Lord Flame Stryke wrote:
> Also, I don't consider dragons to be mythological to begin with.....
I didn't say "mythological". I said they were *in* myths, which they are.
They are not "out there" in the same way that mundane species are; there
is no fossils, no Linnaean taxonomy, no stuffed ones in museums. From
what you lot have told me, you do not believe because of experiences
that most people have, but because of the experiences *you* have.
Reading about them in textbooks, seeing them on nature do***entaries,
watching them in zoos, and other conventional evidence, is not what
tells you that there are dragons, or that you are dragons.
"Mythological" is the wrong word here, but treating them as just another
species seems more insane than this newsgroup usually is.
I don't *think* I disagreed with you there. What I am denying is really
very specific and much more oriented in the objectivity direction than
is usually appropriate for this group, and I think not contradicted by
what you believe. If not, then either:
a] I am saying something more general than I mean, or
b] PIX PLZ :-P
--
Simon Richard Clarkstone:
s?m?n_cl?rkst?n?@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"August 9 - I just made my signature file. Its only 6 pages long.
I will have to work on it some more." -- _Diary of an AOL User_
|
