I don't see why you should be confused Caped Crusader. I thought it was obvious the pic I posted was in response to rednekkhikkchikk's post as she posted a reference to a skull with both baby and adult teeth. You're chastising me by saying I need a refresher course in responding to posts because I didn't quote her post with my response of the picture. I didn't see you make a public response to her because she didn't quote the OP when she posted her post. It was obvious to me she was responding to the OP, just as it was obvious the pic I posted was in response to her. Now I must ask you, why did you signal me out and ignore her? I've been posting on this site since early 2004, and not once have I seen in this forum or any other forums I frequent such a rule. Perhaps the new ownership should make a post of the new rules in which they want participants here to follow.
I TRULY was curious, as there was only an IMAGE of a SKULL with NO Explanation.
I just thought you weren't aware that you could do this to tell a story and NOT just rely on a picture.
MY SINCEREST APOLOGY if you took that the WRONG way my Friend
In Skeptics.SE, a question regarding the skulls of children arose. Depicting a scary skull where the permenent teeth are "hidden" inside the jaws and the milk teeth are in the their place.
After all milk teeth fall out, and the permanent teeth "rise", do the holes left by them filled up, or do we go around with holes in our jaws?
"CLICK" The LINK Below to read the rest of the story