temporarily.  Or perhaps blood demands are low, and periodic lowering of the head could supply enough oxygen et al for survival.  It's all conjecture... but it still makes me wonder if the net energy demands of maintaining a horizontal position would be greater than the demands of pumping blood and keeping the vertebrae vertical.</p><blockquote><div><p>After reading it, the article's not as great as you think.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey, I never made a value judgment on the quality of the article.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  I just meant that typically the article being available for perusal guides the discussion somewhat... without TFA, the discussion tends to be more freeform and devolve into inanity quicker.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's dangerous to try to compare a two legged winged creature to a four legged creatureYes , I know it 's dangerous , which is why I only make that comparison in a hardened secret laboratory .
Last time I tried it , the explosion nearly blew through the 2nd-level blast enclosure .
Seriously , though , modern birds may be the closes living relatives to dinosaurs .
And while I 'd very strongly suspect that the long neck of geese evolved independently of the long necks of sauropods , it may be relevant .
( As the article notes ) it 's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head.Yes , this is an ongoing issue , and one of the primary reasons the position du jour has been lowered-head .
But there is a ton we do n't know about dino biology , and it is quite possible there are alternate means of pumping blood up the column ( such as smooth-muscled vasculature that could help pump , especially in concert with valves like those in giraffes and other animals used to cut off blood flow temporarily .
Or perhaps blood demands are low , and periodic lowering of the head could supply enough oxygen et al for survival .
It 's all conjecture... but it still makes me wonder if the net energy demands of maintaining a horizontal position would be greater than the demands of pumping blood and keeping the vertebrae vertical.After reading it , the article 's not as great as you think.Hey , I never made a value judgment on the quality of the article .
: ) I just meant that typically the article being available for perusal guides the discussion somewhat... without TFA , the discussion tends to be more freeform and devolve into inanity quicker .
Not that there 's anything wrong with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's dangerous to try to compare a two legged winged creature to a four legged creatureYes, I know it's dangerous, which is why I only make that comparison in a hardened secret laboratory.
Last time I tried it, the explosion nearly blew through the 2nd-level blast enclosure.
Seriously, though, modern birds may be the closes living relatives to dinosaurs.
And while I'd very strongly suspect that the long neck of geese evolved independently of the long necks of sauropods, it may be relevant.
(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head.Yes, this is an ongoing issue, and one of the primary reasons the position du jour has been lowered-head.
But there is a ton we don't know about dino biology, and it is quite possible there are alternate means of pumping blood up the column (such as smooth-muscled vasculature that could help pump, especially in concert with valves like those in giraffes and other animals used to cut off blood flow temporarily.
Or perhaps blood demands are low, and periodic lowering of the head could supply enough oxygen et al for survival.
It's all conjecture... but it still makes me wonder if the net energy demands of maintaining a horizontal position would be greater than the demands of pumping blood and keeping the vertebrae vertical.After reading it, the article's not as great as you think.Hey, I never made a value judgment on the quality of the article.
:)  I just meant that typically the article being available for perusal guides the discussion somewhat... without TFA, the discussion tends to be more freeform and devolve into inanity quicker.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186953</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>P1h3r1e3d13</author>
	<datestamp>1243933500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because their audience is fluent.<br>
No sense in explaining every piece of anatomy in layman's terms when you're talking to paleontologists who already have specific words for them.</p><p>...Unless you meant the sentence you quoted, which isn't really sophistry.  What do you want?  "Disagreement" instead of "dissension?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because their audience is fluent .
No sense in explaining every piece of anatomy in layman 's terms when you 're talking to paleontologists who already have specific words for them....Unless you meant the sentence you quoted , which is n't really sophistry .
What do you want ?
" Disagreement " instead of " dissension ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because their audience is fluent.
No sense in explaining every piece of anatomy in layman's terms when you're talking to paleontologists who already have specific words for them....Unless you meant the sentence you quoted, which isn't really sophistry.
What do you want?
"Disagreement" instead of "dissension?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185973</id>
	<title>Maybe that posturing was due to head pressure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or high blood pressure or maybe they had thicknened cell walls up there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or high blood pressure or maybe they had thicknened cell walls up there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or high blood pressure or maybe they had thicknened cell walls up there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186891</id>
	<title>Matt Wedel must have missed Jurassic Park...</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1243933320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"'For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low,' said co-author Matt Wedel"</p><p>What?! Matt Wedel must have missed Jurassic Park... In that movie, the brachiosaurs had their necks high as swans. What is he talking about?! That notion he is babbling about was killed 40 years ago...</p><p>As for the blood pressure, giraffes have the same problem. The water column. They solved it using finely meshed blood vessels. Oh, big wonder we don't fossils of those, yet...</p><p>Crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low, ' said co-author Matt Wedel " What ? !
Matt Wedel must have missed Jurassic Park... In that movie , the brachiosaurs had their necks high as swans .
What is he talking about ? !
That notion he is babbling about was killed 40 years ago...As for the blood pressure , giraffes have the same problem .
The water column .
They solved it using finely meshed blood vessels .
Oh , big wonder we do n't fossils of those , yet...Crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'For the last decade the reigning paradigm in palaeontology has been that the big sauropod dinosaurs held their necks out straight and their heads down low,' said co-author Matt Wedel"What?!
Matt Wedel must have missed Jurassic Park... In that movie, the brachiosaurs had their necks high as swans.
What is he talking about?!
That notion he is babbling about was killed 40 years ago...As for the blood pressure, giraffes have the same problem.
The water column.
They solved it using finely meshed blood vessels.
Oh, big wonder we don't fossils of those, yet...Crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186967</id>
	<title>Re:WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243933620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No translation guide needed, just that you went to school, and maybe have read a book in your life. If you really don't understand those 9 words, then smarten up, ignoramus. They're precise words chosen to convey nuance in meaning. But so sorry, you need a robust vocabulary to communicate at that level. If you didn't foster one in yourself, that's why you are feeling confused and worthless. I mean, that's why you ARE confused and worthless. So read. It makes you able to understand things, i.e. not dumb any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No translation guide needed , just that you went to school , and maybe have read a book in your life .
If you really do n't understand those 9 words , then smarten up , ignoramus .
They 're precise words chosen to convey nuance in meaning .
But so sorry , you need a robust vocabulary to communicate at that level .
If you did n't foster one in yourself , that 's why you are feeling confused and worthless .
I mean , that 's why you ARE confused and worthless .
So read .
It makes you able to understand things , i.e .
not dumb any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No translation guide needed, just that you went to school, and maybe have read a book in your life.
If you really don't understand those 9 words, then smarten up, ignoramus.
They're precise words chosen to convey nuance in meaning.
But so sorry, you need a robust vocabulary to communicate at that level.
If you didn't foster one in yourself, that's why you are feeling confused and worthless.
I mean, that's why you ARE confused and worthless.
So read.
It makes you able to understand things, i.e.
not dumb any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186485</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186057</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>MaXintosh</author>
	<datestamp>1243972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clone them, or get some better impressions of soft tissue. I expect we'll eventually get some, given our history of finding such neat things, but I'm not holding my breath because it's like finding a needle in a haystack.<br>Er, well, actually more like finding a rock among a planet full of other rocks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clone them , or get some better impressions of soft tissue .
I expect we 'll eventually get some , given our history of finding such neat things , but I 'm not holding my breath because it 's like finding a needle in a haystack.Er , well , actually more like finding a rock among a planet full of other rocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clone them, or get some better impressions of soft tissue.
I expect we'll eventually get some, given our history of finding such neat things, but I'm not holding my breath because it's like finding a needle in a haystack.Er, well, actually more like finding a rock among a planet full of other rocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192861</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1244062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thing is that not all sauropods held their necks in this way. Diplodocus held their necks pretty much horizontally, using their long tails as a counterbalance. Brachiosaurus/Brontosaurus held their necks more vertically, and did not have as long of a tail as the diplodocus. As the spines of humans has shown, we don't exactly line up the way we were meant to. Perhaps this is the same for the dinosaurs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is that not all sauropods held their necks in this way .
Diplodocus held their necks pretty much horizontally , using their long tails as a counterbalance .
Brachiosaurus/Brontosaurus held their necks more vertically , and did not have as long of a tail as the diplodocus .
As the spines of humans has shown , we do n't exactly line up the way we were meant to .
Perhaps this is the same for the dinosaurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is that not all sauropods held their necks in this way.
Diplodocus held their necks pretty much horizontally, using their long tails as a counterbalance.
Brachiosaurus/Brontosaurus held their necks more vertically, and did not have as long of a tail as the diplodocus.
As the spines of humans has shown, we don't exactly line up the way we were meant to.
Perhaps this is the same for the dinosaurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</id>
	<title>Two Things</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1243972020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are we arguing over which position was the default when it's entirely possible that they utilized both positions.  Down low for traveling to avoid blood pressure problems and up high for brief states of alert or reaching high food sources?  With the flexibility of the vertebrae, I would assume the animal would use it however it most suited them for the time being.  <br> <br>

The other thing is how much do we know about the tissues and proteins that made up muscles and blood in Sauropods?  Is it possible that they were much stronger or their blood had different properties making it capable of overcoming the blood pressure problem?  <br> <br>

I've seen exhibits that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Naturkundemuseum\_Brachiosaurus\_brancai.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">portray them both ways</a> [wikipedia.org].  You just might have to accept that you're never going to know for sure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br> <br>... until you CLONE THEM!<br> <br>  <i>*starts humming the Jurrasic Park theme song with a creepy grin on his face*</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we arguing over which position was the default when it 's entirely possible that they utilized both positions .
Down low for traveling to avoid blood pressure problems and up high for brief states of alert or reaching high food sources ?
With the flexibility of the vertebrae , I would assume the animal would use it however it most suited them for the time being .
The other thing is how much do we know about the tissues and proteins that made up muscles and blood in Sauropods ?
Is it possible that they were much stronger or their blood had different properties making it capable of overcoming the blood pressure problem ?
I 've seen exhibits that portray them both ways [ wikipedia.org ] .
You just might have to accept that you 're never going to know for sure ... ... until you CLONE THEM !
* starts humming the Jurrasic Park theme song with a creepy grin on his face *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we arguing over which position was the default when it's entirely possible that they utilized both positions.
Down low for traveling to avoid blood pressure problems and up high for brief states of alert or reaching high food sources?
With the flexibility of the vertebrae, I would assume the animal would use it however it most suited them for the time being.
The other thing is how much do we know about the tissues and proteins that made up muscles and blood in Sauropods?
Is it possible that they were much stronger or their blood had different properties making it capable of overcoming the blood pressure problem?
I've seen exhibits that portray them both ways [wikipedia.org].
You just might have to accept that you're never going to know for sure ...  ... until you CLONE THEM!
*starts humming the Jurrasic Park theme song with a creepy grin on his face*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188819</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243941300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The argument is about "habitual" position. Which is, the position defaulted to when not asleep or feeding. That turns out to be, for most tetrapods, elevated to close to the maximum extent. This is interesting, because most literature recently has concentrated on the neutral vertebra articulation as guide to habitual life position. This paper argues, with x-rays to back it up, that this assumption is false. The blog <a href="http://svpow.wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">SV-POW!</a> [wordpress.com] has more information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The argument is about " habitual " position .
Which is , the position defaulted to when not asleep or feeding .
That turns out to be , for most tetrapods , elevated to close to the maximum extent .
This is interesting , because most literature recently has concentrated on the neutral vertebra articulation as guide to habitual life position .
This paper argues , with x-rays to back it up , that this assumption is false .
The blog SV-POW !
[ wordpress.com ] has more information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The argument is about "habitual" position.
Which is, the position defaulted to when not asleep or feeding.
That turns out to be, for most tetrapods, elevated to close to the maximum extent.
This is interesting, because most literature recently has concentrated on the neutral vertebra articulation as guide to habitual life position.
This paper argues, with x-rays to back it up, that this assumption is false.
The blog SV-POW!
[wordpress.com] has more information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187957</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh!!!</p><p>
&nbsp; That was before the world was invented.</p><p>
&nbsp; Sigh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh ! ! !
  That was before the world was invented .
  Sigh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh!!!
  That was before the world was invented.
  Sigh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187859</id>
	<title>assumption</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1243937160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FWIW

This is simply assuming that all dinosaurs had their hearts in the right places ---
<br>
Doesn't anyone recall the Star Trek Movie where Kirk kicks the alien in the shin and it doubles over in pain cus he just happened to kick him in the nads?
<br>
As much as we know about dinosaurs it's quite possible that their hearts may have been elsewhere in their anatomy more better suited to pumping blood to places that needed it.  But for the lack of an existing capillary diagram for a dino I might as well as just be speaking out my hat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW This is simply assuming that all dinosaurs had their hearts in the right places --- Does n't anyone recall the Star Trek Movie where Kirk kicks the alien in the shin and it doubles over in pain cus he just happened to kick him in the nads ?
As much as we know about dinosaurs it 's quite possible that their hearts may have been elsewhere in their anatomy more better suited to pumping blood to places that needed it .
But for the lack of an existing capillary diagram for a dino I might as well as just be speaking out my hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW

This is simply assuming that all dinosaurs had their hearts in the right places ---

Doesn't anyone recall the Star Trek Movie where Kirk kicks the alien in the shin and it doubles over in pain cus he just happened to kick him in the nads?
As much as we know about dinosaurs it's quite possible that their hearts may have been elsewhere in their anatomy more better suited to pumping blood to places that needed it.
But for the lack of an existing capillary diagram for a dino I might as well as just be speaking out my hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, I'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach, reaching the ground, and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs, taller body, etc.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not only that, but I'd conjecture that the long neck must have evolved vertically.  The musculature required to hold a long neck like that horizontal must be enormous, and hardly an efficient way of bearing weight.  Plus, is it any coincidence that the large dinosaur neckbones look kind of like hip bones, the primary vertical weight-bearing bone in people? <br> <br>And the BS about the massive tail counterbalancing a long neck... for that to work as an opposing force on the neck, with the body as a fulcrum... well... that would required the spine to be pretty rigid.  I'm not sure how well that would work in practice.<br> <br>

On a side note, have you ever seen a giraffe try to reach the ground with their head?  It's pretty amusing.  It reminds me of myself, trying to pick up my kids crayons from the floor... it's a whole lot of effort (what?  so I'm not in shape or flexible.  That's normal here, right?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I 'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach , reaching the ground , and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs , taller body , etc.Not only that , but I 'd conjecture that the long neck must have evolved vertically .
The musculature required to hold a long neck like that horizontal must be enormous , and hardly an efficient way of bearing weight .
Plus , is it any coincidence that the large dinosaur neckbones look kind of like hip bones , the primary vertical weight-bearing bone in people ?
And the BS about the massive tail counterbalancing a long neck... for that to work as an opposing force on the neck , with the body as a fulcrum... well... that would required the spine to be pretty rigid .
I 'm not sure how well that would work in practice .
On a side note , have you ever seen a giraffe try to reach the ground with their head ?
It 's pretty amusing .
It reminds me of myself , trying to pick up my kids crayons from the floor... it 's a whole lot of effort ( what ?
so I 'm not in shape or flexible .
That 's normal here , right ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach, reaching the ground, and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs, taller body, etc.Not only that, but I'd conjecture that the long neck must have evolved vertically.
The musculature required to hold a long neck like that horizontal must be enormous, and hardly an efficient way of bearing weight.
Plus, is it any coincidence that the large dinosaur neckbones look kind of like hip bones, the primary vertical weight-bearing bone in people?
And the BS about the massive tail counterbalancing a long neck... for that to work as an opposing force on the neck, with the body as a fulcrum... well... that would required the spine to be pretty rigid.
I'm not sure how well that would work in practice.
On a side note, have you ever seen a giraffe try to reach the ground with their head?
It's pretty amusing.
It reminds me of myself, trying to pick up my kids crayons from the floor... it's a whole lot of effort (what?
so I'm not in shape or flexible.
That's normal here, right?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187227</id>
	<title>Re:until you CLONE THEM! - Nope</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1243934760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But does the Jurassic Park theme song flow better into the Back to the Future theme song, or the Doctor Who theme song?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But does the Jurassic Park theme song flow better into the Back to the Future theme song , or the Doctor Who theme song ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But does the Jurassic Park theme song flow better into the Back to the Future theme song, or the Doctor Who theme song?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186485</id>
	<title>WTF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>dissension to the current prevailing wisdom on dinosaur posture</p></div><p>Why do these people write like you need a translation guide with you when you want to understand them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>dissension to the current prevailing wisdom on dinosaur postureWhy do these people write like you need a translation guide with you when you want to understand them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dissension to the current prevailing wisdom on dinosaur postureWhy do these people write like you need a translation guide with you when you want to understand them?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192409</id>
	<title>Re:Coiled up on top</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1243970580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I doubt that they just left it there, it must have been great for itches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I doubt that they just left it there , it must have been great for itches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I doubt that they just left it there, it must have been great for itches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187793</id>
	<title>Wrong format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got the pictures, but they're in some carved\_in\_stone format that my browser doesn't recognize.   I'm looking for a converter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got the pictures , but they 're in some carved \ _in \ _stone format that my browser does n't recognize .
I 'm looking for a converter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got the pictures, but they're in some carved\_in\_stone format that my browser doesn't recognize.
I'm looking for a converter...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187161</id>
	<title>Re:Has anyone considered that maybe the dinosaurs</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1243934520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the dinosaurs listened to the Rites of Spring and Embrace, were greatly influenced by Husker Du and the DC hardcore scene?</p><p>Or were they second wave Emo, listening to Braid, Cap'n Jazz, Sunny Day Real Estate and Texas is the Reason while treating Fugazi and the Pixies like gods?</p><p>It's too bad there was no third wave of emo. There were some pretty good bands starting out in the early aughts, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the dinosaurs listened to the Rites of Spring and Embrace , were greatly influenced by Husker Du and the DC hardcore scene ? Or were they second wave Emo , listening to Braid , Cap'n Jazz , Sunny Day Real Estate and Texas is the Reason while treating Fugazi and the Pixies like gods ? It 's too bad there was no third wave of emo .
There were some pretty good bands starting out in the early aughts , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the dinosaurs listened to the Rites of Spring and Embrace, were greatly influenced by Husker Du and the DC hardcore scene?Or were they second wave Emo, listening to Braid, Cap'n Jazz, Sunny Day Real Estate and Texas is the Reason while treating Fugazi and the Pixies like gods?It's too bad there was no third wave of emo.
There were some pretty good bands starting out in the early aughts, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188669</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1243940640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they didn't just look at giraffes--they looked at a wide variety of tetrapods, all of which hold their necks close to as they will go. It's seems that it's standard among land vertebrates, and isn't reflected in their vertebra.</p><p>The paper is <a href="http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app54/app54-213.pdf" title="app.pan.pl">here</a> [app.pan.pl].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and a blog maintained by the authors giving you context and further information is the ever-exciting <i>Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week</i> or <a href="http://svpow.wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com">SV-POW!</a> [wordpress.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they did n't just look at giraffes--they looked at a wide variety of tetrapods , all of which hold their necks close to as they will go .
It 's seems that it 's standard among land vertebrates , and is n't reflected in their vertebra.The paper is here [ app.pan.pl ] .
... and a blog maintained by the authors giving you context and further information is the ever-exciting Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week or SV-POW !
[ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they didn't just look at giraffes--they looked at a wide variety of tetrapods, all of which hold their necks close to as they will go.
It's seems that it's standard among land vertebrates, and isn't reflected in their vertebra.The paper is here [app.pan.pl].
... and a blog maintained by the authors giving you context and further information is the ever-exciting Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week or SV-POW!
[wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186889</id>
	<title>GOBBLES!</title>
	<author>SoundGuyNoise</author>
	<datestamp>1243933320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They all walked around like Gobbles the Turkey?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They all walked around like Gobbles the Turkey ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They all walked around like Gobbles the Turkey?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188063</id>
	<title>Or they might be wrong about environment</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243938000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they spent all their time in the water, they would not have needed a lot of musculature to support their neck and head. Why would a long neck be an evolutionary advantage in the first place? Either it helps for a) reaching food, b) being able to breathe while under water, or c) scoring with the opposite sex. For any of these, a more vertical neck posture would work better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they spent all their time in the water , they would not have needed a lot of musculature to support their neck and head .
Why would a long neck be an evolutionary advantage in the first place ?
Either it helps for a ) reaching food , b ) being able to breathe while under water , or c ) scoring with the opposite sex .
For any of these , a more vertical neck posture would work better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they spent all their time in the water, they would not have needed a lot of musculature to support their neck and head.
Why would a long neck be an evolutionary advantage in the first place?
Either it helps for a) reaching food, b) being able to breathe while under water, or c) scoring with the opposite sex.
For any of these, a more vertical neck posture would work better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187357</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except, this is not true.  There is absolutely no evidence in evolutionary biology to justify the myth that long necks in giraffes exist to help them get higher food as a evolutionary advantage.  In fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.  It's surprisingly interesting stuff if you google it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except , this is not true .
There is absolutely no evidence in evolutionary biology to justify the myth that long necks in giraffes exist to help them get higher food as a evolutionary advantage .
In fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary .
It 's surprisingly interesting stuff if you google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except, this is not true.
There is absolutely no evidence in evolutionary biology to justify the myth that long necks in giraffes exist to help them get higher food as a evolutionary advantage.
In fact there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
It's surprisingly interesting stuff if you google it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185887</id>
	<title>That's Why They're Extinct?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I better get new ergonomic chair for work and for home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I better get new ergonomic chair for work and for home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I better get new ergonomic chair for work and for home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28191033</id>
	<title>Re:geese</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head. Blood pressure is one of the things they can't explain about their model. The article says, "Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height."</p><p>I'm confused as to why they could not have had sub-hearts in their necks or a "distributed heart" where the neck muscles contracted around the arteries in a wave like motion to move blood up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( As the article notes ) it 's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head .
Blood pressure is one of the things they ca n't explain about their model .
The article says , " Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height .
" I 'm confused as to why they could not have had sub-hearts in their necks or a " distributed heart " where the neck muscles contracted around the arteries in a wave like motion to move blood up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head.
Blood pressure is one of the things they can't explain about their model.
The article says, "Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height.
"I'm confused as to why they could not have had sub-hearts in their necks or a "distributed heart" where the neck muscles contracted around the arteries in a wave like motion to move blood up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192125</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>ddimas</author>
	<datestamp>1243967100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The questions posed by this article are old news. Bakker settled this back in the early 70's. The maximal contact idea is dependent on the precise configuration of the junction of the nechk and body. In any case, I suspect that it is wrong. The area of maximal contact probably served as a limiting device to keep the things from dragging thier heads in the dirt and stomping themselves to death. The normal pose is more likely to be shown by the configuration of ligament rods and bone scars from the aforesaid ligaments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The questions posed by this article are old news .
Bakker settled this back in the early 70 's .
The maximal contact idea is dependent on the precise configuration of the junction of the nechk and body .
In any case , I suspect that it is wrong .
The area of maximal contact probably served as a limiting device to keep the things from dragging thier heads in the dirt and stomping themselves to death .
The normal pose is more likely to be shown by the configuration of ligament rods and bone scars from the aforesaid ligaments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The questions posed by this article are old news.
Bakker settled this back in the early 70's.
The maximal contact idea is dependent on the precise configuration of the junction of the nechk and body.
In any case, I suspect that it is wrong.
The area of maximal contact probably served as a limiting device to keep the things from dragging thier heads in the dirt and stomping themselves to death.
The normal pose is more likely to be shown by the configuration of ligament rods and bone scars from the aforesaid ligaments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185959</id>
	<title>Slashdotted......</title>
	<author>cycler</author>
	<datestamp>1243972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.....already.</p><p>I thought sites would have learned by now........</p><p>Oh maybe not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/C</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.....already.I thought sites would have learned by now........Oh maybe not : ) /C</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.....already.I thought sites would have learned by now........Oh maybe not :) /C</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187411</id>
	<title>e#4?.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">be in a scene and Mire of 33cay, other members in</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>be in a scene and Mire of 33cay , other members in [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>be in a scene and Mire of 33cay, other members in [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837</id>
	<title>TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243971900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they looked at a giraffe and decided that the giraffe may be a suitable long-necked living animal? Unfortunately TFS only says that the horizontal configuration is incorrect, and I can't get to the article to see how they posit that long-necked animals posture themselves. So, I'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach, reaching the ground, and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs, taller body, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they looked at a giraffe and decided that the giraffe may be a suitable long-necked living animal ?
Unfortunately TFS only says that the horizontal configuration is incorrect , and I ca n't get to the article to see how they posit that long-necked animals posture themselves .
So , I 'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach , reaching the ground , and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs , taller body , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they looked at a giraffe and decided that the giraffe may be a suitable long-necked living animal?
Unfortunately TFS only says that the horizontal configuration is incorrect, and I can't get to the article to see how they posit that long-necked animals posture themselves.
So, I'm suggesting that the long neck is held vertically as a way of gaining extra height for food reach, reaching the ground, and longer range vision without the increased bulk of longer legs, taller body, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188999</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243942200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't it a brontoburger that tipped over Fred Flinstones car at the drive-in restaraunt?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't it a brontoburger that tipped over Fred Flinstones car at the drive-in restaraunt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't it a brontoburger that tipped over Fred Flinstones car at the drive-in restaraunt?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186173</id>
	<title>until you CLONE THEM! - Nope</title>
	<author>Finallyjoined!!!</author>
	<datestamp>1243973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until there's a suitable time machine to enable you to go back and look for yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until there 's a suitable time machine to enable you to go back and look for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until there's a suitable time machine to enable you to go back and look for yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192231</id>
	<title>Re:There is a theory</title>
	<author>ddimas</author>
	<datestamp>1243968480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it happened ~4-5 billion years ago. The Moon is the leftover debris from that event. The Earth itself did not form a solid crust for several million years afterwards, there is considerable evidence that the Earth lost it's entire atmosphere at that time. The present atmosphere is a combination of volcanic outgassing and cometary impacts. Any life that existed before that impact was completely destoyed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it happened ~ 4-5 billion years ago .
The Moon is the leftover debris from that event .
The Earth itself did not form a solid crust for several million years afterwards , there is considerable evidence that the Earth lost it 's entire atmosphere at that time .
The present atmosphere is a combination of volcanic outgassing and cometary impacts .
Any life that existed before that impact was completely destoyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it happened ~4-5 billion years ago.
The Moon is the leftover debris from that event.
The Earth itself did not form a solid crust for several million years afterwards, there is considerable evidence that the Earth lost it's entire atmosphere at that time.
The present atmosphere is a combination of volcanic outgassing and cometary impacts.
Any life that existed before that impact was completely destoyed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186003</id>
	<title>Informed speculation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all informed speculation - interesting, and it generates a testable hypothesis, but hardly revealing. There's a hundred different ways to go on the issue until they find impressions of soft tissue. The authors (of the paper, not TFA) hedge their bets heavily by saying that IF sauropods are directly comparable to extant taxa... a bet I wouldn't take myself, since sauropods seemed to form a morphoniche we don't see \_appreciably\_ filled in extant groups (obvious exception excluded). <br> <br>For people who want their science undiluted, here's the paper: <a href="http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html" title="app.pan.pl" rel="nofollow">http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html</a> [app.pan.pl] <br>Head and neck posture in sauropod dinosaurs inferred from extant animals<br>Michael P. Taylor, Mathew J. Wedel, and Darren Naish<br>Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 54 (2), 2009: 213-220</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all informed speculation - interesting , and it generates a testable hypothesis , but hardly revealing .
There 's a hundred different ways to go on the issue until they find impressions of soft tissue .
The authors ( of the paper , not TFA ) hedge their bets heavily by saying that IF sauropods are directly comparable to extant taxa... a bet I would n't take myself , since sauropods seemed to form a morphoniche we do n't see \ _appreciably \ _ filled in extant groups ( obvious exception excluded ) .
For people who want their science undiluted , here 's the paper : http : //www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html [ app.pan.pl ] Head and neck posture in sauropod dinosaurs inferred from extant animalsMichael P. Taylor , Mathew J. Wedel , and Darren NaishActa Palaeontologica Polonica 54 ( 2 ) , 2009 : 213-220</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all informed speculation - interesting, and it generates a testable hypothesis, but hardly revealing.
There's a hundred different ways to go on the issue until they find impressions of soft tissue.
The authors (of the paper, not TFA) hedge their bets heavily by saying that IF sauropods are directly comparable to extant taxa... a bet I wouldn't take myself, since sauropods seemed to form a morphoniche we don't see \_appreciably\_ filled in extant groups (obvious exception excluded).
For people who want their science undiluted, here's the paper: http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html [app.pan.pl] Head and neck posture in sauropod dinosaurs inferred from extant animalsMichael P. Taylor, Mathew J. Wedel, and Darren NaishActa Palaeontologica Polonica 54 (2), 2009: 213-220</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185849</id>
	<title>Has anyone considered that maybe the dinosaurs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243971960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>were just really emo?</htmltext>
<tokenext>were just really emo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>were just really emo?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193669</id>
	<title>Rating the Dinosaurs</title>
	<author>ciderVisor</author>
	<datestamp>1244030220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rating the Dinosaurs, by Velcro  (an old internet humour piece - not my work)</p><p><b>Brontosaurus</b></p><p>Huge beast. Ate only plants, but could crush a '93 Cabriolet with a single step of its titanic brontosaurus feet. Name means "Thunder Lizard" which is about as cool as you can get. Its only real drawback is that it didn't really exist.<b>B+</b></p><p><b>Apatosaurus</b></p><p>This is what they're calling brontosauruses these days. Apparently they had some problem with the wrong skull on the wrong body--duh--and once they figured it out they had to change the name to "apatosaurus," which means "Deceptive Lizard." Personally I think they should have looked up the Latin for "Stupid Scientist." <b>D</b></p><p><b>Dimetrodon</b></p><p>Looks like a gecko with a mohawk. Big sail on its back that they think attracted mates or conserved body heat. Actually, that's what scientists say about anything on an animal they don't understand. They could find evidence of an iguanadon with a ZZ Top beard and they'd say "the beard was probably to conserve body heat or attract mates." Which, come to think of it, is probably what ZZ Top uses them for. Anyhow, <b>C</b></p><p><b>Tyrannosaurus Rex</b></p><p>Cool animal. Name means "Tyrant Lizard King." Cool. I wish my name meant "Tyrant Lizard King." Anyhow, we all know what makes this such a great dinosaur--it could completely eat you. Plus the little tiny forearms make it look like some demented nightmare beast from the fertile mind of Tim Burton. <b>A+ </b></p><p><b>Velociraptor </b></p><p>These guys got a lot of press from "Jurassic Park," but let's face it, they're pretty lacking. They couldn't even manage to eat two little kids, one of whom had only minutes before been turned into a toaster pastry. Sure, they got the hunter, but he was coming up with cute last words when he should have been running like a bunny. And then all three of them got totally worked by a baby Tyrannosaurus! Lame! <b>D! </b></p><p><b>Stegosaurus </b></p><p>Two words: <i>spiked tail</i>. "Oh, so you're sneaking up behind me to eat my delicious body meats? WHAM! "Spikes! In the head! For you!" Plus it had <i>I-am-an-industrial-monster</i> plates on its back, which while probably for conserving body heat or attracting mates, were impressive-looking. <b>A </b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rating the Dinosaurs , by Velcro ( an old internet humour piece - not my work ) BrontosaurusHuge beast .
Ate only plants , but could crush a '93 Cabriolet with a single step of its titanic brontosaurus feet .
Name means " Thunder Lizard " which is about as cool as you can get .
Its only real drawback is that it did n't really exist.B + ApatosaurusThis is what they 're calling brontosauruses these days .
Apparently they had some problem with the wrong skull on the wrong body--duh--and once they figured it out they had to change the name to " apatosaurus , " which means " Deceptive Lizard .
" Personally I think they should have looked up the Latin for " Stupid Scientist .
" DDimetrodonLooks like a gecko with a mohawk .
Big sail on its back that they think attracted mates or conserved body heat .
Actually , that 's what scientists say about anything on an animal they do n't understand .
They could find evidence of an iguanadon with a ZZ Top beard and they 'd say " the beard was probably to conserve body heat or attract mates .
" Which , come to think of it , is probably what ZZ Top uses them for .
Anyhow , CTyrannosaurus RexCool animal .
Name means " Tyrant Lizard King .
" Cool .
I wish my name meant " Tyrant Lizard King .
" Anyhow , we all know what makes this such a great dinosaur--it could completely eat you .
Plus the little tiny forearms make it look like some demented nightmare beast from the fertile mind of Tim Burton .
A + Velociraptor These guys got a lot of press from " Jurassic Park , " but let 's face it , they 're pretty lacking .
They could n't even manage to eat two little kids , one of whom had only minutes before been turned into a toaster pastry .
Sure , they got the hunter , but he was coming up with cute last words when he should have been running like a bunny .
And then all three of them got totally worked by a baby Tyrannosaurus !
Lame ! D !
Stegosaurus Two words : spiked tail .
" Oh , so you 're sneaking up behind me to eat my delicious body meats ?
WHAM ! " Spikes !
In the head !
For you !
" Plus it had I-am-an-industrial-monster plates on its back , which while probably for conserving body heat or attracting mates , were impressive-looking .
A</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rating the Dinosaurs, by Velcro  (an old internet humour piece - not my work)BrontosaurusHuge beast.
Ate only plants, but could crush a '93 Cabriolet with a single step of its titanic brontosaurus feet.
Name means "Thunder Lizard" which is about as cool as you can get.
Its only real drawback is that it didn't really exist.B+ApatosaurusThis is what they're calling brontosauruses these days.
Apparently they had some problem with the wrong skull on the wrong body--duh--and once they figured it out they had to change the name to "apatosaurus," which means "Deceptive Lizard.
" Personally I think they should have looked up the Latin for "Stupid Scientist.
" DDimetrodonLooks like a gecko with a mohawk.
Big sail on its back that they think attracted mates or conserved body heat.
Actually, that's what scientists say about anything on an animal they don't understand.
They could find evidence of an iguanadon with a ZZ Top beard and they'd say "the beard was probably to conserve body heat or attract mates.
" Which, come to think of it, is probably what ZZ Top uses them for.
Anyhow, CTyrannosaurus RexCool animal.
Name means "Tyrant Lizard King.
" Cool.
I wish my name meant "Tyrant Lizard King.
" Anyhow, we all know what makes this such a great dinosaur--it could completely eat you.
Plus the little tiny forearms make it look like some demented nightmare beast from the fertile mind of Tim Burton.
A+ Velociraptor These guys got a lot of press from "Jurassic Park," but let's face it, they're pretty lacking.
They couldn't even manage to eat two little kids, one of whom had only minutes before been turned into a toaster pastry.
Sure, they got the hunter, but he was coming up with cute last words when he should have been running like a bunny.
And then all three of them got totally worked by a baby Tyrannosaurus!
Lame! D!
Stegosaurus Two words: spiked tail.
"Oh, so you're sneaking up behind me to eat my delicious body meats?
WHAM! "Spikes!
In the head!
For you!
" Plus it had I-am-an-industrial-monster plates on its back, which while probably for conserving body heat or attracting mates, were impressive-looking.
A </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28190675</id>
	<title>Re:There is a theory</title>
	<author>aXis100</author>
	<datestamp>1243953480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think a planet size object hitting the Earth is less of a "mass extinction and making it hard for large animals" event and more of a "completely liquifying the Earth and turning everything that was on it into molten lava goo" event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a planet size object hitting the Earth is less of a " mass extinction and making it hard for large animals " event and more of a " completely liquifying the Earth and turning everything that was on it into molten lava goo " event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a planet size object hitting the Earth is less of a "mass extinction and making it hard for large animals" event and more of a "completely liquifying the Earth and turning everything that was on it into molten lava goo" event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193173</id>
	<title>Sticking their neck out</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1244023200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article it appears that the discussion only allows for two postures: either straight, vertical or straight, horizontal, both of which present some significant obstacles. The vertical model would require a huge heart, but the horizontal model would require some way of holding up a string of vertebrae against gravity, which would require either huge muscles or other things that would need to be supported by some skeletal structures that are missing, AFAIK. The model they suggest, I think, is something more like a swan's neck, which wouldn't be as tall (thus not requiring so high a blood pressure) and wouldn't require the extremely massive muscles, while still being as flexible as they seem to have been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article it appears that the discussion only allows for two postures : either straight , vertical or straight , horizontal , both of which present some significant obstacles .
The vertical model would require a huge heart , but the horizontal model would require some way of holding up a string of vertebrae against gravity , which would require either huge muscles or other things that would need to be supported by some skeletal structures that are missing , AFAIK .
The model they suggest , I think , is something more like a swan 's neck , which would n't be as tall ( thus not requiring so high a blood pressure ) and would n't require the extremely massive muscles , while still being as flexible as they seem to have been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article it appears that the discussion only allows for two postures: either straight, vertical or straight, horizontal, both of which present some significant obstacles.
The vertical model would require a huge heart, but the horizontal model would require some way of holding up a string of vertebrae against gravity, which would require either huge muscles or other things that would need to be supported by some skeletal structures that are missing, AFAIK.
The model they suggest, I think, is something more like a swan's neck, which wouldn't be as tall (thus not requiring so high a blood pressure) and wouldn't require the extremely massive muscles, while still being as flexible as they seem to have been.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186797</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1243976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The other thing is how much do we know about the tissues and proteins that made up muscles and blood in Sauropods? Is it possible that they were much stronger or their blood had different properties making it capable of overcoming the blood pressure problem?"<br>Umm have we found any animal that has blood or tissues that would solve that issue? Reptile, Bird, or Mammal?<br>That seems like a huge leap with out some type of evidence of it existing in nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The other thing is how much do we know about the tissues and proteins that made up muscles and blood in Sauropods ?
Is it possible that they were much stronger or their blood had different properties making it capable of overcoming the blood pressure problem ?
" Umm have we found any animal that has blood or tissues that would solve that issue ?
Reptile , Bird , or Mammal ? That seems like a huge leap with out some type of evidence of it existing in nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The other thing is how much do we know about the tissues and proteins that made up muscles and blood in Sauropods?
Is it possible that they were much stronger or their blood had different properties making it capable of overcoming the blood pressure problem?
"Umm have we found any animal that has blood or tissues that would solve that issue?
Reptile, Bird, or Mammal?That seems like a huge leap with out some type of evidence of it existing in nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188103</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243938180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>have you ever seen a giraffe try to reach the ground with their head?</i> Almost as amusing as watching a deer run up a flight of stairs. However, since giraffes do that on a regular basis to drink water, you'd think they would be better at it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>have you ever seen a giraffe try to reach the ground with their head ?
Almost as amusing as watching a deer run up a flight of stairs .
However , since giraffes do that on a regular basis to drink water , you 'd think they would be better at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have you ever seen a giraffe try to reach the ground with their head?
Almost as amusing as watching a deer run up a flight of stairs.
However, since giraffes do that on a regular basis to drink water, you'd think they would be better at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187453</id>
	<title>Reproductive adaptation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243935660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they evolved so the sauropod babes could finally escape the 'Tyrannosaurus Punch' that was all the rage at the time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they evolved so the sauropod babes could finally escape the 'Tyrannosaurus Punch ' that was all the rage at the time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they evolved so the sauropod babes could finally escape the 'Tyrannosaurus Punch' that was all the rage at the time</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193381</id>
	<title>Author's response to points raised in the comments</title>
	<author>Mirk</author>
	<datestamp>1244025780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am the Mike Taylor that is the lead author of this study.  As pointed out by MaXintosh, the paper itself is freely available from the open-access journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, and we urge everyone who's interested to read it for themselves: we kept it short and made efforts to keep it comprehensible to intelligent non-specialists.  It's at <a href="http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html" title="app.pan.pl">http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html</a> [app.pan.pl]
<p>
Also, if the article pointed to here is Slashdotted, there is A LOT of other media coverage out there, including a TV interview, seven radio interviews, at least 25 online news sources and at least 14 blogs.  Handily, we've linked them all from a page on our own blog, which you can find at <a href="http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/taylor-et-al-2009-on-neck-posture/" title="wordpress.com">http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/taylor-et-al-2009-on-neck-posture/</a> [wordpress.com]
</p><p>
And maybe best, that blog -- Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week -- now has a sequence of seven posts explaining the research in more detail: these too are linked from the page I mentioned, and I think many Slashdotters will find them interesting.
</p><p>
To respond to a couple of specific points that have been raised in the comments here:
</p><p>
1. TinBromide though we compared only with giraffes, but in fact we compared with LOTS of animals, including birds, crocs, lizards, turtles, mammals and amphibians.  The result were compellingly uniform.  Similarly, MaXintosh wrote that "the authors (of the paper, not TFA) hedge their bets heavily by saying that IF sauropods are directly comparable to extant taxa".  Well, sort of: we did rather nail our colours to the mast when we wrote "Can the habitual posture of extant amniotes be expected to apply to sauropods? Phylogenetic bracketing strongly supports this hypothesis as the neck posture described by Vidal et al. (1986) is found in both Aves and Crocodylia, the nearest extant outgroups of Sauropoda, as well as in the increasingly remote outgroups Squamata, Testudines and Lissamphibia."
</p><p>
2. eldavojohn asked "Why are we arguing over which position was the default when it's entirely possible that they utilized both positions" and noted that "There's plenty of pictures on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] of the animals depicted both ways."  It's true, of course, that animals can and do adopt different postures at different times: we make the point in the paper that sauropods had to be able to get their heads down low in order to drink, and could therefore pass through all intermediate postures.  What we're talking about here is HABITUAL posture -- they way they spent their time when not actively doing something different.  Geese can reach the ground, but they don't spend their lives that way.
</p><p>
3. A few people mentioned the problem of pumping blood up a high neck to the brain.  We can't say too much about this at the moment as we're working on a paper on this subject and don't want to scoop ourselves.  However, we do have good reason to think that the blood-pressure problem is not so severe as it's been depicted in Roger Seymour's work (going back as far as 1976, so we're well aware of it!)  Sorry if that sounds evasive: hopefully we'll have a more convincing response for you within a year or so.
</p><p>
4. Finally, we want to be clear that we don't think our paper ends the debate.  If anything, it re-opens it, as horizontal-to-dropping sauropod necks have been orthodox for the last decade or so.  There's more work to do (but we're on the case!)
</p><p>
That's all for now -- hope it helps.  If you have any more questions, you're welcome to ask, and we'll do our best to answer.  The best place to do is probably over on Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week, as I and my co-authors each check that several times a day.  <a href="http://svpow.wordpress.com/" title="wordpress.com">http://svpow.wordpress.com/</a> [wordpress.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am the Mike Taylor that is the lead author of this study .
As pointed out by MaXintosh , the paper itself is freely available from the open-access journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica , and we urge everyone who 's interested to read it for themselves : we kept it short and made efforts to keep it comprehensible to intelligent non-specialists .
It 's at http : //www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html [ app.pan.pl ] Also , if the article pointed to here is Slashdotted , there is A LOT of other media coverage out there , including a TV interview , seven radio interviews , at least 25 online news sources and at least 14 blogs .
Handily , we 've linked them all from a page on our own blog , which you can find at http : //svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/taylor-et-al-2009-on-neck-posture/ [ wordpress.com ] And maybe best , that blog -- Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week -- now has a sequence of seven posts explaining the research in more detail : these too are linked from the page I mentioned , and I think many Slashdotters will find them interesting .
To respond to a couple of specific points that have been raised in the comments here : 1 .
TinBromide though we compared only with giraffes , but in fact we compared with LOTS of animals , including birds , crocs , lizards , turtles , mammals and amphibians .
The result were compellingly uniform .
Similarly , MaXintosh wrote that " the authors ( of the paper , not TFA ) hedge their bets heavily by saying that IF sauropods are directly comparable to extant taxa " .
Well , sort of : we did rather nail our colours to the mast when we wrote " Can the habitual posture of extant amniotes be expected to apply to sauropods ?
Phylogenetic bracketing strongly supports this hypothesis as the neck posture described by Vidal et al .
( 1986 ) is found in both Aves and Crocodylia , the nearest extant outgroups of Sauropoda , as well as in the increasingly remote outgroups Squamata , Testudines and Lissamphibia .
" 2. eldavojohn asked " Why are we arguing over which position was the default when it 's entirely possible that they utilized both positions " and noted that " There 's plenty of pictures on Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] of the animals depicted both ways .
" It 's true , of course , that animals can and do adopt different postures at different times : we make the point in the paper that sauropods had to be able to get their heads down low in order to drink , and could therefore pass through all intermediate postures .
What we 're talking about here is HABITUAL posture -- they way they spent their time when not actively doing something different .
Geese can reach the ground , but they do n't spend their lives that way .
3. A few people mentioned the problem of pumping blood up a high neck to the brain .
We ca n't say too much about this at the moment as we 're working on a paper on this subject and do n't want to scoop ourselves .
However , we do have good reason to think that the blood-pressure problem is not so severe as it 's been depicted in Roger Seymour 's work ( going back as far as 1976 , so we 're well aware of it !
) Sorry if that sounds evasive : hopefully we 'll have a more convincing response for you within a year or so .
4. Finally , we want to be clear that we do n't think our paper ends the debate .
If anything , it re-opens it , as horizontal-to-dropping sauropod necks have been orthodox for the last decade or so .
There 's more work to do ( but we 're on the case !
) That 's all for now -- hope it helps .
If you have any more questions , you 're welcome to ask , and we 'll do our best to answer .
The best place to do is probably over on Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week , as I and my co-authors each check that several times a day .
http : //svpow.wordpress.com/ [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am the Mike Taylor that is the lead author of this study.
As pointed out by MaXintosh, the paper itself is freely available from the open-access journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, and we urge everyone who's interested to read it for themselves: we kept it short and made efforts to keep it comprehensible to intelligent non-specialists.
It's at http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app54-213.html [app.pan.pl]

Also, if the article pointed to here is Slashdotted, there is A LOT of other media coverage out there, including a TV interview, seven radio interviews, at least 25 online news sources and at least 14 blogs.
Handily, we've linked them all from a page on our own blog, which you can find at http://svpow.wordpress.com/papers-by-sv-powsketeers/taylor-et-al-2009-on-neck-posture/ [wordpress.com]

And maybe best, that blog -- Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week -- now has a sequence of seven posts explaining the research in more detail: these too are linked from the page I mentioned, and I think many Slashdotters will find them interesting.
To respond to a couple of specific points that have been raised in the comments here:

1.
TinBromide though we compared only with giraffes, but in fact we compared with LOTS of animals, including birds, crocs, lizards, turtles, mammals and amphibians.
The result were compellingly uniform.
Similarly, MaXintosh wrote that "the authors (of the paper, not TFA) hedge their bets heavily by saying that IF sauropods are directly comparable to extant taxa".
Well, sort of: we did rather nail our colours to the mast when we wrote "Can the habitual posture of extant amniotes be expected to apply to sauropods?
Phylogenetic bracketing strongly supports this hypothesis as the neck posture described by Vidal et al.
(1986) is found in both Aves and Crocodylia, the nearest extant outgroups of Sauropoda, as well as in the increasingly remote outgroups Squamata, Testudines and Lissamphibia.
"

2. eldavojohn asked "Why are we arguing over which position was the default when it's entirely possible that they utilized both positions" and noted that "There's plenty of pictures on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] of the animals depicted both ways.
"  It's true, of course, that animals can and do adopt different postures at different times: we make the point in the paper that sauropods had to be able to get their heads down low in order to drink, and could therefore pass through all intermediate postures.
What we're talking about here is HABITUAL posture -- they way they spent their time when not actively doing something different.
Geese can reach the ground, but they don't spend their lives that way.
3. A few people mentioned the problem of pumping blood up a high neck to the brain.
We can't say too much about this at the moment as we're working on a paper on this subject and don't want to scoop ourselves.
However, we do have good reason to think that the blood-pressure problem is not so severe as it's been depicted in Roger Seymour's work (going back as far as 1976, so we're well aware of it!
)  Sorry if that sounds evasive: hopefully we'll have a more convincing response for you within a year or so.
4. Finally, we want to be clear that we don't think our paper ends the debate.
If anything, it re-opens it, as horizontal-to-dropping sauropod necks have been orthodox for the last decade or so.
There's more work to do (but we're on the case!
)

That's all for now -- hope it helps.
If you have any more questions, you're welcome to ask, and we'll do our best to answer.
The best place to do is probably over on Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week, as I and my co-authors each check that several times a day.
http://svpow.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186381</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Understand that I am posing this as a real theory, but since we don't have a lot of the soft tissue, there is no way of knowing that the they didn't have more than one 'heart'.  If their was a secondary, heart, or even many small pumps, there would be no need for extremely high blood pressure, one giant heart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Understand that I am posing this as a real theory , but since we do n't have a lot of the soft tissue , there is no way of knowing that the they did n't have more than one 'heart' .
If their was a secondary , heart , or even many small pumps , there would be no need for extremely high blood pressure , one giant heart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Understand that I am posing this as a real theory, but since we don't have a lot of the soft tissue, there is no way of knowing that the they didn't have more than one 'heart'.
If their was a secondary, heart, or even many small pumps, there would be no need for extremely high blood pressure, one giant heart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186249</id>
	<title>test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>still wrong</htmltext>
<tokenext>still wrong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>still wrong</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189175</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243943280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Not only that, but I'd conjecture that the long neck must have evolved vertically. The musculature required to hold a long neck like that horizontal must be enormous, and hardly an efficient way of bearing weight."</p><p>Sauropod dinosaurs had a large nuchal ligament running from their shoulders along the top of the neck.  IT doesn't usually preserve, but rare specimens have it, and the notch that it sits in is visible on the dorsal side of the vertebrae.  It would have supported much of the weight, somewhat like the cable of a suspension bridge (but a one-sided structure).  The bones are also remarkably light weight, with substantial internal gas-filled cavities (pneumatic bones) -- rather like the bones of birds.  The structure would have been *much* lighter overall than a mammalian equivalent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Not only that , but I 'd conjecture that the long neck must have evolved vertically .
The musculature required to hold a long neck like that horizontal must be enormous , and hardly an efficient way of bearing weight .
" Sauropod dinosaurs had a large nuchal ligament running from their shoulders along the top of the neck .
IT does n't usually preserve , but rare specimens have it , and the notch that it sits in is visible on the dorsal side of the vertebrae .
It would have supported much of the weight , somewhat like the cable of a suspension bridge ( but a one-sided structure ) .
The bones are also remarkably light weight , with substantial internal gas-filled cavities ( pneumatic bones ) -- rather like the bones of birds .
The structure would have been * much * lighter overall than a mammalian equivalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Not only that, but I'd conjecture that the long neck must have evolved vertically.
The musculature required to hold a long neck like that horizontal must be enormous, and hardly an efficient way of bearing weight.
"Sauropod dinosaurs had a large nuchal ligament running from their shoulders along the top of the neck.
IT doesn't usually preserve, but rare specimens have it, and the notch that it sits in is visible on the dorsal side of the vertebrae.
It would have supported much of the weight, somewhat like the cable of a suspension bridge (but a one-sided structure).
The bones are also remarkably light weight, with substantial internal gas-filled cavities (pneumatic bones) -- rather like the bones of birds.
The structure would have been *much* lighter overall than a mammalian equivalent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186095</id>
	<title>yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>looks like the web servers posture is all wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>looks like the web servers posture is all wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>looks like the web servers posture is all wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187049</id>
	<title>Resurrected LINK</title>
	<author>Il128</author>
	<datestamp>1243933980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://74.125.95.132/search?strip=1&amp;q=cache:http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.cosmosmagazine.com\%2Fnews\%2F2786\%2Fdinosaur-posture-revised-again" title="74.125.95.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.95.132/search?strip=1&amp;q=cache:http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.cosmosmagazine.com\%2Fnews\%2F2786\%2Fdinosaur-posture-revised-again</a> [74.125.95.132]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //74.125.95.132/search ? strip = 1&amp;q = cache : http \ % 3A \ % 2F \ % 2Fwww.cosmosmagazine.com \ % 2Fnews \ % 2F2786 \ % 2Fdinosaur-posture-revised-again [ 74.125.95.132 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://74.125.95.132/search?strip=1&amp;q=cache:http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.cosmosmagazine.com\%2Fnews\%2F2786\%2Fdinosaur-posture-revised-again [74.125.95.132]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188195</id>
	<title>Generation gap</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1243938600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps it was only the teenage giant sauropod dinosaurs that had bad posture? Of course, these are the ones we would be studying, since they would have wound up in tar pits a lot more often. You know those reckless teens!<br> <br>
(Note to self: great idea for new cartoon series: <i>teenage giant sauropod dinosaurs</i>. Name each one after famous Impressionist artists. Have running joke about confusing Monet with Manet.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it was only the teenage giant sauropod dinosaurs that had bad posture ?
Of course , these are the ones we would be studying , since they would have wound up in tar pits a lot more often .
You know those reckless teens !
( Note to self : great idea for new cartoon series : teenage giant sauropod dinosaurs .
Name each one after famous Impressionist artists .
Have running joke about confusing Monet with Manet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it was only the teenage giant sauropod dinosaurs that had bad posture?
Of course, these are the ones we would be studying, since they would have wound up in tar pits a lot more often.
You know those reckless teens!
(Note to self: great idea for new cartoon series: teenage giant sauropod dinosaurs.
Name each one after famous Impressionist artists.
Have running joke about confusing Monet with Manet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186201</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1243973460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Down low for traveling to avoid blood pressure problems and up high for brief states of alert or reaching high food sources?</p></div></blockquote><p>That was the status quo that the authors of this piece are disputing.  Down low is default, up high as needed.<br> <br>Re: their blood and blood pressure... liquid is liquid.  Gravity is gravity.  Pressure required to overcome gravity is just that.  If you're suggesting that their tissues were so significantly different that they could withstand ridiculously high pressures, then fine... but I doubt it would be a property of the blood so much as a property of their vasculature and heart.</p><blockquote><div><p>... until you CLONE THEM!</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh yeah?  What if they are equally capable of either, and how they hold their heads is learned behavior?  What has your cloning done for us then?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Down low for traveling to avoid blood pressure problems and up high for brief states of alert or reaching high food sources ? That was the status quo that the authors of this piece are disputing .
Down low is default , up high as needed .
Re : their blood and blood pressure... liquid is liquid .
Gravity is gravity .
Pressure required to overcome gravity is just that .
If you 're suggesting that their tissues were so significantly different that they could withstand ridiculously high pressures , then fine... but I doubt it would be a property of the blood so much as a property of their vasculature and heart.... until you CLONE THEM ! Oh yeah ?
What if they are equally capable of either , and how they hold their heads is learned behavior ?
What has your cloning done for us then ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Down low for traveling to avoid blood pressure problems and up high for brief states of alert or reaching high food sources?That was the status quo that the authors of this piece are disputing.
Down low is default, up high as needed.
Re: their blood and blood pressure... liquid is liquid.
Gravity is gravity.
Pressure required to overcome gravity is just that.
If you're suggesting that their tissues were so significantly different that they could withstand ridiculously high pressures, then fine... but I doubt it would be a property of the blood so much as a property of their vasculature and heart.... until you CLONE THEM!Oh yeah?
What if they are equally capable of either, and how they hold their heads is learned behavior?
What has your cloning done for us then?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188855</id>
	<title>Re:Matt Wedel must have missed Jurassic Park...</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1243941540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've missed the last ten years of science on sauropod neck posture, obviously. That anyone could let such an alarming gap form in their knowledge is alarming!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've missed the last ten years of science on sauropod neck posture , obviously .
That anyone could let such an alarming gap form in their knowledge is alarming !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've missed the last ten years of science on sauropod neck posture, obviously.
That anyone could let such an alarming gap form in their knowledge is alarming!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193829</id>
	<title>Re:Listen to your mother.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244032620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder the mice were furious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder the mice were furious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder the mice were furious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187243</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm" title="unmuseum.org">http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm</a> [unmuseum.org]<p><div class="quote"><p>Today, scientist's vision of the habits and habitat of the Apatosaurus are quite different than what Marsh and other early paleontologists had thought. Early analysis suggested that the animals must have been weak because their small heads could only chew the minimum amount of food necessary to fuel such a big body. So weak, in fact, that large sauropods were thought to be slow, unable to lift their bulky tails off the ground and only able to support their massive weight by living in shallow lakes and swamps where water floated their bulk.<br> <br>

Paleontologists like Bakker showed that this image was wrong. No Apatosaurus skeleton has been found in an ancient body of water and its feet were not at all suited for walking through marshy and muddy ground. In fact, Bakker notes in his book Dinosaur Heresies, an analysis of changes in geology over time suggest that large sauropods moved out of areas as they became wet: they didn't like swamps at all.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm [ unmuseum.org ] Today , scientist 's vision of the habits and habitat of the Apatosaurus are quite different than what Marsh and other early paleontologists had thought .
Early analysis suggested that the animals must have been weak because their small heads could only chew the minimum amount of food necessary to fuel such a big body .
So weak , in fact , that large sauropods were thought to be slow , unable to lift their bulky tails off the ground and only able to support their massive weight by living in shallow lakes and swamps where water floated their bulk .
Paleontologists like Bakker showed that this image was wrong .
No Apatosaurus skeleton has been found in an ancient body of water and its feet were not at all suited for walking through marshy and muddy ground .
In fact , Bakker notes in his book Dinosaur Heresies , an analysis of changes in geology over time suggest that large sauropods moved out of areas as they became wet : they did n't like swamps at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm [unmuseum.org]Today, scientist's vision of the habits and habitat of the Apatosaurus are quite different than what Marsh and other early paleontologists had thought.
Early analysis suggested that the animals must have been weak because their small heads could only chew the minimum amount of food necessary to fuel such a big body.
So weak, in fact, that large sauropods were thought to be slow, unable to lift their bulky tails off the ground and only able to support their massive weight by living in shallow lakes and swamps where water floated their bulk.
Paleontologists like Bakker showed that this image was wrong.
No Apatosaurus skeleton has been found in an ancient body of water and its feet were not at all suited for walking through marshy and muddy ground.
In fact, Bakker notes in his book Dinosaur Heresies, an analysis of changes in geology over time suggest that large sauropods moved out of areas as they became wet: they didn't like swamps at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187773</id>
	<title>Re:Listen to your mother.</title>
	<author>kurzweilfreak</author>
	<datestamp>1243936860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NOT DA MAMA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOT DA MAMA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOT DA MAMA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243973820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh for God's sake!  I thought this was put to rest a long time ago.  The most famously known sauropod, the brontosaurus (I know they changed the name!  I like the old one! Apata-whatever?  Please!  Thanks to the name Brontosaurus, every time I hear the word bronchitis I think of dinosaurs) has been established to have lived mostly submerged in the water.  I'd say that even passing knowledge of how doing exercises in a pool helps the elderly recuperate should go a long way to aid in understanding how a mostly submarine dinosaur's heart working to pump blood all over its body.  Whales get big like they do and otherwise couldn't if it weren't for being in the water.  Hippos do like that too.</p><p>The giraffe is certainly an animal that pushes certain limits, but its overall weight and height is nothing compared to what a brontosaur would have to maintain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh for God 's sake !
I thought this was put to rest a long time ago .
The most famously known sauropod , the brontosaurus ( I know they changed the name !
I like the old one !
Apata-whatever ? Please !
Thanks to the name Brontosaurus , every time I hear the word bronchitis I think of dinosaurs ) has been established to have lived mostly submerged in the water .
I 'd say that even passing knowledge of how doing exercises in a pool helps the elderly recuperate should go a long way to aid in understanding how a mostly submarine dinosaur 's heart working to pump blood all over its body .
Whales get big like they do and otherwise could n't if it were n't for being in the water .
Hippos do like that too.The giraffe is certainly an animal that pushes certain limits , but its overall weight and height is nothing compared to what a brontosaur would have to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh for God's sake!
I thought this was put to rest a long time ago.
The most famously known sauropod, the brontosaurus (I know they changed the name!
I like the old one!
Apata-whatever?  Please!
Thanks to the name Brontosaurus, every time I hear the word bronchitis I think of dinosaurs) has been established to have lived mostly submerged in the water.
I'd say that even passing knowledge of how doing exercises in a pool helps the elderly recuperate should go a long way to aid in understanding how a mostly submarine dinosaur's heart working to pump blood all over its body.
Whales get big like they do and otherwise couldn't if it weren't for being in the water.
Hippos do like that too.The giraffe is certainly an animal that pushes certain limits, but its overall weight and height is nothing compared to what a brontosaur would have to maintain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187143</id>
	<title>two words: Octave Levenspiel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243934460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prof. Levenspiel has argued that atmospheric pressure was quite different during the days of the dinosaurs.  Check it out:<br>http://levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaurs.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prof. Levenspiel has argued that atmospheric pressure was quite different during the days of the dinosaurs .
Check it out : http : //levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaurs.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prof. Levenspiel has argued that atmospheric pressure was quite different during the days of the dinosaurs.
Check it out:http://levenspiel.com/octave/dinosaurs.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28191939</id>
	<title>Pray for the answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243964700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religious people should just pray and when God tells them the answer, they can write it
down in their blogs.
</p><p>
What? You say different people heard different answers?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religious people should just pray and when God tells them the answer , they can write it down in their blogs .
What ? You say different people heard different answers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religious people should just pray and when God tells them the answer, they can write it
down in their blogs.
What? You say different people heard different answers?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186247</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>whiledo</author>
	<datestamp>1243973700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbSAJKAF8O4" title="youtube.com">rather awkward.</a> [youtube.com]  Not the best video I've seen, but the best I could find on youtube.  I've seen some where it's a much longer drawn out process.</p><p>When you see giraffes doing the neck-slapping thing, you can see how when their necks bend sideways, it's not a continuous curve but rather like a low-grade 3d render of one with vertices at each vertebra.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is rather awkward .
[ youtube.com ] Not the best video I 've seen , but the best I could find on youtube .
I 've seen some where it 's a much longer drawn out process.When you see giraffes doing the neck-slapping thing , you can see how when their necks bend sideways , it 's not a continuous curve but rather like a low-grade 3d render of one with vertices at each vertebra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is rather awkward.
[youtube.com]  Not the best video I've seen, but the best I could find on youtube.
I've seen some where it's a much longer drawn out process.When you see giraffes doing the neck-slapping thing, you can see how when their necks bend sideways, it's not a continuous curve but rather like a low-grade 3d render of one with vertices at each vertebra.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187993</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>Just\_Say\_Duhhh</author>
	<datestamp>1243937640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, it could be that the dinosaur's head position is a result of his current mood. In the morning, he's feeling good, head held high. After a full day of coding, debugging, and endless meetings with management, his head will be dragging on the ground. His blood pressure will be elevated, but not BECAUSE his head is dragging - they are both symptoms of overwork.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it could be that the dinosaur 's head position is a result of his current mood .
In the morning , he 's feeling good , head held high .
After a full day of coding , debugging , and endless meetings with management , his head will be dragging on the ground .
His blood pressure will be elevated , but not BECAUSE his head is dragging - they are both symptoms of overwork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it could be that the dinosaur's head position is a result of his current mood.
In the morning, he's feeling good, head held high.
After a full day of coding, debugging, and endless meetings with management, his head will be dragging on the ground.
His blood pressure will be elevated, but not BECAUSE his head is dragging - they are both symptoms of overwork.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186023</id>
	<title>The wrong turn</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1243972620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
"...But 'our research [now] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect, based on everything we know about living animals,' he said."
</p><p>
Maybe they should have based it on what they know about dead animals, eh?  Cuz all them dinos are dead, ain't it.  I don't think these "researchers" are mucho bright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...But 'our research [ now ] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect , based on everything we know about living animals, ' he said .
" Maybe they should have based it on what they know about dead animals , eh ?
Cuz all them dinos are dead , ai n't it .
I do n't think these " researchers " are mucho bright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
"...But 'our research [now] suggests that this view of sauropods is simply incorrect, based on everything we know about living animals,' he said.
"

Maybe they should have based it on what they know about dead animals, eh?
Cuz all them dinos are dead, ain't it.
I don't think these "researchers" are mucho bright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189517</id>
	<title>Dinosaur Kama Sutra?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243945080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh Cosmos...not Cosmo</p><p>And here I thought this was an article about postures in a dinosaur Kama Sutra.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh Cosmos...not CosmoAnd here I thought this was an article about postures in a dinosaur Kama Sutra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh Cosmos...not CosmoAnd here I thought this was an article about postures in a dinosaur Kama Sutra.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192387</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1243970340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THAT's two-things-ism!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THAT 's two-things-ism ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THAT's two-things-ism!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187947</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, come on</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1243937520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, God Almighty did not inspire man to invent the camera until about 150 years ago, and by that time all the Dinosaurs had been eradicated for being unrepentant sinners, as they so righteously deserved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , God Almighty did not inspire man to invent the camera until about 150 years ago , and by that time all the Dinosaurs had been eradicated for being unrepentant sinners , as they so righteously deserved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, God Almighty did not inspire man to invent the camera until about 150 years ago, and by that time all the Dinosaurs had been eradicated for being unrepentant sinners, as they so righteously deserved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185823</id>
	<title>AW...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243971840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess this means there was no Stuckupasaurus?  You know, the snooty dinosaur who thought it was better than all the others and walked around holding its head high and looking down its nose at the others?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...ok, wow, THAT was lame.</p><p>I apologize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess this means there was no Stuckupasaurus ?
You know , the snooty dinosaur who thought it was better than all the others and walked around holding its head high and looking down its nose at the others ?
...ok , wow , THAT was lame.I apologize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess this means there was no Stuckupasaurus?
You know, the snooty dinosaur who thought it was better than all the others and walked around holding its head high and looking down its nose at the others?
...ok, wow, THAT was lame.I apologize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186551</id>
	<title>Re:geese</title>
	<author>omfglearntoplay</author>
	<datestamp>1243975020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking the same thing about wasted energy for the horizontal position, but then I thought about their tails. Do their tails go vertical also to save engergy? I can just see those huge dinosaurs now, tail held straight up like a house cat. Heh.</p><p>But really, I can't see them staying horizontal for long with their heads... even if the head weighed only a few pounds that would make it so much more energy wasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking the same thing about wasted energy for the horizontal position , but then I thought about their tails .
Do their tails go vertical also to save engergy ?
I can just see those huge dinosaurs now , tail held straight up like a house cat .
Heh.But really , I ca n't see them staying horizontal for long with their heads... even if the head weighed only a few pounds that would make it so much more energy wasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking the same thing about wasted energy for the horizontal position, but then I thought about their tails.
Do their tails go vertical also to save engergy?
I can just see those huge dinosaurs now, tail held straight up like a house cat.
Heh.But really, I can't see them staying horizontal for long with their heads... even if the head weighed only a few pounds that would make it so much more energy wasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188431</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1243939680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be very wary of cloning any and all dinosaurs if I were you. Unless, of course, you passed your <a href="http://xkcd.com/135/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow"> Velociraptor Math Test </a> [xkcd.com] already....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be very wary of cloning any and all dinosaurs if I were you .
Unless , of course , you passed your Velociraptor Math Test [ xkcd.com ] already... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be very wary of cloning any and all dinosaurs if I were you.
Unless, of course, you passed your  Velociraptor Math Test  [xkcd.com] already....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188653</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe that posturing was due to head pressure</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1243940580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or they had more than one heart.<br>Or a heart with more chambers in series</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they had more than one heart.Or a heart with more chambers in series</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they had more than one heart.Or a heart with more chambers in series</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188157</id>
	<title>Re:TFA Is slashdotted</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1243938480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By here, do you mean America, or Earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By here , do you mean America , or Earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By here, do you mean America, or Earth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186263</id>
	<title>Occams razor tells me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243973820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The long necked dinosaurs simply tied their long necks into a knot whenever they needed to raise their heads for feeding and observations.</p><p>They had a symbiotic relationship with the horned dinosaurs who were needed for untieing the knots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The long necked dinosaurs simply tied their long necks into a knot whenever they needed to raise their heads for feeding and observations.They had a symbiotic relationship with the horned dinosaurs who were needed for untieing the knots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The long necked dinosaurs simply tied their long necks into a knot whenever they needed to raise their heads for feeding and observations.They had a symbiotic relationship with the horned dinosaurs who were needed for untieing the knots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186873</id>
	<title>Re:Two Things</title>
	<author>Accursed</author>
	<datestamp>1243933260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always kind of wondered if they mostly stuck to rivers and lakes, and used their long necks to reach out and graze trees/shrubs/what have you along the banks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always kind of wondered if they mostly stuck to rivers and lakes , and used their long necks to reach out and graze trees/shrubs/what have you along the banks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always kind of wondered if they mostly stuck to rivers and lakes, and used their long necks to reach out and graze trees/shrubs/what have you along the banks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187441</id>
	<title>Dinosaur posture is bad</title>
	<author>Arslan ibn Da'ud</author>
	<datestamp>1243935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because the dinosaurs didn't have a WiiFit!</p><p>ok i'll go back to my corner now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because the dinosaurs did n't have a WiiFit ! ok i 'll go back to my corner now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because the dinosaurs didn't have a WiiFit!ok i'll go back to my corner now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185995</id>
	<title>Straighten up and fly right!</title>
	<author>awb131</author>
	<datestamp>1243972560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's going to kill my karma, but I thought it was funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's going to kill my karma , but I thought it was funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's going to kill my karma, but I thought it was funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185903</id>
	<title>Listen to your mother.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sit up straight!  Eat your palm trees!   Don't ROAR at your sister!   Ignore those tiny furry mousey creatures...they are of no consequenc and won't amount to anything!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sit up straight !
Eat your palm trees !
Do n't ROAR at your sister !
Ignore those tiny furry mousey creatures...they are of no consequenc and wo n't amount to anything !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sit up straight!
Eat your palm trees!
Don't ROAR at your sister!
Ignore those tiny furry mousey creatures...they are of no consequenc and won't amount to anything!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253</id>
	<title>Re:geese</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1243973760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Re: modern pseudo-analogues -- based upon the geese I raised as a kid, I never could quite grok the 'head-held-low' posture.  Geese only hold their heads low to screw or to attack.</p>  </div><p>I think it's dangerous to try to compare a two legged winged creature to a four legged creature but from the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They found that reptiles and amphibians held their necks mostly horizontally, while mammals and birds (which are more closely related to dinosaurs and share their upright leg structures) all held their necks vertically.<br> <br>

Studying the neck movements of living creatures also suggested that sauropods had a greater range of movement than previously thought.<br> <br>

While scientists had assumed that the dinosaur neck vertebrae overlapped each other by around 50\%, that's not true for living creatures like ostriches and giraffes, which can extend their necks till the vertebrae hardly overlap at all.</p></div><p>And in regards to efficiency of the way they hold their neck:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems very inefficient for a large creature to hold that much weight horizontally away from the body (remember those physics lessons re: levers and distance from the fulcrum?).</p></div><p>(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head.  Blood pressure is one of the things they can't explain about their model.  The article says, "Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Dinosaurs are awesome, as most five-year-olds will tell you.  Armchair paleontology is fun too.  And since we slashdotters are so fond of pretending expertise on subjects we know little about, and TFA seems to be slashdotted, I'm looking forward to a very amusing (but maybe not quite so enlightening) discussion.</p></div><p>After reading it, the article's not as great as you think.  There's plenty of pictures on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] of the animals depicted both ways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : modern pseudo-analogues -- based upon the geese I raised as a kid , I never could quite grok the 'head-held-low ' posture .
Geese only hold their heads low to screw or to attack .
I think it 's dangerous to try to compare a two legged winged creature to a four legged creature but from the article : They found that reptiles and amphibians held their necks mostly horizontally , while mammals and birds ( which are more closely related to dinosaurs and share their upright leg structures ) all held their necks vertically .
Studying the neck movements of living creatures also suggested that sauropods had a greater range of movement than previously thought .
While scientists had assumed that the dinosaur neck vertebrae overlapped each other by around 50 \ % , that 's not true for living creatures like ostriches and giraffes , which can extend their necks till the vertebrae hardly overlap at all.And in regards to efficiency of the way they hold their neck : It seems very inefficient for a large creature to hold that much weight horizontally away from the body ( remember those physics lessons re : levers and distance from the fulcrum ? ) .
( As the article notes ) it 's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head .
Blood pressure is one of the things they ca n't explain about their model .
The article says , " Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height .
" Dinosaurs are awesome , as most five-year-olds will tell you .
Armchair paleontology is fun too .
And since we slashdotters are so fond of pretending expertise on subjects we know little about , and TFA seems to be slashdotted , I 'm looking forward to a very amusing ( but maybe not quite so enlightening ) discussion.After reading it , the article 's not as great as you think .
There 's plenty of pictures on Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] of the animals depicted both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: modern pseudo-analogues -- based upon the geese I raised as a kid, I never could quite grok the 'head-held-low' posture.
Geese only hold their heads low to screw or to attack.
I think it's dangerous to try to compare a two legged winged creature to a four legged creature but from the article:They found that reptiles and amphibians held their necks mostly horizontally, while mammals and birds (which are more closely related to dinosaurs and share their upright leg structures) all held their necks vertically.
Studying the neck movements of living creatures also suggested that sauropods had a greater range of movement than previously thought.
While scientists had assumed that the dinosaur neck vertebrae overlapped each other by around 50\%, that's not true for living creatures like ostriches and giraffes, which can extend their necks till the vertebrae hardly overlap at all.And in regards to efficiency of the way they hold their neck:It seems very inefficient for a large creature to hold that much weight horizontally away from the body (remember those physics lessons re: levers and distance from the fulcrum?).
(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head.
Blood pressure is one of the things they can't explain about their model.
The article says, "Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height.
"Dinosaurs are awesome, as most five-year-olds will tell you.
Armchair paleontology is fun too.
And since we slashdotters are so fond of pretending expertise on subjects we know little about, and TFA seems to be slashdotted, I'm looking forward to a very amusing (but maybe not quite so enlightening) discussion.After reading it, the article's not as great as you think.
There's plenty of pictures on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] of the animals depicted both ways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187443</id>
	<title>It's fixed.</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1243935600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I expect we'll eventually get some, given our history of finding such neat things, but I'm not holding my breath because it's like finding a needle in a haystack.</i> <br> <br>
Did you ever notice that when we need some interesting info from the fossil record, we find it.  Did dinosaurs drag their tail?  Oh look!  Dino footprints.  No tail drag.  Did dinosaurs evolve into birds? Oh look!  Dino feathers.  Could we ever clone dinosaurs? Oh look! Preserved bone marrow.  Whatever we look for, we find.  It's rigged somehow.  It's got to be.  I mean come on, dinosaur footprints?  Enough time passed between that footprint being made, and being found by man for mountain ranges to be thrust skyward and erode back down to a plain.  Oceans have flooded the continents and drained away.  Canyons a mile deep have been gouged out of the earth. Yet all that time has not been enough to fill in a footprint in the mud?  It's fixed I tell ya.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect we 'll eventually get some , given our history of finding such neat things , but I 'm not holding my breath because it 's like finding a needle in a haystack .
Did you ever notice that when we need some interesting info from the fossil record , we find it .
Did dinosaurs drag their tail ?
Oh look !
Dino footprints .
No tail drag .
Did dinosaurs evolve into birds ?
Oh look !
Dino feathers .
Could we ever clone dinosaurs ?
Oh look !
Preserved bone marrow .
Whatever we look for , we find .
It 's rigged somehow .
It 's got to be .
I mean come on , dinosaur footprints ?
Enough time passed between that footprint being made , and being found by man for mountain ranges to be thrust skyward and erode back down to a plain .
Oceans have flooded the continents and drained away .
Canyons a mile deep have been gouged out of the earth .
Yet all that time has not been enough to fill in a footprint in the mud ?
It 's fixed I tell ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect we'll eventually get some, given our history of finding such neat things, but I'm not holding my breath because it's like finding a needle in a haystack.
Did you ever notice that when we need some interesting info from the fossil record, we find it.
Did dinosaurs drag their tail?
Oh look!
Dino footprints.
No tail drag.
Did dinosaurs evolve into birds?
Oh look!
Dino feathers.
Could we ever clone dinosaurs?
Oh look!
Preserved bone marrow.
Whatever we look for, we find.
It's rigged somehow.
It's got to be.
I mean come on, dinosaur footprints?
Enough time passed between that footprint being made, and being found by man for mountain ranges to be thrust skyward and erode back down to a plain.
Oceans have flooded the continents and drained away.
Canyons a mile deep have been gouged out of the earth.
Yet all that time has not been enough to fill in a footprint in the mud?
It's fixed I tell ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189391</id>
	<title>Blood pressure.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1243944360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head. Blood pressure is one of the things they can't explain about their model. The article says, "Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height."</i></p><p>Presuming you do it all with the heart.</p><p>But it's similarly hard for a human to pump the blood back up from his/her feet.  And if we stand still the blood WILL pool down there, the veins expand, and damage take place over a while.  And if we don't flex our legs but stand still for a long time, enough blood will pool down there that we'll pass out.  (This happens to people in the military when standing at attention for a long time when they're new to it and don't know the trick of flexing the legs occasionally.)</p><p>The way it works is similar to how some trees use wind power to pump sap up to the upper branches:  With valves and swaying.  We have valves in the leg veins.  The intermittent squeezing of the muscles around the veins which go through them and/or stretching of the veins as the leg bends makes the vein/valve system act like a distributed heart, pumping the blood up past the next valve, then the one after that, etc.</p><p>Why shouldn't the long-necked dinosaurs have a similar mechanism for neck arteries?  (If not actual additional heart-like devices partway up the neck - perhaps as an additional function of a gizzard?)  These would be made of soft tissue and typically wouldn't make it into the fossil record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( As the article notes ) it 's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head .
Blood pressure is one of the things they ca n't explain about their model .
The article says , " Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height .
" Presuming you do it all with the heart.But it 's similarly hard for a human to pump the blood back up from his/her feet .
And if we stand still the blood WILL pool down there , the veins expand , and damage take place over a while .
And if we do n't flex our legs but stand still for a long time , enough blood will pool down there that we 'll pass out .
( This happens to people in the military when standing at attention for a long time when they 're new to it and do n't know the trick of flexing the legs occasionally .
) The way it works is similar to how some trees use wind power to pump sap up to the upper branches : With valves and swaying .
We have valves in the leg veins .
The intermittent squeezing of the muscles around the veins which go through them and/or stretching of the veins as the leg bends makes the vein/valve system act like a distributed heart , pumping the blood up past the next valve , then the one after that , etc.Why should n't the long-necked dinosaurs have a similar mechanism for neck arteries ?
( If not actual additional heart-like devices partway up the neck - perhaps as an additional function of a gizzard ?
) These would be made of soft tissue and typically would n't make it into the fossil record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(As the article notes) it's probably a lot harder to have the blood pressure to pump blood all the way up that column to the head.
Blood pressure is one of the things they can't explain about their model.
The article says, "Estimates of blood pressure also suggested that it would have been very difficult for sauropods to pump their blood up to such a height.
"Presuming you do it all with the heart.But it's similarly hard for a human to pump the blood back up from his/her feet.
And if we stand still the blood WILL pool down there, the veins expand, and damage take place over a while.
And if we don't flex our legs but stand still for a long time, enough blood will pool down there that we'll pass out.
(This happens to people in the military when standing at attention for a long time when they're new to it and don't know the trick of flexing the legs occasionally.
)The way it works is similar to how some trees use wind power to pump sap up to the upper branches:  With valves and swaying.
We have valves in the leg veins.
The intermittent squeezing of the muscles around the veins which go through them and/or stretching of the veins as the leg bends makes the vein/valve system act like a distributed heart, pumping the blood up past the next valve, then the one after that, etc.Why shouldn't the long-necked dinosaurs have a similar mechanism for neck arteries?
(If not actual additional heart-like devices partway up the neck - perhaps as an additional function of a gizzard?
)  These would be made of soft tissue and typically wouldn't make it into the fossil record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873</id>
	<title>Oh, come on</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1243972020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was only 6000 years ago -- didn't anyone get any pictures?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was only 6000 years ago -- did n't anyone get any pictures ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was only 6000 years ago -- didn't anyone get any pictures?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188463</id>
	<title>Land dwellers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243939800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More likely they spent most of their life in the water where you would only see a bit of their head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely they spent most of their life in the water where you would only see a bit of their head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely they spent most of their life in the water where you would only see a bit of their head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28191033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28190675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28190499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_1812206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28189391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28191033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28193829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28190675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28190499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186201
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186381
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28192409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28188653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28186003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_1812206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28185849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_1812206.28187161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
