"Simon Richard Clarkstone" <s.r.clarkstone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ApadnZDCsMPVNpbVnZ2dnUVZ8t7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
I disagree with your terminology. To me, the term "mythological" refers
to
something that is known to most people because it frequently appears in
myths, whether it actually exists or not; whereas the term "mythical"
refers
to something that exists *only* in myths. By this logic, calling dragons
"mythical" around a dragon 'Kin would probably be insulting, whereas
"mythological" should not be.
YMMV
--
Rhainor
DC2.D~ Gm L~ W~ T~ Pvfwlt Sks,wk Cre Bfl A N~ M- O H--- $~ Fc/f/j R+++
Ac++
J(r~v+) S~ U* I# V Tc~[networking] E~
|
