I'm not really up with the grammer as apparently you are, but I surmise you can interpret what I meant well enough from the past discussion.
Well, in one case (comma used to link your two statements with one being dependent on the other) I have no response other than bewilderment. In the other case, it's pretty much a discussion-ender anyway. I could potentially attempt to show that the second statement (that things have no bearing on what you said) is false, but even if I thought I could do that, you'll have also made your fiat: it doesn't matter anyway. While I haven't gone to great lengths for this silliness, I have taken some time to state facts that I deemed pertinent and also
why I consider them to be pertinent.
The onus isn't on me to share, as I already did a google search and didn't find anything to support your position and everything to support mine.
Oh, really? I don't believe you actually understand my position. Perhaps I don't understand yours either, but if I don't, at least I'm not making the lofty claim of having debunked it with the magic of Google. Did I get something wrong here? If so, what exactly?
I suspect that you just can't isolate what I'm saying and/or deliberately being stubborn to hold to your position as mine is fairly simple and explained multiple times in one sentence.
Well, I suspect that you're a Venusian sleeper agent working to prepare for the invasion of Earth. You probably think that's ridiculous, but it's cool because I added "I suspect" in there, so I don't need to support any aspersions I follow that phrase up with. It's just a suspicion, after all.
And to which position would I be so stubbornly clinging, anyway? Maybe I've missed something, but I don't recall you so much as attempting to rebut any of my claims (you merely declared that they don't matter, which is not the same thing as telling me why they are wrong or why they do not matter). It must take some real hardheadedness to stand in the face of such overwhelming force as zero arguments to the contrary. Truly, my arrogant persistence in holding to points that have been challenged not once, not twice, but never, is the stuff of legends. And yeah, I'm letting this drift away from the original topic of dinosaurs or whatever and onto the new topic of me and speculation about my disposition, but there's a point to that, which is to remind you, in case you missed it: you didn't actually argue with the things I said about biology, etymology, history, scientific naming conventions, or any of that stuff. You didn't say I was wrong. You said it didn't matter. You didn't say
why it doesn't matter. You just dismissed it all. You're entitled to do that if you're so inclined, but then, so can I. It's a zero-sum game.
So, does everyone agree that erattaing the Pygmy Allosaur to be a lixard was an oops moment for WoTC Magic division?
I'd guess that the individuals responsible for the change were perfectly aware that dinosaurs aren't lizards, but decided that the backlash of some nerdrage at the change was outweighed by the greater good of consolidating creature types. They drew on the historical misunderstanding of dinosaurs as reptilian, and chose the reptilian creature type that they thought fit the best (not a snake because it has legs, and not a crocodile because it lives on land). That's complete speculation on my part. I think it's a good guess, but for all I know, they threw a dart at a board with creature types on it an Pygmy Allosaurus' dart landed on "lizard."