dinos and bipeds

[Bring4th_Austin]

I also think Ra could have interpreted Don's question very literally, especially given their explication on evolution. Bipedal simply means standing on 2 legs. There were many dinosaurs which were bipedal. There were also smaller mammals which primarily used two legs, but not in the same way as humans (think hopping rodents, etc.)

well wouldn't it be kind of douchy of Ra to not mention that bipedal means dino? also, coexistence implies non-dino bipedal.

I think their grasp on language and how Don communicated was very unique, and sometimes the subtleties implied in the way Don communicated. Whether they didn't make such clarifications out of innocent misunderstanding, or due to the Law of Confusion, or to "be kind of douchy", who knows. There are other points in the material where Ra, if they perceived the heart of Don's words, could have made clarifications to what might be misunderstood, but instead remained true to the literal words. There were other points where they did make those subtle clarifications. It's hard to say one way or the other.

And I do think that Don's question implies non-dinosaur bipedal, my question is whether or not Ra picked up on, and also intended, that implication. It's possible, but I wouldn't say that for sure.