TGS Full Comment Room

Add Comment | Previous Week | Text-Only Comment Room | Comment Room Information

TGS WebSite | TGS MirrorSite | Current Episode

lain: "where do you live?"
In British Columbia, near the Vancouver area.

Mooncat: "Chibi alert. Goliath and Demona."
Aw, that's so addorable! ^-^
"*evil kitty laugh* Bwah ha ha haaaaaaaaaah!!!"
I'm thinking of that part in Emperor's New Groove where what's-her-name gets turned into a kitten and does an evil laugh that sounds totally obserd.

silvadel: "I wouldnt have had to do it in two messages if there were a way of changing color in mid-message."
I've never see a board/forum that supported multi-coloured text.
Except the for the MSN Community forums. -_-;
You could do multi-coloured text if this room supported HTML though.
Aria (The Insane) Nightshadow
Monday, February 16, 2004 05:35:04 AM
IP: 216.113.222.87

Vinnie<Mooncat:<Chibi alert. Goliath and Demona.>AAARRRGGGHHH!!!! I'm melting I'm melting! The pictures killing me. >

Thats nothing. Ever tried reading Frodo/Faramir mpreg slash? Now thats just disgusting. Though I wonder if there is any gargoyles mpreg slash.
Question
Monday, February 16, 2004 03:05:45 AM
IP: 144.92.164.199

Mooncat:<Chibi alert. Goliath and Demona.>AAARRRGGGHHH!!!! I'm melting I'm melting! The pictures killing me.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, February 16, 2004 02:10:53 AM
IP: 66.103.238.102

Mooncat: I don't think it's meant as a parody of white supremacist xenophobic attitudes, but a dig at positive discrimination. It seems like there's no difference in the criteria except that it's "white only" and not "ethnic minorities" only. The moral point is one that's highly anti-discrimination, if anything.
Ed
Monday, February 16, 2004 02:07:12 AM
IP: 131.111.8.103

Leo "AAAAAAAAAAA!!!! It's a Power Puff Goliath!!! " --

*evil kitty laugh* Bwah ha ha haaaaaaaaaah!!!

Caboose "Why and how is that cute?!? <Shudders and tries to keep from gouging his own eyes out>"

*even more evil kitty laugh* Bwah ha ha haaaaaaaaaah!!!

Well, I found it cute before posting, but your pain and suffering somehow makes it even sweeter *^_^* yahhhh!!!! *happy kitty*

All Whites Award -- hmmm... An interesting thing is even a little black blood makes you black in the eyes of racially sensitive people, but you are only considered "white" if there is a complete lack of any other bloodline. To be considered part of an ethnic group you could have only one parent, or a grand parent or even some evidence of ancestry of that group, but even though I have a lot of "white" blood on my mother's side, I'm not considered "white".

I when I was 12 I had a guy chase after me when I left a public bus to ask if I was Iranian. I have no clue why, he didn't look Iranian so I'm fairly certain it wasn't for a nice reason. All my life I've had people ask me "what are you" because I'm a mix of ethnic lines I confuse a lot of people and it just skeeved some not to be able to pin me neatly into a little box. Growing up I've had people compliment me on how well I speak English, which I guess I should feel grateful about because it's the only language I do speak. :P

Someone, I think Green Baron? Asked if I was from the South. Well, I'm in Kansas, and it's as about as central as it gets in the continental (sp?) US. When I was 8 or 9 I had the lovely experience of having two older white boys throw rocks and dirt clods at me and my even younger brother as we walked home from school while they were shouting racial insults. Didn't know who they were, never saw them before or had any contact with them previously. It was just random violence and very racially oriented. We were walking home with two very white children, neighbors of ours, and they were not targeted. They were very frightened for myself and my brother though.

Now the boys who threw the rocks were only a few years older, perhaps 10 or 11-ish. One wonders where they learned to act with such hatred and violence, and only towards non-white targets. They'd be grown men today, in their 30s. Sometimes I wonder about them, and what they might be doing today and my blood chills.

"White Only" Awards... Meant as a parody by some, but what robs if of comedy for so many is the fact that "White Only" mindset isn't a joke to a lot of people who've been the receiving end of racism, or to the people who really believe that things should be "White Only".

Moving on...

Did anyone score special goodies for Valentine's Day?

Meows
Mooncat
>^,,^<
Mooncat - [Clicky Clicky!!! Valentine!!!]
Monday, February 16, 2004 01:42:05 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Bud Clare> <<Pretty sure it's Soul Music>>: I'm pretty sure the towels are in there, as well as the plumbing.
<<Do you really think I'm kind enough for that?>>: You don't have to be kind, just incredibly aroused by my undeniable sexiness.

Leo> <<Student Group Offers Whites-Only Award>>: I like how the guy in charge of the group recieved a minority scholorship himself. And there should have been some mention of Michael Jackson with that bleaching thing.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:41:24 PM
IP: 68.37.159.199

Z> Yeah, I know why they decided that. I did join TGS a few months after it formed. Still on the staff. Just saying if there was one thing I'd change...

But yeah, for the most part I do like the Angela-Gwenyvere story-line.
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, February 15, 2004 10:56:19 PM
IP: 216.179.1.18

Leo: I actually think that idea's kind of amusing. I mean, if universities and other organizations can get away with making scholarships available soley to minorities or women, why can't a student group make fun of the policy by offering something only whites can get?
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Sunday, February 15, 2004 07:58:06 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

The following is pure opinion and speculation and in no way represents the stance of the TGS staff on the matter:

Greg - <Biological parentage means nothing... and in my opinion, having the staff change that in the future was a mistake.>

I would imagine that most people agree with you, but, like Hardwing said, it certainly created the possibility for a great storyline between Angela and Gwen, which thus filtered down into their relationships and interactions with other gargoyles, which provided still more interesting happenings. My guess would be that the TGS staff felt that these positive consequences and potential plotlines were worth that change to the gargoyle culture and habit.

Again, this is just speculation. As for my opinion on whether the change to their culture was worth the good storylines...well...I'm torn on the matter. I'd have to give it more thought.

Peace
Z
Sunday, February 15, 2004 07:06:59 PM
IP: 67.67.120.140

I hate bringing this topic back up, but I found this article amusing.

"Student Group Offers Whites-Only Award"

Click my name.

Leo - [<-Student Group Offers Whites-Only Award]
Sunday, February 15, 2004 07:00:52 PM
IP: 68.231.241.236

Greg Bishansky>>
I think so, too. I mean what differs the gargoyles of the future from humans?

Greg wrote that even Angela and Broadway would handle it more the gargoyle way than anything else with her children.

Naturally this wouldn't allow the good storyline between Angela and Gwen.
Hardwing - [hardwing]
The Ruhr, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Sunday, February 15, 2004 05:09:34 PM
IP: 80.143.204.41

Silvadel> ::hugs:: I know how you feel. I once had capital gains tax on a mutual fund that had to be re-invested every year, and I liquidated only to be sniped at by my motehr who tried to find ways to make me spend the money to get back at me.

I responded to the taxes by performing a Keynes-death in the CR :)

BTW, have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? I just finished Part II of it and I actually find it an enjoyable read. I think you'd like it.
Green Baron - [greenbaron@hotmail.com]
Sunday, February 15, 2004 09:13:29 AM
IP: 220.73.165.139

And yes I wouldnt have had to do it in two messages if there were a way of changing color in mid-message... The stock gain on the comcast disney thing (not that I would want comcast stock -- good time to sell) was a happy thing and deserved the light blue... The government taking my money was an angry unhappy thing and needed the red... Of course this will go in a more neutral yellow...

It being 3:30 my mind is in that state anyway -- I should be sleepizzzzzzzzzz
silvadel
Sunday, February 15, 2004 03:33:11 AM
IP: 24.225.133.251

The only annoying thing is that the government will take $700 of that $2500... What did they do to deserve that???

Not like they would give me $700 if it went down instead...
silvadel
Sunday, February 15, 2004 03:28:45 AM
IP: 24.225.133.251

And to think -- I bought about $3,000 worth of Disney stock back in August... With all of the takeover talk I decided to sell it now for $5,500.... Stocks seem too high right now anyway and the takeover is now already priced in...
silvadel
Sunday, February 15, 2004 03:26:44 AM
IP: 24.225.133.251

Mooncat -> Why and how is that cute?!? <Shudders and tries to keep from gouging his own eyes out>
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Sunday, February 15, 2004 02:39:12 AM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Mooncat:<<Chibi alert. Goliath and Demona.>>
AAAAAAAAAAA!!!! It's a Power Puff Goliath!!!

Dezi/Bud-Clare: Re Dr. Mendoza.
I got this from the StarTrek.com "character Biography" page. He was played by Castulo Guerra. (Click my name for the short character bio)

Leo - [<-click]
Sunday, February 15, 2004 01:55:28 AM
IP: 68.231.241.236

In honor of Valentines Day, a little "deviation" of mine. Chibi alert. Goliath and Demona. URL below, also can click my name.
http://www.deviantart.com/view/5279107/

Pure Fluff. I was tired today :P

mc

Mooncat
Sunday, February 15, 2004 01:38:34 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Better for it to go off on a high note than for it to become a shadow of its former self like Buffy Seasons 7.
Question
Sunday, February 15, 2004 01:22:06 AM
IP: 144.92.164.199

I forgot to mention, in case anyone hasn't heard... Angel's been cancelled. Bastards.
Bud-Clare
Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:41:46 AM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Gside> <<Is it Soul Music or one of the others?>>
Pretty sure it's Soul Music.

<<And you're not going to take pity on me?>>
Do you really think I'm kind enough for that?
_______________
Lady Mystic> <<I've got 3 months to get my blood pressure levels within the mid-normal range or else I'll be prescribed medication.>>
Eek. Good luck.
______________________
Dezi> *sighs* I can't believe how much time I just wasted. For TNG, I found reference to a Dr. Mendoza, and there was a Captain Paul Rice (played by Marco Rodriguez). I remember a woman in a yellow uniform, first or second season, but I can't remember her name or what episode she's in (or if she really existed). There weren't too many, but there were definitely some. Besides, there are shows other than star trek. ;)
Bud-Clare
Sunday, February 15, 2004 12:40:22 AM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Lain> <<EXACTLY!>>: I thought as much. Hey, wait a minute. How'd thost censored tags replace CENSORED, CENSORED, and CENSORED? What, again? Oh well, I guess it'll have to remain a surprise.
<<aww, i love you, gside>>: Only because I give you hints on how to torture Gunjack after you have a fight. How you doing on tatting the lace for the firing pin's bra?

Dezi> <<His profound thought for the day?
That in the future, for some reason, there are no Mexicans>>: I fully believe such ponderances are actually more profound than a second look at them judges.

Na zdorov'ya
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:42:33 PM
IP: 68.37.159.199

Aw, man, a whole day's thought down the drain for my dad! Guess I'll have to send him a Rubix cube. ;)
Dezi
Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:11:04 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

Dezi:<>

I seem to remember a engineer named "Rodriguez", a Lieutennant I think. I not sure if it was the original series or "Next Gen" (leaning toward the original series)I'm sure there are others but that's the only name I remember at the moment. :)
Leo
Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:50:53 PM
IP: 68.231.241.236

Ok, let's narrow the parameters here. How, about Star Trek only, as Star Wars was set long long ago in a galaxy far far away.
Dezi
Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:37:00 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

Hmmm. Interesting. But I do think it's cool when we read, like say Dark Ages, and the writers describe a gargoyle and it seems oddly familiar to one we already know and love. It just makes a little coolness in a hint hint kinda way. *shrugs*

Anyway, I just got a call from my dad. This is what war does to people. His profound thought for the day?
That in the future, for some reason, there are no Mexicans (he also included all other hispanics, latinos and people of Spanish decent). Why, you might ask? Because in all those futuristic tv shows (Star Trek, Star Wars...) They never had a latino guy. As my dad put it, heck, they had a Scottish guy, a French guy, never a hispanic guy. Not even the poor guy in every Trek episode in the red shirt that was sent off in the other direction only to be attacked and killed. So my dad came to the conclusion that between now and the time setting of those shows, something bad must have happened and that's why there are no Hispanics left. He has now declared his mission in Iraq to be to protect his people!!! :). I told him he has too much time to think. But on the other hand, I couldn't think of one Hispanic guy on Star Trek either....and I was surprised no one had thought of it before. So what do you guys think? (and the 2nd in command from ST Voyager doesn't count because his character was supposed to be Native American).

Well, it was a happy thought anyway, and he cheered me up. I may be having surgery on Monday and am not looking forward to it. :(
Dezi
Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:20:18 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

HARD-WING> Yes, those were Demona's parents in the way the entire older generation were Demona's parents. Goliath's parents, Othello's, Desdemona's, Iago's, etc.

Biological parentage means nothing... and in my opinion, having the staff change that in the future was a mistake.
Greg Bishansky
Saturday, February 14, 2004 09:34:34 PM
IP: 216.179.1.19

Hello!

I was just interest in one point which hadn't become clear in the fic "Alliances", tell me was the second to the time when the alliance was made indeed Demona's mother? And, second question, was the leader her father?
Hardwing - [hardwing@web.de]
The Ruhr, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Saturday, February 14, 2004 08:53:20 PM
IP: 80.143.196.21

In honor of St. Valentine's Day, here's a pic of Brooklyn and Sata courtesy of the talented Briana Garcia.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/5267185/
Spike
Saturday, February 14, 2004 04:47:06 PM
IP: 209.30.77.87

Hi you guys,
First time I visit the Comment Room, nice to see that after 10 years there still quit a lott of Gargoyle-addicts.
I didn't know that the're new designs for the Bad-Guys-characters, or else I would've drawn them differently.
Could someone describe their new outfits?
(Sorry, my English is not that good)
Thanks Ronald

Ronald - [ronald12345@hotmail.com]
X, X, The Netherlands
Saturday, February 14, 2004 08:23:46 AM
IP: 217.120.2.147

oh, i forgot to add this. lynati was nice enough to let me put up some cat pictures on her site temporarily. there was a problem with developing the film, which is why theres an annoying green line through all the cat pics. the other film, with the gun pics, came out fine. cant win em all.
http://lynativerse.artchicks.org/LainTemp/
or clicky.
lain
Saturday, February 14, 2004 05:32:08 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

arie>> <<Be nice if I had someone I could go with>>
where do you live?

gside>> <<You mean like how CENSORED would happen to CENSORED during the CENSORED of the season?>>
EXACTLY!! ;)
<<Sometimes by ignoring someone's posting style completely. Maybe that's why I don't get many resoponses>>
aww, i love you, gside :)
lain
Saturday, February 14, 2004 04:30:13 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

DPH> <<as long this private school doesn't discriminate in admissions, who cares?>>: Depends on whether you think de facto segregation is better than de jure.

Lain> <>: And I have a couple incompletes. Evil laugh.
<<the character designs? notsomuch. plot? ooooh yes>>: You mean like how CENSORED would happen to CENSORED during the CENSORED of the season?

Aria> <<The whole discussion on gargoyle physiology is fascinating. Shame it's so scattered across this multi-scrolling page of endless chatter and debate>>: Stay around here much and you'll get used to picking out the bits you find interesting. Sometimes by ignoring someone's posting style completely. Maybe that's why I don't get many resoponses.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Friday, February 13, 2004 11:54:35 PM
IP: 68.37.159.199

DPH: "Hmm. I thought the requirement of entrance into this room of giving up your sanity."
Isn't that the case for every descussion room?
The reason why it's writen like that is because I either go by Aria_The_Insane or Aria Nightshadow. The former being born on Battle.net during my Diablo 1 days, the latter, a last name, chosen for my persona when I RP.
Which doesn't happen that often anymore.

Vashkoda: "That's what driving buddies/roommates are for."
Be nice if I had someone I could go with.

Did I mention I don't like traveling?
I'm a pessimist by nature, so sue me. :P

The whole discussion on gargoyle physiology is fascinating. Shame it's so scattered across this multi-scrolling page of endless chatter and debate.
Aria (The Insane) Nightshadow
Friday, February 13, 2004 07:45:45 PM
IP: 216.113.222.96

DPH>> <<Who in heck is "Ronyn Canmore"? I know of "Robyn Canmore" but not "Ronyn Canmore">> have a look at your keyboard. you will notice the "n" is right next to the "b". therefore one might assume that it is a typo.

lady mystic>> <<Keep in mind that these images still need to be voted upon by the general public, which includes any TGS staffers, before they will be implemented into the CR>>
yesh, of course.
<>
i do have them all, but they are in various states of completion. as mentioned privately, i will forward them to you when they are finished. (we are still mucking a little with the designs... matrix is staying mostly the same, the robyn design has changed but that was released in the last avmists (though not in colour) dingo still needs some serious help and fang and yama are.... mostly finished, i think... plus the fact that not all of them will remain the same for the entire run of the series...)
<<If there is a source (rough sketches or written descriptions) for the "Bad Guys" character designs, please let me know where I might find them as I am not aware of what the re-design character models look like>>
there isnt. but i could put one together and mail it to you, if you want.
<<(Although, I am fully aware that the character designs may need to be kept out of the public eye.)>>
the character designs? notsomuch. plot? ooooh yes ;)
<<In the mean time, what are your suggestions regarding this issue?>>
well... i guess i dont really have any. ;) i wasnt sure whether you knew the designs werent accurate or not. you never answered my email way back so i wasnt sure even if you got it. in any case, nobody else in here knows that the designs are not accurate so i guess it still counts as a warning that, though they are "bad guys pictures", they arent "TGS bad guys spoiler pictures". ;)

whit>> << (Came out better than the soon-to-be ex-bachelor, though; he puked in class today in the middle fo a lecture on hepatitis)>>
..oh dear.

damien>> <<am i dreaming or did i read somewhere on the site that the head of the illuminati (or another large group) was sir percival...>>
it wasnt on this site, no. probably you read that in "ask greg". please realize, however, that not everything read in "ask greg" is necessarily encorporated into TGS, either because we went in a different direction, or because that particular revelation had not yet been made.
<<can't wait to read the next few stories>>
have fun :)

question>> <<Is that how Dingo and Matrix work together in the Bad Guys leica thats shown every year at the gatherin?>>
not that i recall o.O... but i could be wrong. someone with a better memory?
<<Anyone reminded of that creature that bonded to Jay and later Alpha in MiB?>>
yes, actually.
lain
Friday, February 13, 2004 06:32:00 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

nevermind DUH it was in the ask greg files (so obviously it doesn't factor into the TGS)
or does it?
thanks!
Damien
Friday, February 13, 2004 06:12:12 PM
IP: 207.6.149.113

Bad Guys Group Pic> Is that how Dingo and Matrix work together in the Bad Guys leica thats shown every year at the gatherin? Anyone reminded of that creature that bonded to Jay and later Alpha in MiB?
Question
Friday, February 13, 2004 05:56:06 PM
IP: 144.92.164.199

<<Tharos - Tell me a place where you can display it where it means Southern Pride *and* racism isn't involved. The only place it could possibly mean Southern pride is in the South, but then Southern pride usually goes along with racism.

Caboose - Thanks for explaining to Tharos some of the history of the Civil War.

Tharos - I disagree. Southern pride started with large plantation owners who were supported by . . slaves. Sure they would entertain guests well, . . because they could afford to since they had slaves. >>

Jeez, sorry man... this is why I don't get into online arguments. And in fact, I DO know a thing or two about the Civil War. I got into this big racism discussion, and spent the last two days talking to my brother, who's in his last year of college as a history major, about it.

I think racism's wrong, too, so we're on the same side here. I just think that before the meaning was TOTALLY lost, the Confederate flag could be flown to represent pride in the Southern states, and not only racism (not EVERYONE in the South, or even the Confederate army, was a slave owner). The thousands of people living in the South were more than just slave-owning farmers, so the flag represented a whole way of life. Just like when people fly the American flag because they're proud to be American - it doesn't mean they're proud of everything America's ever done or stood for, but they're still proud of their country of birth.

Anyway, I'm not even having fun with this debate. I totally agree that the flag now means racism, so there we go.
Tharos - [r_u_ready3@hotmail.com]
Friday, February 13, 2004 04:10:48 PM
IP: 69.40.139.197

hi y'all
just finished season one of pendragon and starteding on the "second season"
** umm if you havn't read much of the tgs don't read this next part**

am i dreaming or did i read somewhere on the site that the head of the illuminati (or another large group) was sir percival...
i remeber reading something about the list of all the people still alive since athurian times (eg morgana arthur merlin percival percy's wife.. blah)
am i just crazy or what?

**** you can read now****
can't wait to read the next few stories.

Damien
Friday, February 13, 2004 04:04:27 PM
IP: 142.207.115.80

Garg phsyiology:
1)Know one ever said Severius was right about the energy absorbtion during stone sleep thing. It was just his hypothesis.
2)I think the 'stone' is actually calcium-based. College biology taught me that calcium-chlorid shells in molluscks and such have a 3 demensional molecular sturcture that is relitively as strong as most 'natural' and human-made hard stuff.
3)I believe stone sleep is triggered ENTIRELY by a biological clock. Which is why they can turn to stone indoors and such.
4)When the clocks hits morning, calcium is released from special organelles, as a result of this, the body starts producing a secondary compound. The second compound reaches critical mass just as sun goes down, ending stone sleep.
5)The biological clock can is subconsciously 'reset' if a gargoyle looks at the sky and notices it's different time of night then he/she thought. Looking at a clock would have the same effect.
6)The Earth's magnetic field might be involved wiht the biological clock.
7)If gargoyles have larger hearts and lungs, prehaps their other organs are smaller and/or positioned differently in the chest.
CKayote - [CKayote@worldnet.att.net]
Orlando, FL
Friday, February 13, 2004 02:04:17 PM
IP: 132.170.38.101

Don't have the energy to write much; I was at a bachelor party last night and my head is pounding. (Came out better than the soon-to-be ex-bachelor, though; he puked in class today in the middle fo a lecture on hepatitis)

But I'd love to help do something like that at the Gathering. My only comment would be either to make it a panel discussion, or to do something else to make it entertaining. Medical lectures aren't much fun unless the lecturer spices it up somewhat. If I can pull together a Sevarius costume or something...should be easy enough...hmm...:-)
But yeah, Yggdrasil, I'd be up for something like that.
Whitbourne
Friday, February 13, 2004 01:56:26 PM
IP: 156.34.87.140

*continuing from Last Ramble*

Lain - <it was an interesting discussion though, was it not?> Yes, it was interesting to see the points we agreed on and the points were strongly disagreed about. <(we were debating religion on IM and NOT in the CR... happy everyone?)> There are topics where it is better to discuss things on IM than in the CR.

Leo - <*is confused* > I was responding to Andrea (or is it Annie)'s comments about racial preferences. Anyways, to me, the confederate flag is a symbol of racism, which is what led to the short term need for racial preferences. In the South, among the older generation, this problem called 'racism' still exists and, unfortunately, is occasionally passed down to the next generation. Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 expressions that my dad has used which I consider racist. As long as that attitude of racism exists when it comes to admissions, there's a problem.

When some people wanted to set a private school up in an area where there was a school desegration lawsuit up, there were people trying to get the private school from becoming a reality because of how it would affect the balance of black/white students in the public schools. My thoughts are, as long this private school doesn't discriminate in admissions, who cares? (If this private school was set-up to be a whites only school, that's a different matter.)

Mooncat - Which part of the USA do you leave in? Down in the south, that's a real issue.

Patrick - <I'm sure from the context you either meant to type "I'm 110% in favor of ending racism" or "I'm 100% against racism."> that's right.

Aria (The Insane) Nightshadow - <(The Insane)> Hmm. I thought the requirement of entrance into this room of giving up your sanity.

Ray - <Are any tgs Staff profesional writers, or do any have profesional ambition?> professional writers, no. personal ambition, probably.

Tharos - Tell me a place where you can display it where it means Southern Pride *and* racism isn't involved. The only place it could possibly mean Southern pride is in the South, but then Southern pride usually goes along with racism.

Caboose - Thanks for explaining to Tharos some of the history of the Civil War.

Tharos - I disagree. Southern pride started with large plantation owners who were supported by . . slaves. Sure they would entertain guests well, . . because they could afford to since they had slaves.

I'd argue racism, for the most part is dead/dying and with each new generation, things improve. My dad has a couple of sayings that aren't exactly nice about African-Americans. I will not repeat them here.

By the time I'm 60, I would hope the need for affirmative action problems based on race would be gone.

The stupid moron was forbad me from leaving my home during Spring Break to visit friends. I wouldn't have left if my house wasn't cleaned up first. Oh well. This is bull. I'm willing to put my body through the pain and I'm sure that I could call in favors from my brother to take care of things while I'm gone. I help him a lot and, in turn, if I need a favor, I can count on him to help me. Isn't that what brothers who are good friends are for?
DPH
AR, USA
Friday, February 13, 2004 12:53:24 PM
IP: 161.31.105.198

kathy - I'd love to go this year, but it will depend on my job situation and money situation truly, truly. Driving from Kansas to Montreal isn't an option for me, so definitely it would take air fare. Cost of rooms I'm not as worried about because I'm sure I could find roomies, but having the days to do this and do it right if I'm working a new job (which is likely) could be terribly iffy.

But... it's not completely ruled out, just sort of very unlikely unless I get a sudden windfall or my employment situ becomes more gravy than gristle.

In the meanwhile I'll work on art and stuff *^_^* -- if I miss this year, I'll try extra extra hard to make it for 2005.

*dreaming of Gatherings past and future*
Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Friday, February 13, 2004 12:42:15 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Who in heck is "Ronyn Canmore"? I know of "Robyn Canmore" but not "Ronyn Canmore".
DPH
AR, USA
Friday, February 13, 2004 12:24:33 PM
IP: 161.31.105.198

lain: Keep in mind that these images still need to be voted upon by the general public, which includes any TGS staffers, before they will be implemented into the CR. I gladly welcome submissions of images that are more accurate to the re-designed "Bad Guys" character models. If there is a source (rough sketches or written descriptions) for the "Bad Guys" character designs, please let me know where I might find them as I am not aware of what the re-design character models look like. (Although, I am fully aware that the character designs may need to be kept out of the public eye.) In the mean time, what are your suggestions regarding this issue?
Lady Mystic
Friday, February 13, 2004 08:08:41 AM
IP: 68.250.42.61

lady mystic>> <<The original "Bad Guys" group portrait is courtesy of Ronald, as well. The new CR images entitled "Bad Guys," "Matrix & Dingo" in 2 versions, "Ronyn Canmore" and "Yama" can be viewed via the following page>> which is great except.. the person who drew them doesnt have any idea of how their characters have been re-designed for TGS, and they are therefore decidedly inaccurate.. : \
lain
Friday, February 13, 2004 05:59:45 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

***** TGS CR INFO UPDATES *****

ARCHIVE:

The 2004 Archive has been updated to include the weeks of January 5, 2004 through February 9, 2004, for a total of 4 new weeks.

>> http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/cr/archive/2004/
>> http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/cr/archive/frames.html

FULFILLED CR PIC REQUEST:

After much delay, I finally finished editing and making the popup pages regarding Ronald's pic request. The original "Bad Guys" group portrait is courtesy of Ronald, as well. The new CR images entitled "Bad Guys," "Matrix & Dingo" in 2 versions, "Ronyn Canmore" and "Yama" can be viewed via the following page.

>> http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/cr/other/new/

>> http://tgs.gargoyles-fans.org/cr/request_list.html

***** END TGS CR INFO UPDATES *****

In other news, and if anyone is interested, I recently found out that I have borderline high blood pressure. I've got 3 months to get my blood pressure levels within the mid-normal range or else I'll be prescribed medication. Great news to hear so soon before the wedding, which is in 4 months by the way.
Lady Mystic
Friday, February 13, 2004 05:43:52 AM
IP: 68.250.42.61

Kjay> Cool! I thought I remembered you.

Greg's already said that their bones aren't hollow.
Vash
Friday, February 13, 2004 12:37:18 AM
IP: 129.98.127.164

Vashkoda>Yep that's me in that pic!
Garg wings> It is possible for the wing bones to be hollow
if the material in them to contain a hard calcium-carbon compound to make up for the disavanges for the wings being
hollow?
kjay - [korimia.j.hall@us.army.mil]
fort bliss, tx
Friday, February 13, 2004 12:22:56 AM
IP: 172.165.245.134

Hey i haven't been lurking much lately so maybe this is old news, but....

COMCAST AND DISNEY????!!!!!

Now, Disney buying Comcast I could see. I wonder if there are a lot of Gargoyles fans in Comcast. At any rate, Disney has fallen far indeed if it can just be bought like that.

Click my name for the news article or go to:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/02/11/comcast.disney/index.html

later
Mecord - [<= clicky]
Friday, February 13, 2004 12:22:45 AM
IP: 129.123.104.8

Kjay> <>: But they bounce back too readily to be made of anything too brittle.

Yggdrasil> <<as well as theorize about things that have no possible scientific reasoning>>: Not too much theorizing if they can force Greg into it.

Lynati> <<Let�s have some cheering for him and the new archive in the works, shall we?>>: Hoorah, hoorah, hoorah.
<<it is more the *other( possibilities that I don�t know enough to speculate on>>: And it gets a bit iffy coming up with something new, as it has to grab oxygen easily, but not hold on to it too hard so it can be let off at the cells.
<>: You're just saying that last bit to make me feel better.
<<But thank you for making the former more clear>>: Not a problem, as long as it really was more clear.

Aria> <<Do you know how expensive it is to stay over there?>>: And I take it you don't get to play around with exchange rates.

Na zdorov'ya
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:55:09 PM
IP: 68.37.159.199

kjay> re: tolls/hotel> That's what driving buddies/roommates are for. Myself, I still haven't figured out if the timing will be right enough that I can go, but there are plenty of other fans in NY. Ask around. Btw, I forget, but were you the Angela in this pic?
Vashkoda
Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:52:19 PM
IP: 129.98.127.164

Gathering>(Is it expensive?)Yes and no. Take me for example. I've been to 3 gatherings newyork, florida, and texas. The NY gathering was no problem since I lived in ny
at the time and cost wasn't a problem. For the florida gathering I saved 500 dollars (in which I over estimated the cost and only needed 300 dollars. I had already paid for the hotel costs). 160 dollars was for gas(19 hour drive from NY) and the rest was for food and spending money. The texas Gathering was a little more expensive since I took a plane instead of driving, plus hotel costs.
Now the montreal gathering will be VERY costly for me for
I go, if I can get leave. First of all the transportion cost would range about 1120 dollars round trip from el paso texas to canada (A trip from tx to ny is $460 one way. A plane ticket is 500 dollars one way.). There is no
way in the world I'm going to make 2 1/2 day trip in one
swoop. So I'm going to a stop at a firend's house. Then I'm going to make a stop at my sister's house in brooklyn, and then drive the six hours from brooklyn to montreal. Plus I have to pay tolls. Then comes the hotal cost. $120
a night x3! Which comes out to 360 dollars. So my trip will now cost $1480. Not inculding spending money. I might just stay in the hotel for the first night and then sleep
at another hotel in New york for much cheaper making the
drive to the gathering. End the end the gathering will cost me about two weeks of leave and a big chunk of my money but it will be worth every dime.
kjay - [korimia.j.hall@us.army.mil]
fort bliss, tx
Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:38:07 PM
IP: 172.165.245.134

[Heh, they're gonna make a Simpsons movie.
Somebody shoot me. It hurts... ]
Thanks for the news! The Simpsons sure have sucked lately, but I'll always remember the good old mid-90's episodes.
Tharos
Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:35:38 PM
IP: 69.40.139.38

Patrick:<<"Be vewy, vewy quiet...">>

Cute. :)
Leo
Thursday, February 12, 2004 11:12:43 PM
IP: 68.231.241.236

Just back for a moment to post an interesting link.

"Be vewy, vewy quiet..."
Patrick - [<-- if WB and Disney merged?]
Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:51:14 PM
IP: 65.43.174.130

Mooncat > Supporting memberships are fully upgradable. Greg didn't differentiate, so I'm going to say Yes, supporting memberships count. (But live bodies are better).

Is a Gathering expensive? Sometimes, especially if you get hot and heavy into the auction. But rooms and rides can be shared. In fact, we recommend it. Buddying up only adds to the Gathering Experience. So come and enjoy a weekend in Montreal!

Aw, common, Moonie, you have to come. It won't be the same without you!
kathy
Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:44:38 PM
IP: 66.82.197.108

I've always been of the belief that if there's something worth doing that you truly want to do, you will find a way to do it. I've attended every Gathering, and not a single one of them has been within 500 miles of where I live. There are several others in the fandom who can say the same thing, including two I know of who travel from Europe every year to attend. So the way I see it, if you really want to be there... you will find a way.

Guandalug > Yay! I'm especially anxious to see the voting return to the archive. That will be a welcome thing for those of us who are feedback junkies. :)
Patrick
Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:11:19 PM
IP: 65.43.174.130

Heh, they're gonna make a Simpsons movie.

Somebody shoot me. It hurts...
Dezi - [<- Clickie for D'oh!]
Thursday, February 12, 2004 09:33:26 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

I'd love to go to the Gathering but there is a problem.
The one time it is actually in Canada, it's in Montreal. Do you know how expensive it is to stay over there? I can't afford it, so I wont be coming. Someone else might be determined enough to make it work, but I don't work like that.
The fact that it's on the other side of the continent doesn't help much either. :\

500 people attending the Gathering.
How many attended the Gathering all the other years? Did it top half that? I suggest doing some research to see how many people came to each Gathering, where each was held, the cost of travel and staying there, etc.
Once you have statistics, then you can figure out whether or not 500 people attendance is possible to attain.
Aria (The Insane) Nightshadow
Thursday, February 12, 2004 09:31:30 PM
IP: 216.113.222.55

Guandalug : [archive maintenance and be-smacking of the archive abusers] Yaye for Guan! Let�s have some cheering for him and the new archive in the works, shall we?

Sydney: good to hear another voice in this. : ) (especially one that agrees with me, heh.)

Yggdrasil: But except for the egg-laying, Gargoyles seem to be closer to mammals than reptiles or fish�they�re like the six-limbed version of a monotreme, only with nipples.
And, you know, other differences. ; )
So, do you think gargies have �em and still actively use them, or don�t have them at all?

Any other suggestions about alterations in organ design, what they might have that we don�t, what they might lack that we have, or just anything that functions differently?
(And I�m asking all y�alls following this conversation, not just Yggdrasil, so feel free to throw in!)

Gside: [hemoglobin] I knew some of that, not all, but it is more the *other( possibilities that I don�t know enough to speculate on. But thank you for making the former more clear.

[I'd say rib bone size don't depend only on heart size.] me either, I just kinda segued into that�if both the heart and ribs are bigger, then the rib cage should be bigger, and yes, its because you�d want there to be less weight in an airborne creature that they might be more lightweight�but in the opposite sense, you might want a stronger construction to protect them (�greater resiliency� ) so they possibly could be wider.

But I have to once again toss in my �the wings are not the main form of transportation� argument�the wings are smaller than both legs and arms, they aren�t structured to fly (�we only glide, etc.�) �they�ve got more of a built-in hang glider system than anything else it could be compared to. I think the socket of the wings where it hits the main shoulder blade (since process of elimination removed the possibility of it attaching anywhere else, and the bone is obviously not just free-floating amid the muscles of the back- it has to sit against *something*) rotates more forward, but doesn�t allow it to come to far back. They can cape them, close them, but they only open to a point before they lock. Probably a handful of degrees less than a right-angle to the spine, since we�ve seen they sit in that position pretty naturally while not open but not caped. In the same sense, they seem to be held fairly �upright� as a natural position when not caped, so one assumes they must be seated against more bone (or such) below as well. I mean, try walking around with your hands held above your head for a while�that�s not a natural position for us. And suddenly I am theorizing about wing construction instead of rambling about proof that they rely primarily on their legs, and all-fours on occasion, for movement, not gliding. �which seems fitting, now that I see what the other posts have been on�

[Since Gargs wings are alot like bat wings most likily they may be configured in the same fashion.]
They can�t be. The fingers aren�t rigid enough. Again, except noticeably in Kythera�s design. Look at it this way- can you bend your femur in its center? Any other bone in your body in its center, not where it joints to other bones?
Even a little?
Not so that its noticeable. And in gargoyles, its very noticeable that the fingers of the wing can move in such a manner. At least the ones we have seen. Now, I�m not saying that there aren�t those that have long thing bat-like phalanges in their wings; its certainly possible. I�m just saying none of the show�s characters, and most drawings of original characters, have an appearance that supports that theory.
Although yes, there were drawn more so like that at different times in animation, as well as in fan art. Just not enough to draw a solid conclusion of their construction, else we wouldn�t be arguing the point. ; )

As for being hollow, well, most of a bird�s body is such. They need to be in order to fly. Gargies don�t fly. And they obviously don�t have hollow bird-like bones in most of their anatomy, not with the damage they take on a daily basis. Bird bones break very, very easily; if gargoyles had hollow bones, they would shatter their hands when trying to punch through a wall, their enemies, or even just when digging their talons into brick to climb up a wall. It�s possibly the density does change in the wings, and if I�m right about the cartilage, well, that is a density change.
But I think the primary bones of the wing arm would need to again be stronger, more dense, to support the weight of the rest of the body while aloft. One would also assume that they had a lighter mass all around�maybe the bones themselves have something about their construction that makes them more strong, but lighter weight at the same time. Maybe the same applies to the muscles and the blood, tying into the whole �other means than hemoglobin� factor of oxygenating the blood. Unfortunately, we have again reached the point at which I am clueless to offer up a response to the �like what?� that follows. Or again, maybe it is �magic� that makes Gargoyles weigh less than their anatomy would if they were built like humans. But it's such an escapist solution...

[and the long "finger" part is mostly made up of many smaller jointed bones (if you look at a bat wing it's nothing but a modtified hand made for flight).]
I know, I have bat anatomy in my collective atlas. They were one of the first species I went after, for the very reason of the wings. And again, their modification is that the phalanges are longer. (and have webbing between them.) But they still only have *three*. And like I said yesterday, gargoyles would need far more jointed bones of a small size to give them the flexibility they have demonstrated, which is simply not that probable. All of their anatomy is basically the same as the basic structure of the rest of the animal kingdom, except for third set of limbs, and even those tend to look like human arms. Or bird wings. It�s less likely that they have managed to sprout more digits than it is that the wings are made up of some other material that allows them the same motion.
[Gargie wing span] �yeah�I think both the fingers and the membrane are somewhat retractable (which I *think* would be easier with cartilage) as an �in-story� explanation for Greg Weisman�s admitted �cheat� that they had drawn the wings smaller when caped or not extended for gliding.

Ray: [About Garg. wings. One time I was thinking about how they were able to fold the wings like cloaks, and the obvious conclussion to that was that they were like spines]
Which is, again, just not that likely, at least not if they are made out of bone.

[Another thing that I considered was that they could be able to harden or soften their wing ribs]
*blinks* See? I�m not the only one who came to that conclusion. Hee!
[Gargoyles do flap their wings, you can see it in 'City of Stone, part one' when they suprise those terrorists. ]
They raise and lower to adjust for wind currents and such while gliding, and may make a flapping motion to give an extra push, but they don�t need to flap to keep themselves aloft. And they are physically incapable of flapping to take off the ground, or even opening their wings and letting the air lift them aloft from the ground like Pteradons could. They are too heavy, and lack the muscle power.

[ Are any tgs Staff profesional writers, or do any have profesional ambition?]
At present? Uh�that�s the thing. Most leave the staff if/when they start writing professionally, because they often lack time to work on the project. I think right now the only �professional� writer is Robby, who works for a comic company�I�m not sure about the others still on staff. I�m a creative writing major (not that that says much, I�ve seen some creative writing majors that couldn�t write their way out of a wet paper bag) and wouldn�t mind being published, but that is not how I intend to make a living; I�m primarily a designer and a ceramic sculpturist.

[<<along with Greg's professed ignorance in biology>>: I know, force him to attend a basic bio seminar at a Gathering. With joint presenters Whitbourne (macro) and Yggdrasil (micro). <MI could make this happen if you guys are interested and Yggdrasil and Whitbourne (or anyone else) would be willing to present it.>]

Dare I suggest it�Theoretical Gargoyle Biology 101?

If you do go for it, you can use my visual aides� ; )

Lynati - [Lynati_1@hotmail.com]
Thursday, February 12, 2004 07:44:53 PM
IP: 66.140.87.160

*peeks back in for a second*
Oh, and Dellmilon, if you're reading this - sorry, but i 'accidentally' erased your account while removing that lonely file you uploaded as a story. If you want to publish something worth reading - sign up again.
*smiles puckishly and disappears again*
Guandalug la'Fay - [guandalug@gargoyles-fans.org]
Thursday, February 12, 2004 06:35:33 PM
IP: 145.254.105.104

Leo> *eyes the GFA current stories list* Indeed. And guess what..... that stories gone now. No, the GFA is NOT a playground for spammers and suchlike.

If the author 'Dellmilon' wants to explain why he uploaded such a crap (mostly binary stuff - wonder how he got pastthe file recognition code in the GFA) - my email is right down there.

*growls*

Oh, and for all those who wonder about it - the voting ability will be back - together with an all-new, overhauled website and a few more features. Stay tuned..... and don't worry, the stories will stay, as will all informations linked with them. I'm going to overhaul the website, not the archive.

*poofs, still growling*

Guandalug la'Fay - [guandalug@gargoyles-fans.org]
Thursday, February 12, 2004 06:27:40 PM
IP: 145.254.105.104

Kathy - re Greg spilling the beans if 500 register, does that mean only warm bodies, or will "there in spirit" memberships count too? This might move me to send in a membership even if I don't physically attend :D

meows
Mooncat
>^,,^<
mooncat
Thursday, February 12, 2004 06:23:26 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Caboose, i've never seen or been in a flame war either! hehe

after all these damn years, if 500 ppl register we'll learn what was whispered to fox? as much as i want to know, is as much as i don't, it'll more than likely raise 9thousand more questions... angel sucked last night. exploding chickens, backwards monkies!!!
JacKaL
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:52:40 PM
IP: 152.163.252.196

Greetings;

Lynati: The appendix may be a vestigial element in humans, but it does play a substantial role in other mammals. In many herbivores (rodents, and some ruminants), it is an elongated pouch where an additional enzymatic digestion of cellulose takes place. As to whether it has any role in gargoyles, I think it would depend on their diet. If the diet of the gargs is still heavily based upon foods with a high cellulose content, then they should still have an appendix, or something to that effect, to aid their digestion (appendix, multiple stomachs ect). If however they have fully moved to an omnivorous, relying on more starchy foods, they it may have become vestigial. My comparative animal phys classes were a long time ago, but I don't remember seeing anything like the appendix in reptiles or fish, so the appearance of the appendix may be restricted to mammals. If this is the case, gargoyles may never have had them in the first place.

Kathy: The bio talk sounds interesting. I'll drop you an email with my vitals.

Whitbourne: Well, what do you think? Shall we try to educate the masses ;-) (as well as theorize about things that have no possible scientific reasoning)? Drop me an e-mail sometime and we'll try to put something together (and for once we actually have time to procrastinate).

Yggdrasil - [eng050599@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:34:54 PM
IP: 66.185.84.203

Taleweaver >>

<< Kaito> I only had a chance to skim your Tryanny of the Majority bit. >>

If you want a serious, respectful response, please, at least put in the effort to spell the name right. It only has 6 letters.

<< Major disagreement there. >>

That's fine. Just email me privately. Everyone else seems to have moved on.

Gathering 2004 >> Fox and Titania, eh? Damn. We have to get 500 people now. Fire up that recruitment drive!

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:28:50 AM
IP: 208.204.155.241

Vashkoda> <<along with Greg's professed ignorance in biology>>: I know, force him to attend a basic bio seminar at a Gathering. With joint presenters Whitbourne (macro) and Yggdrasil (micro).

I could make this happen if you guys are interested and Yggdrasil and Whitbourne (or anyone else) would be willing to present it.

If you are, drop me an email via my "VOLUNTEER" address at gatheringofthegargoyles.com and we'll work something on to the schedule.

Also - you've got roughly two weeks left to enter the PHOENIX GATE ANTHOLOGY CONTEST. Remember this is open to WRITERS AND ARTISTS BOTH. DEADLINE is MARCH 1st.

Final Also - GREG WEISMAN has volunteered that he will FINALLY reveal what TITANIA WHISPERED to FOX if we have Gathering attendance of 500 REGISTRATIONS.

So sign up if you haven't already and invite a friend (or three) to come with you to Montreal this August.
kathy
Thursday, February 12, 2004 09:33:56 AM
IP: 66.82.192.1

About Garg. wings. One time I was thinking about how they were able to fold the wings like cloaks, and the obvious conclussion to that was that they were like spines, in the part that leads up to the joint that would be considered the tumb on a bat. Another thing that I considered was that they could be able to harden or soften their wing ribs, there is an obvious parallel to real anatomy, but I would rather people think of it themselves.
PS: Gargoyles do flap their wings, you can see it in 'City of Stone, part one' when they suprise those terrorists.

Question: Are any tgs Staff profesional writers, or do any have profesional ambition?
Ray
Thursday, February 12, 2004 04:02:04 AM
IP: 212.117.127.210

Garg wings>I think that the wings are hollow like birds wings which are strong and light wieght. If the wings had nothing but multijointed segments like a tail dislocation and stablity will be a major issue. Since Gargs wings are alot like bat wings most likily they may be configured in the same fashion. Also because a gargoyle glides and not fly they don't need to make a constant flapping motion so their wings(if they did, they would need a wishbone as in birds) don't need to be very flexible except in certain places where a mixture of cartilage and/or joints might be a greater use. The size of a Gargoyle also has to be factored. A bat is a small animal and can get a way with wings being totally made up of small bones. A Gargoyle on
the other had can not. Therefore a good possiblity is that a Gargoyle has long hollow bones for the "arm" part of their wings and the long "finger" part is mostly made up
of many smaller jointed bones (if you look at a bat wing it's nothing but a modtified hand made for flight). Also
because of a Gargoyle's size their wing span have to be MASSIVE just to keep them up in the air. Take Goliath for
example. His real world wing span must be like 14-21 feet
(If you look at the wings of a glider, you'll know what I'm
talking about).
kjay - [korimia.j.hall@us.army.mil]
fort bliss, tx
Thursday, February 12, 2004 01:23:54 AM
IP: 172.138.10.119

Hello and salutations all,
Kaito> I only had a chance to skim your Tryanny of the Majority bit. Major disagreement there. You over simplified several complex systems to make your point. I'd like to get into it this weekend if the thread is still alive. One point that illustrates this is Constitutional rights. It wasn't a general agreed upon notion. John Marshall Supreme Court established that. On other points, human systems, political and cultural operate on more variables than just who is the majority. As I said, I'd love to discuss this when I have time.
Taleweaver
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:56:25 AM
IP: 207.69.137.8

Question> <<They should just have another comment room for political comments and debate>>: One of the things I like about this place is that there are no separate areas for separate topics.
<<discussions on whether Asians are aliens>>: Waita Uziga must be.

Lain> <>: And I'm just saying you're not fooling anyone anything about us.
<<this debate (and caboose in private, yay caboose) has yoinked me out of the depths of the quasi-suicidal depression i have been in for the past several weeks>>: Are you sure it wasn't the oral sex?

Tharos> <<the Emancipation Proclamation (which didn't "free the slaves" in the sense most people think it did)>>: It freed the slaves in the Confederacy, who weren't listening to what DC was telling them anymore.

Lynati> <<although I�m rather lost on the hemoglobin vs. other molecule argument>>: Each hemoglobin can only hold a set number of oxygen, which every cell needs to live and make energy. In order to provide more oxygen to more cells and/or make more energy, you need to move around more hemoglobin. That can be done by making them move faster or move more of them in a large tube. Or you could just bypass that completely and use something that can hold on to more oxygen at once. As a side note to confuse things even more, do you know why carbon monoxide poisoning is so bad? It's because it bonds permanently to the hemoglobin, suffocating your cells even if you're breathing plenty of oxygen.
<<if the heart and lungs are both larger in comparison to a human, the rib cage needs to be larger...are the ribs the same size?>>: I'd say rib bone size don't depend only on heart size. Generally, I'd want to say smaller to lessen wight on an airborn species, but then I'd also want to say larger to account for greater resiliancy (or maybe it doesn't matter as much because internal injuries would be taken care of by stone sleep before they got bad).

Vashkoda> <<along with Greg's professed ignorance in biology>>: I know, force him to attend a basic bio seminar at a Gathering. With joint presenters Whitbourne (macro) and Yggdrasil (micro).

Whitbourne> <>: I think she meant being bent at midknucke (being hit or knocked against a surface back first) and not being broken.

Bud Clare> <<So, essentially, normal>>: No, beyond even that.
<>: Is it Soul Music or one of the others? Death's towel is one solid (yet fluffy *looking*) object fused to the towelrod.
<<That's what we've been saying all along>>: And you're not going to take pity on me?

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:23:25 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

Caboose> <<I've never seen an actual flame war>>
They're considerably more impressive than this past week has been.

<<Never been involved in a heated internet argument before--total newbie to the whole posting scene. Sorry.>>
'S'okay. I just get grumpy because there _always_ one or two people saying exactly what you said, every single time. It's nearly always a different person, but the theme is the same, and it gets aggravating, year after year... (I'm tempted to tell you about the religious discussion that we had in the S8 comment room years ago, but I need to go to bed. It's one of my most treasured flamewar memories, because I've always been a sucker for irony and that one just oozed it. Maybe tomorrow...or maybe someone else can tell you about it.)
_____________
DPH> <<GXB's post was about enforcing an earlier decision.>>
No, it wasn't. The conversation that Greg was going to end was only tangentially related the conversation that Aaron had ended. All pre-existing threads of conversation ended, and new ones began.

<<Putting the shoe on the other foot changes things.>>
I can think of a few places I'd like to put the shoe right now.
Bud-Clare
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:14:35 AM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Bud-Clare - <Twice in one week is...excessive. > Excessive is when you can't complain about the cr admin. GXB's post was about enforcing an earlier decision. If an admin can't step into to enforce an earlier decision, regardless of when that decision was made, you've made the admin completely ineffective. It's really easy to criticize an admin of a forum if you've never been an admin of any forums. Putting the shoe on the other foot changes things.
DPH
AR, USA
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:09:05 AM
IP: 67.14.195.47

<<Re: Lynati's 'wing-finger' speech>> It's seems to me to be entirely possible that the enlongated fingers are made of cartilage, since it is both flexible and strong. Maybe the fact that Gargoyles are not entirely mammalian or other classification, they have a combination of a 'bony' skeleton (mammals and birds, etc.) and a cartilage skeleton (sharks) and, therefore, half of the phalanges (the ones not elongated) would be bony, and the other half (enlongated ones) would be cartilage. Like you said, the vertebrae-type structure is highly unlikely, but the cartilage theory seems to make more sense.
Sydney - [lightning_queen@hotmail.com]
PA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:53:53 PM
IP: 63.234.32.97

Bud-Clare: I didn't mean to overreact. I've never seen an actual flame war or flame spat or anything before. Never been involved in a heated internet argument before--total newbie to the whole posting scene. Sorry.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:36:49 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Whit: [I don;t see why the wing fingers would be too "flexible" for bone. Flexibility is a function of the joints, not of the actual substance that makes up the articulating surfaces. Our costochondral joings have bone on one side and cartilage on the other and are extremely inflexible, whereas our shoulder joints, made of bone with some articulating cartilage covering it, has six potential movements that can be made. And our fingers are fairly flexible for being simple hinge joints. I wouldn't rule out having bone there just for flexibilities sake. You just might want to make the joints a more moveable saddle-type, for instance.
[The joints that allow them to fold the wings and cape them could be ball-and-socket joints very much like our shoulder and hip joints]
I already figured they were. ; )

But that...that is not the problem I am querying about. It's the finger portion themselves, not the whole arm that is my trouble.
See, its the length of "fingers" that hold out the wing, and the way they move. when the gargies in the show walked, the "fingers" of the wings flapped, as free-flowing as a tail. They draped smoothley over the arms after they separated from the wrist; they can be tossed over the shoulder as unrestisting ad a fabric cape. So unless they have small hinge joints running the length of each finger like the vertebrae of a cat's tail (which is possible, but seems less likely than the alternative) they wouldn't be able to move them like that. the phalanges of a bat's wing certainly don't "bend", since yeah, the bending is in the joints, not the bone, and the bone in this case is quite long and brittle. It seems more likely that the bones would have retracted to nubs, and have another material take over the length of the "finger", than have sprouted a larger number of fingerbones.

Especially since we have glider-style winged gargies who have two other fingers and a thumb in addition to the longer extremity, and all three of those digits appear to have the same number of bones as a regular gargoyle or human hand. The glider and bat style wings are basically the same; it just that the bat style have a larger number of (extended) digits with membrane between them.

Or to rephrase, it seemed more likely that the structure that keeps the "fingers" shape would be made of something other than bone. Like cartligous discs running the length of them...
But again, the main reason I'm looking for feedback here is that I'm starting (heh) to seriously fall out of my depth, to the point where I'm not even comfortable with putting forth a hypothosis, and want to make sure I'm not, uh, "calling the sky red" as it were.

This is the last main anatomical quirk that I have to sort out before I'm comfy with settling on a base design...I think I'm going to have to go stare at shark books in the kids section of barnes and noble until I can tell if what I'm proposing with the cartilage discs even makes sense.

my head hurts. and they pushed back my doctor's appointment another 3 weeks, as if 16 days wasn't enough time to wait in the first place. bast'ahds.

*lurks off*
Lynati
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:34:22 PM
IP: 66.141.254.171

That's so cool to thnk that Asrial has a sister!! She's one of my favorite charecters, and having another relative of hers that nobody's writen about leaves open whole new windows for Dark Ages. I wonder know if she also has an inquisitive mind, or if she's like the opposite of Asrial, tough but still sweet. And what should we call them.. Thanks a buch Spike!!
Annie
ID
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:31:51 PM
IP: 216.190.38.73

lain> <<yes, but in a tight-knit kinda way>>
It's good to be able to affectionately try to kill people.

<<oka cheese is made on the oka first nations reservation.>>
Ah.

<<it is a hard, pale orangeish-yellow cheese that is very sharp, and therefore very yummy.>>
As long as it's not moldy.

<<and it really sucked because she kept leaning over and saying "oh hey! ive been there!">>
And yet, what else do New Zealanders get to brag about? The number of obscene sheep-related jokes people make about them?
____________________
Andrea> <<Sorry if this post seemed bossy-like (for lack of a better term), but I for one am getting sick of all such debates here lately...>>
If you'd been paying more attention to the recent discussion, you'd know why I'm laughing at you right now.

<<Maybe we should pick an interesting topics to discuss...>>
We _were_ talking about interesting things. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's not really my problem.

<<So, have you all had any funky dreams?>>
Yes, but you're too young to hear about them. And yes, I do know how old you are.
___________________
Gside> <<That'd have to be one messed up family.>>
So, essentially, normal.

<<I'd rather use Death's desk than one of Death's towels.>>
Drat. I don't remember Death's towels, and the book is at my mother's house...

<<#$@! I'm never going to get any at this rate.>>
That's what we've been saying all along.

<<If it's any consolation, I think it's a New England saying.>>
ACK! Too close!
__________________
Vinnie> <<anarchy is a type government>>
Really?

<<Discussions like these can start very easily, mostly when one or more people don't take a moment to calm down and think what they are trying to say.>>
Well, since you were at the center of the most recent _true_ flamewar, I guess you'd be an expert on the subject. :P
(I'm still bitter that I missed the fun that time, so I intend to keep reminding you of the incident over and over, so that you never dare start a flamewar ever again UNLESS I'M HERE. ;)
___________________
Caboose> <<Hey, look, I just don't want another flame war to erupt, okay?>>
_Another_ flame war? You mean another flame spat? Because that's the worst we've had here lately, so I'll thank you not to overreact.

<<Can we agree to disagree like mature adults without even wasting our breath on the topic?>>
No one was forcing you to participate. Let me repeat that, since it seems that it needs to sink in. No one was forcing you to participate. See how that works?
____________________
Greg> <<Aaron stepped into last week's, because it had reached the point where it needed admin intervention>>
But he didn't end it last week, it was early this week by then. Twice in one week is...excessive.
Bud-Clare
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:12:21 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Tharos:<Caboose: I suppose you're right. I was merely saying that the flag didn't start out that way - I agree that in the last 50 years or so it has taken on quite the racist meaning. I guess one of the main things I was trying to get across (now that I look, I didn't do too great of a job... meh, I'm doing a few other things here) is that the Civil War wasn't as clean cut, good vs. bad as most people claim. Anyway, yeah, I agree.>Sad but true, symbols that we often perceive as evil or hateful rarely start out that way. And the confederate flag isn't the only symbol that's been tarnished, thanks to human intervention, the Nazi swastica was once held as a symbol of brotherhood among Germans. I'm sure that there are many more examples as well.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:08:31 PM
IP: 216.234.99.55

Lynati> My nitrogen cycle knowledge is pretty sparse; I can dig up the references and take a look later if there's time. Right now the medical stuff is fixated on viruses and psychiatry. Woo hoo!

Just to answer the random questions:
Appendices: Dunno why they wouldn't, dunno why they would. :-) We do know that the appendix seems to have some role in peritoneal infections; there might be some lymphatic tissue in it that may help fight some infections in the abdominal cavity, but we don;t really know why humans have it. If gargoyles didn't, I don't see it being much of a loss.
I don;t see why the wing fingers would be too "flexible" for bone. Flexibility is a function of the joints, not of the actual substance that makes up the articulating surfaces. Our costochondral joings have bone on one side and cartilage on the other and are extremely inflexible, whereas our shoulder joints, made of bone with some articulating cartilage covering it, has six potential movements that can be made. And our fingers are fairly flexible for being simple hinge joints. I wouldn't rule out having bone there just for flexibilities sake. You just might want to make the joints a more moveable saddle-type, for instance. The joints that allow them to fold the wings and cape them could be ball-and-socket joints very much like our shoulder and hip joints; you'd just have to trade off stability of the joint if you want range of motion. (The more flexible a joint, the easier it is to dislocate).
If the heart and lungs are larger then you'd have a greater chest width, but keep in mind that you need to make sure the bones are relatively light for gliding. Hmm...I think that the number of ribs would be pretty analogous to us since they're similarly proportioned. The answer might be in the composition of the bone matrix; lighter calcium and phosphate salts, perhaps, or a less dense composition to the spongy bone.
Whitbourne
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:57:29 PM
IP: 156.34.51.141

re: antivirus updates> While you're at it, make sure you run windows update if you're on a PC. There was another critical flaw discovered recently in IE, for example, that could allow hackers access to your comp. And adware removal programs like Spybot and Adaware are also worth running, if you don't already do so. I recently had to reformat my lab's comp because some malware had slowed up processing to a crawl. =P
Vash
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:50:55 PM
IP: 129.98.127.164

Lynati> Heh, it seems you want to keep the thread of Garg biology going. I dunno if my negative post was the reason the topic sort of died; I get a little bitter when I'm reminded of how Greg's ideas defy science, and yet because of the 'novel idea' ban in AG--along with Greg's professed ignorance in biology--we'll never actually get to discuss it with him and perhaps make him see differently (even though he welcomes us to come up with ways to make it work. But I simply can't find a workaround for the solid stone problem). As for my old ideas, I made a webpage years ago in the style of a scientific report on the species. Since then, a few things have popped up in AG that disprove my 'theories' (such as Greg leaning toward it being thermal energy that gargs absorb, instead of light). Click my name if you're interested.
Vashkoda
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:40:58 PM
IP: 129.98.127.164

Hey people,

You know how some e-mail virus takes your e-mail addy or the addys of other people from files on you computer? Well apparently someone has a virus and it's gotten MY email addy and it's being sent to people, including MYSELF.

Yes I just got an email that has my email addy in the FROM screen.

Needless to say I'm pissed off.

So this is a warning, if ANYONE gets an email that appears to be from me, MooncatX -- check back with me to be sure I sent it.

The e-mail I got had the subject line "Dream for perverts !"

I suggest people run periodic Anti Virus checks on your computer. The person with the virus could be anyone who has my e-mail addy in their files, which considering I'm on many Yahoo Groups/Mail lists could be anyone of several thousand persons.

If anyone posts to a list with a lot of people, or even a few people, it only takes one person on that list having a virus that collects addys to grab your e-mail addy from the infected person's Mail Programs and start sending out bogus spam mails, possibly virus carriers with your e-mail listed in the "from" line.

I scan every night, so I'm fairly certain I have no virus, and the current e-mails with my address/ID attached have come from some infected person who is on one of the many lists yahoo lists I'm on.

Just thought I'd warn people here in case anyone gets a message with my e-mail addy that seems off.

Now I have to go post to a lot of lists. I think it may be from the Zimmerman list. It has several thousand people on it and I recently posted on it. It could be from a smaller list but the bigger a list is the more chance is someone on it is virus infected.

Did I mention how pissed off I am?

Later
MooncatX
Mooncat
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:35:55 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

<<Alex: for all that I liked the idea that gargoyle shad a third set of chambers to their heart, I�ve actually hated the idea that they had a triple-heart-beat. And I�ve only heard reference to that in one, maybe two fics. It�s actually one of the reasons I want to figure out the anatomy- so that details like that can be written accurately, at least in my own ficverse.>>

Fair enough. I don't necessarily subscribe to that either, but of all the possibilities it just strikes me as the better option; so I thought I'd expand for the sake of discussion. Anyway, I've done answered the call on S8 best I can - so back to lurking.

*fades back into the TGS CR shadows*
Alex Garg
VA, USA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 09:39:42 PM
IP: 216.145.68.130

Anatomy:
Mkay, Whit and Kjay convinced me that 4-chambers are better. (although I�m rather lost on the hemoglobin vs. other molecule argument, I�ll just stick with �there blood is more oxygenated� and not worry about how for now.)

Whitbourne:
[Still, though, if you want an immediate change, then straightforward nerve conduction is the fastest way we have. With sunrise and sunset seeming to be the keys, you'd want something that happens instantaneously. Nerves are the best "fast" pathway for transmission. ]
Gotcha. And thank you.

[I just chose the pineal gland since it seems to have some sort of circadian function in people. It's certainly possible that a different gland does the job in gargs. ]
I just figured that it would be a specialized gland, since humans don�t have a change equivalent to stone sleep in their biochemistry. *shrug*

[Energy needs to come from the sun, ultimately, for life; it may be that they respond to UV radiation as well. I'm a bit wary of the "magical energy" route because that leaves everything open. Maybe that's good, though. :-)]
mm, I just think there is more to them than can be explained with strict science- like just how they change from flesh to stone- and while I agree that they do take in energy from sunlight and such, I just fancy the notion that they have access to another source. Huh. Maybe something, possibly, involving the Nitrogen nutrient cycle? I�m not well versed in it, but it, if it somehow worked, would be another source. Heh, specialized gargie bacteria�I�m half-convinced �its just magic� is a serviceable enough answer for this one aspect. ; )

[Perhaps, though I go by the idea that it's a very tough but mostly solid crystallization of cells and that any pores would be microscopic�(etc)]
Yeeaaah�I so do not have the background to understand that. I�ll file it with the rest until I do. ; )

Caboose: [neither rules out the possibility that their ribs aren't one solid mass of bone.]
Actually, I have a rebuttal for both this and the foot thing, but I�m going to save it for a later post, this is long enough as is.

Alex: for all that I liked the idea that gargoyle shad a third set of chambers to their heart, I�ve actually hated the idea that they had a triple-heart-beat. And I�ve only heard reference to that in one, maybe two fics. It�s actually one of the reasons I want to figure out the anatomy- so that details like that can be written accurately, at least in my own ficverse.

Vash : [I can think of ways (sometimes farfetched) to explain practically everything else about gargoyle physiology]
Ooo�like what?

And since I sense this topic winding down some�at least, not picking up�I�ll toss out my last few things together. (And I�d really appreciate responses to these, since I�ve started applying it to my studio work)

Appendixes: Do Gargies have them or not? What species besides humans have them, anyway?

Wings: the �fingers� are too flexible for bone (save for gargoyles with a specialized design, like Kythera.) so is it possible that they are made of cartilage? If a whole shark�s skeleton is made of cartilage, its likely strong enough to work�but would it not for other reasons?

And if the heart and lungs are both larger in comparison to a human, the rib cage needs to be larger...are the ribs the same size? lighter, heavier; fewer of them?

please feedback on this, its important. well, important to me... ; )
Lynati
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 09:26:05 PM
IP: 66.141.254.171

>>>On a gargoyles note, this is for Spike. Did you name any of the hatchlings in that group picture (aside form the trio) for dark ages, this one included? And is that little red headed one related to Demona? She looks a lot like her but i don't know how all the ages would pin out with the breeding seasons and all that. Just wondered.>>>

Annie>> Hmmm.... it's been a while since I drew that. None of them had names but I did sort of rationalize that some of the hatchlings would have had some of the same parents as the rookery before them, hence Demona's red-headed little sister. The blonde girl garg with the horns was supposed look a bit like Asrial, and the little blonde boy garg in the front row is my son Ryan garged up. *L*

Spike
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 08:54:30 PM
IP: 209.30.17.203

Caboose: I suppose you're right. I was merely saying that the flag didn't start out that way - I agree that in the last 50 years or so it has taken on quite the racist meaning. I guess one of the main things I was trying to get across (now that I look, I didn't do too great of a job... meh, I'm doing a few other things here) is that the Civil War wasn't as clean cut, good vs. bad as most people claim. Anyway, yeah, I agree.
Tharos - [r_u_ready3@hotmail.com]
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 07:27:36 PM
IP: 69.40.141.188

O kay, someone's spamming the GFA again. :(
Leo
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 07:07:38 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Annie: When you "lurk" around a comment room, you read what everybody else says but don't ever say anything yourself. To "de-lurk" means you actually join in on the conversations.

Tharos: While the Civil War was about state's rights, the only reason the South seceded was because they held slaves and wanted to keep them. It looked like the Fed would decide whether or not they could keep their slaves without any input from the South if Lincoln was elected. After Lincoln won, the South tried pulling out of the Union. Lincoln understood that this question would keep rearing its ugly head unless slavery was ended, hence the Emancipation Proclimation, which didn't actually go into effect in the South until the war's end. And yes, I know, the freed slaves weren't really very much freer, but it was the first step on the long road that took them from slaves to where their descendants are today.

I have to agree with DPH that the Confederate battle flag is an emblem of the bad old days...especially when it's often seen flying in old photos of Klan rallies.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 07:06:59 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Red-haired hatchling... you know? You have a point. But then it is possible for them to have sibs, and this just opened up a whole new train of thought for me. Does Goliath's rookery have sibs? Er, more specifically, do the Dark Ages people have sibs marked out for them?

De-lurking is the opposite of lurking. You're lurking if you just come here and read stuff and never really say anything. De-lurking is finally coming out of the shadows to where we can see you and saying something, which you guys have done.
Dezi
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 07:04:12 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

One more thing, I forgot to ask, what does delurked mean?
Annie
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 06:51:44 PM
IP: 216.190.39.218

On a gargoyles note, this is for Spike. Did you name any of the hatchlings in that group picture (aside form the trio) for dark ages, this one included? And is that little red headed one related to Demona? She looks a lot like her but i don't know how all the ages would pin out with the breeding seasons and all that. Just wondered.
Annie
ID
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 06:50:03 PM
IP: 216.190.39.218

One of the newbs dropping back in - I have to start throwing in my two cents sometime.

DPH: <<I'm 110% against ending racism - even though I'm a Southern, if I see a confederate flag, I don't see Southern pride, I see potential racism. By default, anyone I see waving a confederate flag I view as a potential racist.>>
I'm the most anti-racist person I know, but I don't view the Confederate flag as a racist symbol. It's turning into one because morons fly it THINKING it means racism, sadly... its historical value's quickly diminishing. Slavery wasn't even a main issue in the war. Lincoln made it appear that way with the Emancipation Proclamation (which didn't "free the slaves" in the sense most people think it did), so Britain didn't join the south. Smart guy.

<<Good news: There will *NOT* be a Democratic candidate from the state of Arkansas running for President.>>
Ha! Nice.
Tharos - [r_u_ready3@hotmail.com]
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 06:11:27 PM
IP: 69.40.141.188

Lurking? Yes, for about 2 years I've been lurking around here.
Lain, so you mean you're not friendly? That's ok, while I do have strong oppinions about cirtain things, this format is way too inconvenient for typing up a ton of stuff, mostly because I love my edit buttons, which those silly MSN comunity sites lack. -_-;
But I think I'll just continue to lurk for now.
Yes precious, we shall lurk, like that weird fish my dad once had. o.O
One question though, um, does TGS need a proof-reader?
Aria (The Insane) Nightshadow
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 06:04:01 PM
IP: 216.113.210.55

Greetings;

Mooncat: You might want to be careful with those. They have a much higher simple sugar content than regular potatoes. As a result, they will burn to a crisp WAY before the regular potatoes would.

Bud-Clare: <Anyone ever been to New Zealand? I'm planning to take a vacation there> I went years ago. It was a beautiful place to visit. If you enjoy backpacking, I highly recommend it. The cities really didn't have much to offer, and the food was passable at best. The local restaurants are very lamb-centric, with a smattering of seafood thrown in as well. At one point, we were craving some North American chain food and went into a Pizza Hut. It was the worst pizza I have ever had in my life.

As to accommodation, it's all about the bed and breakfast. Although the chain restaurants are consistent in their service, they just can't compare with staying with a local family.

Yggdrasil - [eng050599@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 05:05:02 PM
IP: 66.185.84.203

"i watch t.v. on comcast cable"!
yes... i have been drinkin even though it's 2 in the afternoon... hey, it's 5 o clock sumwhere!
JacKaL
IraQWednesday, February 11, 2004 02:15:40 PM
IP: 64.12.96.45

:: peeks in ::

kathy > <<The only way to make sure you know your food is safe to a reasonable certainty is to grow it yourself>> - And even that's no guarantee unless you've done a full battery of tests on the soil, know exactly what's in your water, keep close tabs on what's floating around in the air, and thuroughly investigate the pedigree of any seed or livestock you obtain upon starting out.

DPH > I'm sure from the context you either meant to type "I'm 110% in favor of ending racism" or "I'm 100% against racism."

Mooncat > Check your e-mail. Wanted your input on something, and I never can catch you on IM anymore. :)

Comcast / Disney > Just what we need, another mega-merger.

:: heads off in search of lunch ::

"There was a bit of an embarrasing moment the other night [on 'Meet the Press']. President Bush was asked if he had ever been A.W.O.L., and he replied 'No, no, I'm on Earthlink.'" - Jay Leno
Patrick
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:26:25 PM
IP: 12.109.97.109

<< Kaioto -- You brought up the N word *^_^*, I win the debate! *does the kitty victory dance* >>

Come on now, Mooncat, extrapolation from Godwin's Law isn't as simple as that? ;-)

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Since I was, indeed, aware of Godwin's Law and decided that if it ended the threat, I'd be fine with that. That puts me in clear violation of Quirk's Exception. :-)

Beyond that, Godwin's Law can only be used as justification of declaring victory in a thread if the word "Nazi" is being used to begin a comparison between the parties or issues debated. Referring to Nazis in a pure historical context without impunging any party does not automatically result in this.

If a question calls for an example of a Facist regime, referring to the Nazis does not kill the thread. Associating someone to the Nazis is what does that.

I was tempted to refer to Stalinist Russian in this case, only I don't get to use as cool a phrase as "Seizing the Reichstag." I blame "Call of Duty" for my uncontrolable need to interject "seizing the Reichstag" into any and all conversations possible. Planting a flag on top of the Riechstag at the end of WWII has to have been one of the best videogaming experiences of my long career as a gamer - even if it was the Soviet Flag and that kind of skeeves me.

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 10:28:33 AM
IP: 208.204.155.241

Hey, NEWS! Comcast is trying to buy Disney!
Fire Storm
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 09:42:02 AM
IP: 65.114.91.3

DPH:<<I'm 110% against ending racism - even though I'm a Southern, if I see a confederate flag, I don't see Southern pride, I see potential racism. By default, anyone I see waving a confederate flag I view as a potential racist.>>

*is confused* :(
Leo
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 06:42:01 AM
IP: 68.96.8.12

kathy>> <<The only way to make sure you know your food is safe to a reasonable certainty is to grow it yourself>> yep. this is why i do my best not to eat meat unless ive killed it myself (or, to a lesser degree, know the person who has). i dont get the chance to hunt/kill/raise animals much so... i dont really eat meat much either ;)

caboose>> <> you smell. we were being nice and everything! :P <<don't you think we could wait a few days before getting into another heated argument?>> heck no! if we do that, it will just fester and be worse in the long run ;)

kai>> im surprised it took you this long to show up... do you just lurk and only comment on juicy stuff or do you have some sort of early-warning "cr controversy" alarm system rigged?

annie>> <<Gosh that's funny, and It makes me feel better that it's crossed somebody else's mind as well>> what, that im an idiot? oh yes, im sure thats crossed MANY peoples minds, not just yours ;) <<You do make it sound a lot more interesting than what I was origionally thinking>> to tell the truth... i really wasnt that interested in "bad guys" from the start. i thought the idea was really kinda dorky, to be honest :P then i sorta took a more in-depth look at it and we started playing around with a few things... i think our mucking will be for the better (but then i could just be biased...) <<Also, thanks for recognizing the newbies>> no prob, we like newbies :) <<he "inner circle" here is really great from what I've seen so far>> well, if you can get into it, im sure ;) ... though, i guess theres actually more than one "inner circle" here so... you have more chances ;) <<But is there anyone in here from the western half of the country?>> uuuh, i dont know. josh was from cali, but he doenst post much anymore. im from canada, but currently in texas, so that doesnt count ;)

gside>> <<If they've been lurking for any decent amount of time, there's no need lying>> aww cmon! i was just trying to pretend like we were friendly!

kjay>> <<Can we now go back to talking about stuff that's related to the name of this room?>> uuuh, you got any suggestions? i think the "gargoyle anatomy" is going to run out soon. if you can think of something better to talk about, im sure wed all be for it :)

question>> <<They should just have another comment room for political comments and debate with little or no moderation though it'll probably end up in three weeks with discussions on whether Asians are aliens from outer space or why we should ship the poor and prisonfolk off to Antarctica>> yes, but if we did that, past experience tells me that this room would soon become very, very boring.

andrea>> <<How do such discussions ever get started (and I'm not sure I want to know the answer)>> i dont really remember. possibly it had something to do with greg ws revelation that lexington was gay? then kinda morphed into an "is it ok for gargoyles to be gay, does that make sense?" and then from there into a "well, does being gay at all make any sense"? there might have been a step before that but... i dont remember. <<but I for one am getting sick of all such debates here lately...I respect your views and all, but This CR isn't really the best place for such arguments if you ask me...>> again, feel free to cough up an alternative interesting topic for discussion. :)

mooncat>> even if the debate is "officially" over, i would like an answer to the question i posed to you in the wee hours of tuesday that got kinda run over when kai showed up. you have my email, dont you, in case you want to respond not in the CR?

dph>> <<thanks for keeping me up too late>> no prob :) it was an interesting discussion though, was it not? (we were debating religion on IM and NOT in the CR... happy everyone?)

revel>> <<Here we have a nice, inteligent political and personal debate on world issues that face our countries today and all I can come up with is a picture of a girl in a guys lap with her legs around his neck>> there are worse things...

bud clare>> <<Tight-knit? Two days ago, we were trying to kill each other... ;)>> yes, but in a tight-knit kinda way ;) <<Is it? That's silly>> yes, it sure is. <<Is that some kind of weird canadian thing?>> yes. oka cheese is made on the oka first nations reservation. it is a hard, pale orangeish-yellow cheese that is very sharp, and therefore very yummy. <<<<Anyone ever been to New Zealand? I'm planning to take a vacation there>> *drools*>> i had a friend who was from new zealand who was at my university on an exchange. we took her to see the first LOTR movie when it came out, and it really sucked because she kept leaning over and saying "oh hey! ive been there!" :P

in other news: i can now draw again, huzzah! i drew a musically-inspired pic of two BG characters, involving a sexy smooch, a desk and a (very detailed) 40s&w imi jericho 941, woohoo! next, ill have to try writing and see if thats come back to me, too. if nothing else, this debate (and caboose in private, yay caboose) has yoinked me out of the depths of the quasi-suicidal depression i have been in for the past several weeks - lets hear it for controversy! :D

oh hey, i guess i should sleep...

lain
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 05:37:12 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Ok, what gives?

From Yahoo News headlines, under strange news:

1)Frenchwoman Marries Her Dead Boyfriend

2)Man Fined $10,000 for Going to Church

3)Gen. Schoomaker Receives Own Death Notice

* * * * * **

When I was in high school, I had a 26 on the ACT. I knew a female black classmate who did better than me. She had a guarantee of free tutition because of ACT score AND her race. Also, when I was a high school senior, I attended a ceremony for those people who received scholarships. I was surprised to learn of my classmates won a scholarships that was for hispanics.

Annie - Unless things have changed within the past ten years, if a black student and a white student get the same ACT score, the black student will be eligible for more scholarships.

I'm 110% against ending racism - even though I'm a Southern, if I see a confederate flag, I don't see Southern pride, I see potential racism. By default, anyone I see waving a confederate flag I view as a potential racist.

But I would like to know when preferential treatment should end. The only kind of preferential treatment I believe in is helping lower income families - regardless of race - send kids to college. Preferential treatment breeds racism in the people who can't get in.

Good news: There will *NOT* be a Democratic candidate from the state of Arkansas running for President.

Kaito - <Would you rather have an unfair system, or anarchy?> Definitely, the unfair system, but I have ideas on how to make things "more fair". I believe the system could *potentially* be more fair if a certain level of education was required in order to vote. Before every 2 year election, you would have to get a 100% score on a test to ensure that you have good understanding of the values each party stands for. When you register to vote, you have to pass a test showing a person has basic math skills, the person has a basic understanding of the economy. In order to vote for any candidate, you have to be able to name something the candidate promises to do. (Basically, only educated and informed people could vote)

Mooncat - <And on less controversial subjects, *ooohhh* just made french fries from scratch.> Did any of the hot oil get on you? If not, you missed some of the fun. Why not make a sweet potatoe pie?

hmm. there's just too much for me to say right now and I really need to hit the sack. Oh well.

Lain - thanks for keeping me up too late.
DPH
AR, USA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 03:24:33 AM
IP: 204.94.193.17

Kaioto -- You brought up the N word *^_^*, I win the debate! *does the kitty victory dance* -- Though I did like your ending summation.

Kjay -- the original subject of Lexington being gay was related to the TGS in that canon and neo/psuedo canon (Ask Greg info that wasn't shown on screen) may affect TGS characterization and/or plotlines.

And on less controversial subjects, *ooohhh* just made french fries from scratch. Since I had hot oil in the fry daddy I used that nifty thingy that slices a potato into fries then I fried them *^_^* I think I'll try sweet potatos tomorrow, and sprinkle them with a little cinnamon and brown sugar... or try a light dusting of powdered sugar. *contemplates*

sleepy now...
Mooncat
>^,,^<
Mooncat
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 02:15:44 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Question - That's not a bad suggestion.

That being said:

There IS a site dedicated to such topics. It's called aviewon.com (clicky my name for it). Most people there (I think) are from customerssuck.com (both sites are run by the same dude), but They won't mind a few new faces. The forum is specifically designed for such heated debates. So, If you want to continue posting your views, I recomment you go there. It won't hurt ot at least look.

Anyway, no, No one paid me to say that, just a friendly suggestion. There are a lot of banner ads on the site, but no popups (and if you do decide to stay, help the owner out and click some banners now and then :) He'll appreciate it). It is moderated as far as I know, but I do not know the extent of it.

Sorry if this post seemed bossy-like (for lack of a better term), but I for one am getting sick of all such debates here lately...I respect your views and all, but This CR isn't really the best place for such arguments if you ask me...

Andrea - [<----Click HERE!]
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 02:14:01 AM
IP: 130.111.154.94

kjay><Can we now go back to talking about stuff that's related to
the name of this room? >

They should just have another comment room for political comments and debate with little or no moderation though it'll probably end up in three weeks with discussions on whether Asians are aliens from outer space or why we should ship the poor and prisonfolk off to Antarctica.
Question
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 01:04:30 AM
IP: 144.92.164.204

*Shakes her head in disbelief and rants as she see's another flame war starting up*
Why do we all have to go at it again? People have been arguing over Gay rights, racism, politcal parties, ect for
decades now and the debate hasn't been solved yet. What makes you people think that the issue will be solved in this comment room?
*Ranting over*
Can we now go back to talking about stuff that's related to
the name of this room?
kjay - [korimia.j.hall@us.army.mil]
fort bliss, tx
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:56:14 AM
IP: 172.171.153.97

<< which while it has it's impact, is not the sole deciding force in the enactment and enforcement of law. >>

Actually, at least in the United State of America, it - is - the sole deciding force. The Government derives ALL its authority and power from the Tyranny of the Majority. (aka, "Consent of the Governed")

<< Sometimes it's the position of the lawmakers not quantity of the people who have an opinion in said law that make or break the standing of a law or action. >>

I can think of a couple of systems in which the lawmakers are not appointed via Majority Rules principles: Monarchy, Communism, and Theocracy. In a Democratic, Constitutional Republic like the United States, the lawmakers are the Legislature, who are elected in such a fashion as to Represent the citizenry. They are chosen from the populace by Tyranny of the Majority, and the Legislature conducts votes likewise based on Tyranny of the Majority.

<< The popular or majority opinion does not always carry the day. >>

The majority opinion ALWAYS wins in the long-term. When the lawmakers cross the majority in such a way that the majority feels strongly about, the lawmakers are eventually replaced with lawmakers who comply with the majority. The real issue comes when two expressions of the majority opinion come into conflict.

<< It is when both arguments are weighed against each other according to the series of rules both sides of the subject have agreed to weigh the merits and flaws of their respective positions such as a given judicial system. >>

Incorrect. It does not matter if both sides agree upon the rules, only that the Majority with the power to enforce those rules agrees. A criminal seldom agrees to subject himself to the Criminal Justice System, but it doesn't matter. The entire Judicial System rests upon a series of statutes that can be ammended or completely wiped away by the Tyranny of the Majority. Ultimate authority in such a system derives from Tyranny of the Majority / Consent of the Governed.

The Judicial System of the United States does not exist to weight the merits and flaws of respective positions. The Legislature exists to weigh the merits and flaws of positions and enact statutes accordingly, by Majority Rule, as proxy for the greater body of citizens. The Executive Branch exists to enact those statutes. The Judiciary Branch exists to make sure that those statues are INTERNALLY CONSISTANT in both form (written law) and function (practice).

Again, we get into trouble when two examples of Majority Rule come into logical conflict with one another.

Also, if any of the officers of these branches should fail to faithfully or compitently execute their office (it happens a lot, in all three branches of government), they can and will be replaced - again by the authority ultimately derived from the Tyranny of the Majority.

<< The right for a black person to attend a previously all white college wasn't passed because the majority of people decided that it was correct, but because a minority group of people were able to persistently present their case for that right and have it meet the requirements of the given judicial system to be recognised as a legitimate right. >>

Unfortunately, this point is twice incorrect.

In the case of a private college, that right for a black person to attend was indeed created by a Majority Rule statute - the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was actually justifed by the "Commerce Clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

In the case of a public college, that right was created by the Legislature by Majoritarian statute - the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution. The legal grounds for Brown vs. the Board of Education wasn't about judges deciding the ethical right or wrong of the situation (which is neither a judge's duty nor privilege in his or her office). Brown vs. the Board of Education was about acknowledging that the 14th Ammendment (Equal Protection under the law) was being violated by the government's rule banning blacks. Since the Majority Rule states that the Constitution must outweigh a simple statute like the one banning blacks from attending such colleges, the Constitution wins - and therefor the Tyranny of the Majority prevails.

<< This was a case not of tyranny of the majority, but the prevailing of a minority within the given system both sides agreed to place thier differences within. >>

Such a system was created by Tyranny of the Majority, and continues to exist only at the consent of said Majority. The fact is that the Majority usually values having such a system more than the ability to simply exercise its whim. The legal system derives ALL its authority, at the root, from the Tyranny of the Majority - nothing more and nothing less.

<< One of the interesting parts of being a citizen of the United States (which not all of us are, but I am so I'm using it as an example) is that a law may be proposed and passed and enforced NOT because it's the majority opinion, but because it meets the challenge of the legal system. >>

The legal system is not independent of the Majority Opinion. It is simply the Majority Opinion that such a legal system should exist. The Majority opinion ultimately dictates how the legal system functions. Don't ascribe anything more to it than that. If the legal system outlives its usefulness to the Majority, then it is replaced.

I think people romanticize how the government and legal system works just a little too much. If you ask a few, simple questions about where the power and authority exercised by the government come from, you find the answer is simple and clear - Majority Rules. We might try to dress it up in fancy costumes, couch the logic in emotions, or appeal to external authorities like God - but ultimately the democratic forms of government have only one answer to the Socratic Method of deconstruction:

"Because we said so - that's why."

Cynical? Perhaps it is, but it certainly is more realistic than most assessments. This is the reason why so many of the Framers of the Constitution sought to limit the scope of Government under the Constitution, and why the Anti-Federalists insisted on a "Bill of Rights" that the Federalists deemed "needless."

I find it logically inconsistant to flip back and forth from decrying the Tyranny of the Majority in one form, and then appealing to it in another guise. It indicates to me either a lack of consistancy in either logic (can't see the Majority Rule at work) or a disconnection in principle (don't really care where the authority is coming from, as long as it gets me what I want).

I admit that I find myself with a disconnection in principle to the notion of Majority Rules being the ultimate governing authority. I abide it only because I believe that abiding the system at present is most moral course of action. Should the situation deviate in an extreme, I could easily find myself in direct conflict with the Majority Rule. (Of course, this would probably have to be a deviation on the scale of the Nationalist Socialist Party (read: Nazis) seizing the Reichstag in the early 20th century.)

As for schools and scholarships >>

I'll tell you that I take a very dim view of discrimination on admittance or funding based upon race or ethnicity. I believe that race should not be a factor in admittance to schools or financial assistance for learning. Socio-economic disadvantage and diversity of experience can certainly be factors, but not skin color or ethnicity. I also oppose systems like "Legacy Admissions" that create ad-hoc racial discrimination due to the fact that many white families created "Legacies" at schools during periods of time where other races and ethnicities were not allowed or fairly enabled to establish legacy. Both systems unjustifiably violate the 14th Ammendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:47:34 AM
IP: 66.30.158.19

Vinnie, that's why there are these things like apologizing and letting it go. Chew on that for awhile, hmm?
Annie
ID
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:40:14 AM
IP: 208.187.168.119

Welcome to all the delurked newbies.

Greg> <<Actually, the revelation came after Lynati's friend Anna (very attractive fun girl who gave me a lap dance once ;)) just came out and asked>>: Then what'd IRCGoliath do to get the part of Claw in the radio play. I know there was something.
<<For some reason, I see Lexy getting credited a lot with the question>>: Of course, it is a variation on her traditional question.

Jaden> <<I'm planning to take a vacation there and was wondering about some of the stuff not usually found on the travel guide websites>>: You could always try for the Rings filming locations tour.

Aria> <<So many of the people in here are almost like a family>>: That'd have to be one messed up family.

Lain> <<fresh blood and all for the sacri... uh.. um.. i mean.. more voices for the discussions.. yes.. discussions... *shifty eyes*>>: If they've been lurking for any decent amount of time, there's no need lying.

Kathy> <<And the ferments of grape and grain have their place too>>: I like to cook them until the alcohol is gone. Mmm, saltimbocca

Buc Clare> <<Doesn't the desk have drawers? (Maybe it was made by Death.)>>: I'd rather use Death's desk than one of Death's towels.
<<Ouch>>: And I'm sure there'd be more paiful things if you look for them.
<<No. I'm a tease>>: #$@! I'm never going to get any at this rate.
<<*whimpers*>>: If it's any consolation, I think it's a New England saying.

Revel> <<Here we have a nice, inteligent political and personal debate on world issues that face our countries today and all I can come up with is a picture of a girl in a guys lap with her legs around his neck>>: The importance of that is inversely proportional to the amount of clothes on the girl.

Dezi> <>: Good thing there wasn't an English test.

Annie> <>: Well, from olden times, Imzadi was from California. The great Christine Morgan is from Washington (near Seattle, I believe). And we do have a good couple Mormons (Mecord and Cat being the oldest running I know of).

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:01:31 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

Dezi:<Are you sure they're not calm and well thought out already? I don't see too many people flying off the handle wholeheartedly.>I say said mostly, not all the time. Besides that's half the fun in this CR. If people don't want to start a flame war then they should always consider how their comments might effect other people!

Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:51:58 PM
IP: 66.103.238.120

No i wasn't saying most, or even black, but last year at graduation we had on kid walk away with about 7 grand for being half black, and another with about ten for being native american. I wasn't trying to rub anything in, i just thought that those type of situations were more common. Sorry for the mix up.
Annie
ID
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:46:42 PM
IP: 208.187.168.114

Annie - Are you trying to say "all" or even "most" black people pay less for college education than white people? Because that generalization is untrue for *many* if not most black and other non white students who get *no* financial aid based solely on their race. I'm Asian and Hispanic, and neither ethnicity got me so much as a penny of discount for college. None of my black or non-white friends got any discounts in tuition fees, books, or living expenses for being black, or nonwhite when they attended college. Things that got discounts? Being a local resident (nonethnically based). There wasn't a lot that got any kind of discounts, because most colleges like to suck every last cent they can from their students, whatever race they are. If you are talking about scholarship dollars, they are few and far between, because the majority of students of ANY ethnicity are not on any kind scholarship. I had a small one when I went to college based solely on my Grade Point average, and it was a general one that all local students (no matter what their race) with that grade point average received.

I had a black friend in college who worked her butt off on two part time jobs to meet her expenses while carrying a full class load. She didn't get any discounts for being black, and didn't pay a dime less than our white friends for the same classes, books, anything.

Mooncat

Mooncat
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:04:42 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

LAIN: lynati>> <<Because lain wanted to. ; )>> you mean, "because lain is an idiot" :P

Gosh that's funny, and It makes me feel better that it's crossed somebody else's mind as well. You do make it sound a lot more interesting than what I was origionally thinking. Also, thanks for recognizing the newbies; the "inner circle" here is really great from what I've seen so far. But is there anyone in here from the western half of the country?

Mooncat: The right for a black person to attend a previously all white college wasn't passed because the majority of people decided that it was correct, but because a minority group of people were able to persistently present their case for that right and have it meet the requirements of the given judicial system to be recognised as a legitimate right. This was a case not of tyranny of the majority, but the prevailing of a minority within the given system both sides agreed to place thier differences within.

I don't know if it was the minority's idea, but isn't it ironic how not only have they gotten into these schools, but they are paying less then the "whites"? Heck, chek one of those little standardizes testing race boxes and some people get quite a bit. So white people do get discriminated against...

Annie - [sky_warrior17@hotmail.com]
ID
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 09:05:22 PM
IP: 208.187.171.190

Right now Whitbourne has said with deft eloquence and well thought out attention to the the subjects what I'd like to say, so in the interest of not being repetitive (and not saying it as neatly) I will wait till something new strikes me.

I'm really full of home cooked fried chicken nuggets right now and a rather docile state. Mmm... never made them before but it was interesting despite the accidents with the oil. I used tempura batter and boneless/skinless chicken thighs cut into bite size pieces.

*moonkitty puffs into a contented ball of fluff*

Spent the day meeting family obligations, shopping for food, and experimenting in the kitchen. Plus reading the really well debated points in the current discussion here.

Oooh... did think of something new. Kaioto brings up tyranny of the majority, which while it has it's impact, is not the sole deciding force in the enactment and enforcement of law. Sometimes it's the position of the lawmakers not quantity of the people who have an opinion in said law that make or break the standing of a law or action. We as a mass of humans who have formed a community (locally, nationally, globally, etc) have enacted a system of government that we all generally adhere to (more or less) and have place persons who into positions (sp?) of authority to enact laws and enforce them. Judges, police officers, etc.

The popular or majority opinion does not always carry the day. Sometimes it's the minority opinion that prevails because their presentation of argument wins over the opposing argument even if said argument was presented by greater numbers of persons. It is when both arguments are weighed against each other according to the series of rules both sides of the subject have agreed to weigh the merits and flaws of their respective positions such as a given judicial system.

The right for a black person to attend a previously all white college wasn't passed because the majority of people decided that it was correct, but because a minority group of people were able to persistently present their case for that right and have it meet the requirements of the given judicial system to be recognised as a legitimate right. This was a case not of tyranny of the majority, but the prevailing of a minority within the given system both sides agreed to place thier differences within.

One of the interesting parts of being a citizen of the United States (which not all of us are, but I am so I'm using it as an example) is that a law may be proposed and passed and enforced NOT because it's the majority opinion, but because it meets the challenge of the legal system. It may not be the best of all possible judicial and legislative systems, but it's pretty good mostly and no one yet has been able to erect something better, so we go with what we have.

Hope that came out alright. Whitbourne? You probably could say what I just did better. My brain is still all fuddled with happy calories. *^_^* waugghhh... Now I need sugar, possibly combined with caffine, or chocolate of some format.

laters *^_^*
*toddles off in search of candy*
Mooncat
Mooncat
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 07:36:50 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Caboose: <We can pick a far less volatile, far less personal issue to argue over that still generates controversy, can we not? > Sure, we could. But what fun would that be. If you don't like it, feel free to stay out of it. Mostly right now, its just Kaioto and Whitbourne trading posts (really really long posts).
<Can we agree to disagree like mature adults without even wasting our breath on the topic?> But constant discussion is so much more lively after this place has been dead for so long.

Vinnie:<Discussions like these can start very easily, mostly when one or more people don't take a moment to calm down and think what they are trying to say. > Are you sure they're not calm and well thought out already? I don't see too many people flying off the handle wholeheartedly.

Maybe they just all have the mid winter fiesties.
Me? I just took a Spanish test and a Math test today on that hydrocodone stuff and still did pretty good. Let's just say I was in no way nervous about either test.
Dezi
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 07:32:49 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

Anatomy stuff later, I just noticed that Whit posted a new fic- with the Outklaws- and am goignt o be engrossed until class time...I wasn't expecting something new so soon. ;)

oh, hey, lain- ironically enough...you know those three songs I sent you last night? well, one of 'em is quite prominent in the above-mentioned fic, you might wanna go check it out.
Lynati
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 05:55:20 PM
IP: 65.64.100.229

Andrea:<But, damn, things have gotten a little...nasty in the past few days. How do such discussions ever get started (and I'm not sure I want to know the answer)?> Discussions like these can start very easily, mostly when one or more people don't take a moment to calm down and think what they are trying to say.

Greg Bishansky:<Easiest question in the world. I'd rather have anarchy. It's not ideal, but at the very least I would be the master of my own destiny. If it ended quickly in death, well I find that preferable to being a slave to a totalitarian government.> Of course anarchy is a type government that is far more vulnerable tototalitarian or other types of government.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 05:22:05 PM
IP: 216.234.99.65

<< It�s generally based upon the principle that, within reason, you should be free to do what you wish to provided it doesn�t harm anyone else, nor interfere with the ability of others to do as they wish. It�s also based upon the principle that all people ought to have the equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of society and that discrimination based upon fundamental characteristics such as race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. should not be tolerated save when society can demonstrably prove that such limitations are reasonable and necessary for the functioning of society. This isn�t complete, but it�s the core idea. >>

Let me first express that I agree with those principles. I believe that they exist and are fundamentally more valuable than any other set I have come across in my lifetime. Hence, I abide and revere them.

However, I've come to terms with how poorly they hold up in a relativistic, deconstructionist arugment. Why does "Because we said so!" hold up any better than "Because God said so!" or "Because I said so!" ?

Why do those principles outweigh another set of principles? Where is the support other than the fact that we wish it to be so? By what authority do we impose those principles upon the world?

<< Who made it that way? Consensus. If you want, you can fuss about it, but unless you have a better definition, I don�t see much of a point. >>

Ah, consensus. Consensus is another nice way of phrasing: "Tyrany of the Majority." Ultimately, our consensus for the above principles has no concrete distinction in authority from the consensus for vastly different principles that existed in other times and places.

<< This is a straw man argument. No one seriously argues things like this because no one accepts as a human right the ability to harm someone else. >>

The example is not itself an argument, thusly can not be a Straw Man argument. Instead, it illustrates the unconfortable proposition of what can happen when a random person is allowed to define "human rights" or "civil rights" based on their desires. Basically, it illustrates why the pragmatist rejects a completely egoistic or subjective approach to rights. ("Because I said so!")

<< This extreme example illustrates a point; your rights end where another�s begin. >>

Says who? Consensus again. Majority rules.

<< You don�t have a right to live in a society free of eating meat. >>

By what authority do you establish this judgment of what are my rights and what are not my rights? Again, you are forced to appeal to Consensus - Majority rules.

<< That�s a rather brutal and cynical definition, and the evidence doesn�t really hold it up. >>

I didn't bring evidence to the table, only logic. Your own attempts at rebutal only add to the examples of how the logic behind the determination of rights truly works - Majority rules - which was my point in the first place.

<< I could see your point, but since it�s more of a position than a shopping list, then force of numbers or strength of arms doesn�t really factor into whether something is a right or not. It factors in to whether those rights are suppressed or respected, but not to the definition. >>

But in order to accept this, we must first accept the assumption of existance of these rights. I can not give you logical or physical proof that any "rights" exist objectively, rather than being assigned by human fiat.

<< As for government expropriation; it�s not arbitrary. >>

It isn't arbitrary in the sense that it can be justified using logic or necessity. But where does the Authority to judge and act come from? Consensus. The Majority rules.

<>

Of course there are multitude of countries on this board. I used to - run - this board, so I'm well aware.

That divserity creates a multitude of legal systems, legal standards, and ethical opinions that often conflict, I'll note.

<< and that human rights is a global definition and philosophical position that doesn�t depend on a document to exist. >>

Basic logic leads us to extend our beliefs about human rights to wherever we find humans - hence globally. However, there is not a completely universal agreement on Human Rights. There will always be a dissenting minority which limits consensus and the authority it can confer to mere Tyranny of the Majority.

That's my ultimate point in addressing the way people throw around "Human rights" and "Civil rights." Assigning those lables boils down to an exercise in opinions, rather than facts. How do we as a society distinguish which opinions are "correct" or at least enforce? Majority rules.

When it comes to a legal system, however, the entire order of determining rights and justice is typically derived from documentation in order to ensure Equal Protection and Common Law. Without such we lack a legal system to consult.

<< I�m not familiar with the 14th Amendment, but why are the rights of two people who want to call themselves married in question, provided they meet any necessary and reasonable limitations set by a state that has a financial or fiduciary interest in administering it? >>

The 14th Ammendment is the "Equal protection under the law" ammendment, the one that makes discriminate treatment between individual citizens unconstitutional without sufficient evidence of State interest. The Statute in question does not express a financial or fiduciary interest as the rational basis for its existance. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled as such when they struck down the current Marriage Statute in the Goodridge decision.

<< Aside from blood relation (to prevent a greater chance of genetic disorders in offspring) or issues of consent and competence to make a decision regarding marriage, why wouldn�t the right to reap the benefits of a marital union be considered a human right to two people? >>

The main point would be that the State has no Interest in "Civil Marriage" that justifies rewarding "married" couples with anything they would not award to those unable to marry. The only justification left for the Marriage Statute in Massachusetts for protected status for married couples was Procreative Interest, and that was struck down in Goodridge.

Remove Procreative Interest and Sexual Abuse of all counts (including stutory rape and harmful transmission of disease) from the equation and what interest does the State have in regulating or sanctioning the sexual behavior of consenting adults? According to the Supreme Court when they struck down the Texas Anti-sodomy law - Nothing.

And that sexual behavior is the only distinction separating those couples from any other sort of couple - live-in roommates, siblings, etc. And then you have to justify the special treatment of those who choose to function in pairs vs. Singles and Trios. And then, it truly doesn't have any reason to be called "Marriage" anymore, does it? It is really just a Domestic Partnership Agreement, much like a Commercial Partnership Agreement.

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 05:02:56 PM
IP: 208.204.155.241

REVEL> Now now, me getting a lap dance is much more important than any of this silly stuff ;)
Greg Bishansky - [<--- Picture ;)]
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 04:10:07 PM
IP: 216.179.3.109

Bud-Clare: Hey, look, I just don't want another flame war to erupt, okay? We can pick a far less volatile, far less personal issue to argue over that still generates controversy, can we not? Can we agree to disagree like mature adults without even wasting our breath on the topic?
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 04:05:54 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Here we have a nice, inteligent political and personal debate on world issues that face our countries today and all I can come up with is a picture of a girl in a guys lap with her legs around his neck.

oh well.
Revel
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 04:02:11 PM
IP: 129.120.243.21

<<The only alternative to an unfair system is complete anarchy. >>
I�m sorry, what? That doesn�t follow. The rather glaring hole in the choices here seems to be, and correct me if I�m wrong, but a FAIR system. One that takes into account the wishes of all citizens through appropriate, transparent and accountable representation, while respecting the dignity, equality and human rights of its citizens and its responsibilities and obligations to others around the world.

<<So, the pragmatist asks you this: Would you rather have an unfair system, or anarchy? Assuming you'd rather not have anarchy (and the speedy death or enslavement that surely awaits you behind it), you have to pick an unfair system and stick to it. >>
False choice, and it only works if �pragmatic� is a synonym for �lazy�, as it so often is. There is another choice and that is to take the time and effort to make the system fair and equitable. If you�re willing to put up with an unfair system, then you�re just dead weight on society, doing nothing of use and good for little but fluffing the lastest poll on FOX news or the New York Times.

<<In a Constitutional Republic, we ultimately bow to the Tyrany of the Majority. A large enough majority can change any law, even the foundations like a Constitution. Congress is elected via the Tyrany of the Majority and passes a statute, and that's the Law. Congress confirms appointments to courts, who make sure that the Law congress has created is applied consistantly and reliably. >>
This is too simplistic. You�re assuming that the tyranny of the majority always holds, and this is not and should not be the case. A majority should rule if and only if the majority�s wishes do not obstruct the rights and freedoms of the minority unless they can prove that such obstruction is reasonable and necessary for the functioning of society. If they can�t�well, sorry majority, but thank you for playing. Only the lazy are willing to settle for the tyranny of the majority in all cases and at all times.

<<But ultimately, remember that the Law and Governance are arbitrary, and enforced by various forms of cruelty - deprivation of liberty, deprivation of property, threat of violence, and even state-sponsored murder. Government ultimately draws its power from abdicated responsibility and usurped power, which is why the only way for a Nation to retain the liberty of its citizens is to keep that government as marginalized as is practical.>>
I�m sorry, but where is that charmingly toxic view of civil society coming from? Government is based on abdicated responsibility and usurped power only if you let it. Have we let it? Arguably, yes (and I am one of those who would argue that we have) That does not imply, by any stretch of the imagination, that it must remain so, or that it�s the way things have to be. If citizens were more involved in and questioning of politics, then it wouldn�t be the case. Sadly, most Americans and Canadians are too entranced by the mindless desperate goals of fortune and celebrity. But unlike most cynics, I see this state as reversible.

<<The 14th Ammendment protects us from irrational laws and laws that create disparate treatment without Public Interest, but if the public has an interest in putting you in jail or giving someone else a break that you don't get - you're stuck with it. >>
The public�by which you mean society�cannot abrogate your rights without first proving that it is reasonable and necessary.

<<That arbitrary criteria is ultimately the only thing keeping the rapists, murderers, and arsonists from running roughshod over you and yours.>>
That�s charming, especially since rapes, murders and arsons have all been declining for years and that such crimes are considered reasonable and necessary grounds for the deprivation of liberty. I don�t really see what your point is here.
<<Well, that and any guns you may have lying around.>>
Oh. That.

Whitbourne
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 03:57:48 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

KAIOTO> "Would you rather have an unfair system, or anarchy?"

Easiest question in the world. I'd rather have anarchy. It's not ideal, but at the very least I would be the master of my own destiny. If it ended quickly in death, well I find that preferable to being a slave to a totalitarian government.

"Better to die on our feet than live on our knees."
Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 03:44:11 PM
IP: 216.179.3.109

<<Again, I'll play Devil's Advocate: What makes something miraculously a sacrosanct "civil right" or "liberty?" That's a completely arbitrary assignment of values that not all people share.>>
It�s generally based upon the principle that, within reason, you should be free to do what you wish to provided it doesn�t harm anyone else, nor interfere with the ability of others to do as they wish. It�s also based upon the principle that all people ought to have the equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of society and that discrimination based upon fundamental characteristics such as race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. should not be tolerated save when society can demonstrably prove that such limitations are reasonable and necessary for the functioning of society. This isn�t complete, but it�s the core idea.
Who made it that way? Consensus. If you want, you can fuss about it, but unless you have a better definition, I don�t see much of a point.

<<I like to burn things. I believe that the right to set people on fire is the most important and fundamental human right in the world, even more fundamental than the right to live safely. By not allowing me to set you on fire, you are violating my sacrosanct human rights.>>
This is a straw man argument. No one seriously argues things like this because no one accepts as a human right the ability to harm someone else. In this case, the restriction on your <ahem> right to burn things is reasonably limited by the rights of other people not to be burnt. This extreme example illustrates a point; your rights end where another�s begin. If I don�t want to be burnt, you have no right to burn me. You can burn me only if I consent to it, am in a competent frame of mind to understand my decision, make the decision without coercion, and am in a position where I can ethically consider myself fully informed as to what being burned would entail.

<>
You misunderstand rights again. You don�t have a right to live in a society free of eating meat. You have the right to refuse to eat meat if you want to, but you do not have the right to force someone else not to unless you can demonstrate that it�s reasonable to do so and that society is harmed more by eating meat than by not eating meat. If you wanted to attack this and live in your vegetocracy, you�d be better off to argue that people do not have the right to kill animals for meat, not that you have the right to live in a meatless society. That�s a position that some people are trying to defend; I�ll look around and see if I can find the name of one philosopher in particular who�s argued that.

<<See, it is easy and fun to lable anything you want a "human right" or a "civil right." That doesn't make it true or warrant it any special consideration. To get enough people to agree on a system of rights and privileges, you generally have to present them with some sort of ration (rather than emotion) to differentiate one set of desires from another, because the ultimate secular authority for determining "human rights" is either sheer weight of numbers or brutal strength of arms.>>
That�s a rather brutal and cynical definition, and the evidence doesn�t really hold it up. If you look t human rights as an individual shopping list of things you can and cannot do, then yeah, I could see your point, but since it�s more of a position than a shopping list, then force of numbers or strength of arms doesn�t really factor into whether something is a right or not. It factors in to whether those rights are suppressed or respected, but not to the definition.

<<Except that most of those rights can be curtailed in the interest of the State, or simply do not exist at all. >>
The State has to prove that it has reason to do so and that the curtailment of those rights is of higher benefit to society than respecting them. As to whether they exist, again, any right can be quibbled over if you subscribe to the shopping cart fallacy of human rights. That being said, human rights tend to deal with human security and well-being, not that of inanimate objects.

<<The right to own land can easily be taken away from you. Heck, you can't own it unless you buy it, and many people are chronically poor. On top of that, no one may want to sell to you. Therefor, many people are denied the supposed "right to own land." Heck, if we ran this system under a scheme of more Native American mores, no-one would own the land. The land belongs to itself. >>
Ownership rights are not human rights; they are property rights. You don�t have the right to own something, but you do have the right to not have it seized unlawfully. That�s the key word. You do have the human right not to be denied the OPPORTUNITY to own land, however, based on race, creed, sex, etc. As for government expropriation; it�s not arbitrary. The government has to prove that depriving you of your land is of greater good to society than in allowing you to keep it, that such seizure is reasonable and necessary, and it also has the obligation to compensate you at fair market value.

<<The right to protection against physical abuse is fleeting as well. There are many actions one can take that remove that supposed "right," such as provocation, resisting arrest, or even Conscription.>>
Again, reasonable and necessary figures into the definition. You have the right not to be physically assaulted if you resist arrest for shoplifting a chocolate bar, because having the bloody bejesus kicked out of you for stealing a Snickers is neither reasonable nor necessary. Conscription, again; if it�s necessary and reasonable grounds for abrogating human rights, then yeah. If not, no. And being conscripted does not give people the right to physically abuse you.

<<Public expression of your beliefs is only specifically protected under special statutes of the infinitely Ammendable U.S. Constitution. >>
I�m clipping the fire-in-a-crowded-theater thing because I�m tired of saying necessary and reasonable. I will say this, though; keep in mind that there are other countries represented on this board than just yours, and that human rights is a global definition and philosophical position that doesn�t depend on a document to exist.

<<The "right to vote" didn't originally exist for anyone but landed white males in this country. Further, aliens and many criminals living in this country are denied this "right to vote" in America as well.>>
Just because a right wasn�t recognized doesn�t mean it doesn�t exist. And the denial of the right to vote to so-called aliens and convicts is problematic, because I don�t think it�s been proven that this denial constitutes a reasonable and necessary denial of rights.

<<"Civil Marriage" is the State's domain - its own fabrication - and (predictably) it is a complete joke. At least in my State (Massachusetts) the Legislature has failed to adequately present a Rational Basis for its disparate dispensation of benefits via so-called "Civil Marriage." "Civil Marriage" is in clear violation of the 14th Ammendment of the constitution regardless of whether you let same-sex couples apply or not. >>
I�m not familiar with the 14th Amendment, but why are the rights of two people who want to call themselves married in question, provided they meet any necessary and reasonable limitations set by a state that has a financial or fiduciary interest in administering it? Aside from blood relation (to prevent a greater chance of genetic disorders in offspring) or issues of consent and competence to make a decision regarding marriage, why wouldn�t the right to reap the benefits of a marital union be considered a human right to two people? (Then again, I favour the distinction being made between �marriages� and �civil unions� to extend to marriages being performed by a religious authority but with no legal/civil standing, with a �civil union� required for any state recognition whatsoever, be the participants two men or two women or one of each.

Whitbourne
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 03:21:02 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

Bah, I've seen plenty of places that have way more administrative supervision than this place. Heck, TGS CR gives a very broad amount of leeway. They only have one CR, and they don't even restrict it to moderate on-topic posting.

Having been there myself, I'll just leave it at the fact that the server sits in a free country, and the management has the right to direct discussion as they see fit. You can file an appeal to Gorebash if you really want to, but I doubt you'll find a more qualified and interested group of volunteers to put up with babysitting this place.

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 02:10:25 PM
IP: 208.204.155.241

We hardly step in every five minutes. Aaron stepped into last week's, because it had reached the point where it needed admin intervention, then I stepped in when Vinnie blatantly ignored the admin post. And this debate looked well on it's way to another flame war, right after we stepped out of the last one.

But oh well, in this case, if everyone wants to continue feel free. Just ignore my previous admin post. But please keep the tempers in check and don't take things personally.

And on that note, we sure do seem to have a lot of Mormons in here. How did that song from South Park go?

"Joseph Smith was called a prophet. Dum dum dum dum dum" ;)

Seriously, no offense ;)
Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 02:07:45 PM
IP: 216.179.3.109

Too lazy to reply to people right now...maybe I will tonight after calc class...

But, damn, things have gotten a little...nasty in the past few days. How do such discussions ever get started (and I'm not sure I want to know the answer)?

Maybe we should pick an interesting topics to discuss...like funky dreams we have (and their subsequent consequences, if applicable). For example, on a message board I frequent, last April, I had this REALLY odd dream that I was married to the admin...and some of the other post-happy people had (rather odd) cameo roles as well. I've had 2 other dreams about him since (which were not quite as weird), and it's been the joke of the forum ever since. He actually called me on my birthday last month too (he lives in the Netherlands).

So, have you all had any funky dreams? I mentioned briefly the Gargoyles/Phantom of the Opera cross over, but that one's too odd to elaborate futher on (but I will say, that when the chandelier falls, it hits Goliath on the head and kills him, and everone cheers. That's probably the most normal thing that happened).
Andrea
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 02:03:12 PM
IP: 130.111.154.94

Greg> *deletes slightly rude version of this post and starts again* Has it occurred to you that there's no reason for anyone to bother coming to this room if there's going to be an admin stepping in every five minutes telling people what to do? Other forums don't have people arbitrarily ending discussions, so far as I can tell.
Bud-Clare
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:43:17 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

I apologize in advance for my bad spelling, although I have fixed most of it. (So I guess it's not really in advance...)
__________________
lynati> <<You like Guyvere, and it tastes like poop, so obviously you must have poop for brains and Guyvere stuffed in your ears and it is poop, too, so I�m gonna continue to insist that Provolone is the best.>>
+10 for creativity, -2,000,000 for spelling... ;)
______________
Tharos> <>
Tight-knit? Two days ago, we were trying to kill each other... ;)
__________________
lain> <<the example that springs first into my mind is one about whether or not a teacher in a public school in america is allowed to have a christian bible on their desk during class.>>
Doesn't the desk have drawers? (Maybe it was made by Death.)

<<but it is acceptable for them to have a koran, or torah, or any other religious text>>
Is it? That's silly. On the other hand, pretty much everyone already knows a lot about the bible (whether they want to or not), whereas the other texts could easily be considered a learning experience. Still, it's rather peculiar. But then, I consider keeping a book on a desk rather odd anyway. Don't teachers get bookshelves or something? (I know that I'm making a big deal out of a trivial issue, but the mental image is tying my brain in a knot.)

<<RE: cheese. oka kicks all their butts, yum!>>
Is that some kind of weird canadian thing? Because I don't approve of that. ;)
________________
Ray> <<True, the argument is often, "Because God said so.", but that doesn't mean there aren't any other reasons.>>
But the stupid people (who, unfortunately, are legion) never use any other reasons. They could easily use some decent arguments, but they just go straight for the useless ones, which makes them look crazy and _hurts_ their cause. Stupid people suck.

<<and don't anyone say it's alright to drink a bit of alcohol, cause you never know if you won't become an alcoholic>>
....I have one or two drinks per month at most, so I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you.
_____________
Jaden> <<Anyone ever been to New Zealand? I'm planning to take a vacation there>>
*drools*
____________
Gside> <<You know there'd be one of Talon giving a Black Panther's salute.>>
Ouch.

<<Promise?>>
No. I'm a tease.

<<I've heard it said that "A hug without a squeeze is like apple pie without cheese.">>
*whimpers*

<<You mean the cheese of the month club?>>
WOOHOO!
____________
Caboose> <>
See? This is exactly the problem. Could you get over your damn persecution complex, please? Anti-religious, my @$$...

<<Religion is one of many subjects you don't bring up in polite conversation because the conversation doesn't stay polite.>>
Gee, thanks for treating us like children. It's much appreciated.
_____________
Kaioto> <<This holds true for almost every sub-group in society - Christians, the Atheists, the NAACP, the "Gay Rights" lobby, the AARP, the NRA - you name it.>>
That's why I don't approve of groups of people. A person on their own will (one would hope) be not 100% certain of the "rightness" of their beliefs, and will therefore be more reasonable and willing to listen to others. But if you put that person in a room with someone who shares his beliefs, both of them will suddenly be more certain that they are right. And if you have, for instance, a _million_ people with the same beliefs... *shudders* hi-jinx ensue. Because a million people can't possibly be wrong. *rolls eyes and sighs*

<<It is impossible to have a "fair" system without some sort of arbitrary value laid somewhere.>>
I agree, but...that's not necessarily the issue.
Do you know how many times I've heard claims that we (whoever the hell "we" are) are "trying to undermine Christian values"? It seems that to many people, any time a non-Christian attempts to do pretty much anything, it's somehow an attack on Christianity. Anytime someone makes a movie or tv show with some violence or godforbid sex (and we're not even talking about porn here, or anything particularly explicit), this is somehow an attempt to undermine something or another. (Nevermind the fact that _many_ of the people making these movies and tv show are, in fact, Christian.) How exactly are we undermining anything just by living our lives? And do these people really think that there's some kind of grand conspiracy?
It leads to the impression that we're only really allowed to be non-Christian in the privacy of our own homes, where no one can see...
A little bit of unfairness in the system is all right, since it's unavoidable. It's the unfairness outside of the system that's the most worrying.
Even worse...there's the disagreement over who exactly the system favors... There are plenty of Christians (the same ones that I griped about above, probably) who believe that "we" are somehow stealing the government away from them or something. Yes, "we" have won some victories (although in some cases, I'm not sure that that word applies, since some of the fights were over something stupid...), but overall? The vast majority of the politicians are still Christian, I'm sure, and we're not going to be having a non-Chistian president anytime soon. The non-Christian "victories" seem like a big deal because they get so much media coverage (and because some of them are, as previously mentioned, stupid, and cause me much embarrassment as a non-Christian), but Christians still wield so much power that there's no need, in my opinion, for them to be getting tetchy over it. Besides, Christianity has been in power for a long time... Is it really so horrible to give someone else a chance once in awhile?

Ack. I didn't mean to go on for so long. But I feel better now.
*looks at clock and swears* Really, really long. Who stole the afternoon? Bleh.
Bud-Clare
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:38:14 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Alright everyone. I'm not going to be long winded, not going to go on about how we have this debate and no one ever changes their minds. No, gonna handle this with three simple words.

Everyone Shut Up!
Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:30:03 PM
IP: 216.179.3.109

Mooncat: I guess I missed the controversial issue stuff because what I've seen is a Crazy Mormon guy posting stuff on his religious beliefs and others countering them. If that's not a religious debate, I don't know what would be.

Kaioto: You raise some very interesting points in those remarkably cynical posts of yours. :) Not that there's anything wrong with cynicism, mind you.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:29:28 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

<< there are some things that should be addressed because it deals with basic civil rights and liberties >>

Again, I'll play Devil's Advocate: What makes something miraculously a sacrosanct "civil right" or "liberty?" That's a completely arbitrary assignment of values that not all people share.

<< to try and curtail basic domestic liberties and civil rights of others >>

I like to burn things. I believe that the right to set people on fire is the most important and fundamental human right in the world, even more fundamental than the right to live safely. By not allowing me to set you on fire, you are violating my sacrosanct human rights.

<< My eating meat does not deny the basic rights or liberties of another human being. >>

I believe it is my inalienable right to live in a society where animals are not harmed. Therefor, your eating of meet denies my fundamental human rights.

See, it is easy and fun to lable anything you want a "human right" or a "civil right." That doesn't make it true or warrant it any special consideration. To get enough people to agree on a system of rights and privileges, you generally have to present them with some sort of ration (rather than emotion) to differentiate one set of desires from another, because the ultimate secular authority for determining "human rights" is either sheer weight of numbers or brutal strength of arms.

<< liberties they themselves enjoy like the right to marry, the right to vote, the right to own land, the right to protection against physical abuse, the right of public expression of thier beliefs etc. >>

Except that most of those rights can be curtailed in the interest of the State, or simply do not exist at all.

The right to own land can easily be taken away from you. Heck, you can't own it unless you buy it, and many people are chronically poor. On top of that, no one may want to sell to you. Therefor, many people are denied the supposed "right to own land." Heck, if we ran this system under a scheme of more Native American mores, no-one would own the land. The land belongs to itself.

The right to protection against physical abuse is fleeting as well. There are many actions one can take that remove that supposed "right," such as provocation, resisting arrest, or even Conscription.

Public expression of your beliefs is only specifically protected under special statutes of the infinitely Ammendable U.S. Constitution. Political speech is protected. Shouting things to incite panic in a crowded public area when there is not protected, regardless of your beliefs.

The "right to vote" didn't originally exist for anyone but landed white males in this country. Further, aliens and many criminals living in this country are denied this "right to vote" in America as well.

The "right to marry" is possibly the least justified in its existance out of all of these. The State does not regulate religious marriage, or any other sort of private union. In that sense, everyone has the true right to marry.

"Civil Marriage" is the State's domain - its own fabrication - and (predictably) it is a complete joke. At least in my State (Massachusetts) the Legislature has failed to adequately present a Rational Basis for its disparate dispensation of benefits via so-called "Civil Marriage." "Civil Marriage" is in clear violation of the 14th Ammendment of the constitution regardless of whether you let same-sex couples apply or not.

Beyond all that, whether or not an issue should be discussed is, again, an arbitrary decision that is left to the participants int he discussion or the owner of the forum. By proxy, that ownership right would be exercised by the owner's agents, in this case the moderating staff.

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:10:59 PM
IP: 208.204.155.241

*peeks in on cue*

GregX- Lynati's friend Anna (very attractive fun girl who gave me a lap dance once

and we have a picture of this lap dance. located at the link below.

These are the kind of pictures that resurface when peole run for office.
Revel - [<-----picture]
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:48:22 PM
IP: 129.120.243.21

Caboose - Since when is it a religious vs anti-religious debate? I'm just curious because the actual question being debated is wether a subject that is controversial should not be addressed in either debate or literature/entertainment. That could be many things and not necessarily religious based Though in many cases the reason something is deemed controversial is based on one groups religious beliefs, there are some things that should be addressed because it deals with basic civil rights and liberties, not the coddling of sensibilities, and wether or not subjects can even be addressed in public forum or wether they are censored out of hand simply because of "controversy".

Myself, I'm highly religious. I'm just not of YOUR religion. My points are not that religion is itself bad, only that there are some people who do things based on their personal beliefs (religious or otherwise)to try and curtail basic domestic liberties and civil rights of others, liberties they themselves enjoy like the right to marry, the right to vote, the right to own land, the right to protection against physical abuse, the right of public expression of thier beliefs etc.

In fairness, I totally believe you can voice your belief no matter how much I disagree with it, but in fairness I believe person who disagree with your belief also have the right to be heard and be allowed to detail their own positions. You can express and explain why you believe people should not eat meat. THose who eat meat or have no objection to others eating meat should be able to have their say in favor of the practice. Is simply because one of the reasons against eating meat is that it's related to one's religion make the very discussion of the subject taboo?

Myself. I eat meat. I have not keeled over dead from eating meat. Eating meat as far as I or any doctor who has examined me has not harmed me in any phyiscal way and in fact seems to contribute to my 1) staying alive by ingesting food, 2) helps me build muscle and other protein based body bits, 3) General happiness, because I really like eating meat and even 4) Contributes directly to the prosperity of my community, because meat production, processing, and serving as a foodstuff is a beneficial part of my surrounding economy.

My eating meat in no way hurts another human being. My eating meat does not deny the basic rights or liberties of another human being. My eating meat is a personal choice and I do not try to force others to eat meat in anyway try to force my own diet upon others. I do not wish others to force their diet upon me.

Now I'm really hungry. Laters
Mooncat hasn't had breakfast yet!
>^,,^< -- I'm off to grab something yummy!
Mooncat
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:30:05 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

<< yes, i also believe that it is virtually impossible to please *everyone* - people are so diverse. >>

So then, who do we please?

Most people's answers boil down to, "Me and mine, the rest of you can go bugger yourselves." This holds true for almost every sub-group in society - Christians, the Atheists, the NAACP, the "Gay Rights" lobby, the AARP, the NRA - you name it.

<< should other segments of society be censored solely on the basis of *your* personal comfort? im not trying to be snippy but... should it? why or why not? >>

It is impossible to have a "fair" system without some sort of arbitrary value laid somewhere. Monarchy invested arbitrary authority in the Monarch. Democracy invests arbitrary authority in the masses. Plato's Republic invests arbitrary authority in Philosopher Kings. All of them are based on the notion that somehow one system or the other will present a better exercise of power for the governed.

The only alternative to an unfair system is complete anarchy.

So, the pragmatist asks you this:

Would you rather have an unfair system, or anarchy?

Assuming you'd rather not have anarchy (and the speedy death or enslavement that surely awaits you behind it), you have to pick an unfair system and stick to it.

The governed eventually settle on a system that they can live with. Most of us don't like it, but we need it to survive. In a Constitutional Republic, we ultimately bow to the Tyrany of the Majority. A large enough majority can change any law, even the foundations like a Constitution. Congress is elected via the Tyrany of the Majority and passes a statute, and that's the Law. Congress confirms appointments to courts, who make sure that the Law congress has created is applied consistantly and reliably.

Is this fair to those that are in the minority on any issue? Not really. Never has been, and it never will be.

Is it better than the alternatives? We'd like to think so. Even living under an unfair system is generally better than living under no system at all. In most cases, men and women of good conscience lay out the democratic process in such a way as to limit vulnerabilities of the minority, since the Individual is the weakest, most vulnerable minority, and everyone is an Individual.

But ultimately, remember that the Law and Governance are arbitrary, and enforced by various forms of cruelty - deprivation of liberty, deprivation of property, threat of violence, and even state-sponsored murder. Government ultimately draws its power from abdicated responsibility and usurped power, which is why the only way for a Nation to retain the liberty of its citizens is to keep that government as marginalized as is practical.

As with most things, many of the day's controversial "moral" issues shouldn't be in the hands of the government / consensus in the first place. The State has little or no actually Public Interest in influencing these issues. Influence expended to benefit or harm one man but not another - must - be rationally justified by Public Interest under the 14th Ammendment of the United State's constitution, or it is blatantly unconstitutional.

In short, while you may not like "majority rules," it is the (arbitrary) law of the land in the United States. The 14th Ammendment protects us from irrational laws and laws that create disparate treatment without Public Interest, but if the public has an interest in putting you in jail or giving someone else a break that you don't get - you're stuck with it. That arbitrary criteria is ultimately the only thing keeping the rapists, murderers, and arsonists from running roughshod over you and yours.

Well, that and any guns you may have lying around.

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:00:21 PM
IP: 208.204.155.241

I vote we nip the whole "Religious vs Anti-religious" debate in the bud. Both sides will never agree on anything and will only continue to tick one another off with each subsequent post defending their point of view.

Religion is one of many subjects you don't bring up in polite conversation because the conversation doesn't stay polite.

I know we're all for debating controversial issues, but don't you think we could wait a few days before getting into another heated argument?
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 10:32:20 AM
IP: 198.150.93.3

That was me.
kathy
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 08:36:39 AM
IP: 66.82.198.153

"True, the argument is often, "Because God said so.", but that doesn't mean there aren't any other reasons. For example, when my church was first being formed (Mormons), we received a commandement through our prophet Joseph Smith that we were not to drink alcohol, smoke tabaco, or even eat meat (unless it is cold and there is nothing else to eat, but with modern supermarkets there's not much chance of running out of other food.) That was several hundred years ago, before much was known about that stuff, and what do we know now? Alcohol causes liver damage (and gets people drunk and violent, and don't anyone say it's alright to drink a bit of alcohol, cause you never know if you won't become an alcoholic), smoking severely damages your lungs, and meat isn't exactly the most healthy thing in the world, especially now that almost all kinds of meat are getting these nasty diseases." - Ray

Somebody help me. Most major religions in their 'though shalt not' section cover food safetly. Why? Because even in the past people have always been ignorant about what they put in their mouths. Diseased cattle (or pigs or chickens or shellfish) are nothing new. Unreliable purveyors of food stuffs also not new. Keeping meat properly chilled to prevent bacterial growth was more difficult in the past because of lack of reliable refrigeration. The only way to make sure you know your food is safe to a reasonable certainty is to grow it yourself.

As for alcohol and tobacco - abuse anything including water and you cause your body damage. Tobacco (before the industry got a hold of it) is a medicinal herb used for calming and clarifying the mind. And the ferments of grape and grain have their place too.
Anonymous
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 08:35:49 AM
IP: 66.82.198.153

ray>> <<YOu may claim that the meat thing is coincidence that there are all these diseases, but the fact that it isn't very healthy for you is no coincidence>> of course.
<<Everything has a reason, we may not see it but it does, and ignoring an argument that has a good reason, besides "God said so", just because you don't want to believe in it is possibly the dumbest thing that man can do>> i do not disagree with you, as you seem to assume.
<<if that comment about moral values is what I think it was you are lucky that god ran out of lightning bolts quite some time ago>> no, it probably wasnt. well, actually it probably was, but not for the reason you probably think ;) if youre than desparate to know, drop your email and ill resume the discussion in that forum. i do not particularly have a hankering to have my rump toasted by christians in public.. but i think i could handle it one-on-one ;)
<> thats good. i dont think its particularly helpful, either.

mooncat>> <<If you refer to the people within that history, there were plenty of persons through all the ages who not only were not fascinated with magic and non-Christian religion/beliefs, except as something to actively stamp out any expression of it>> well, if you want to go about it that way, yes, there were lots of people whose thoughts ran exactly as you describe. there were lots of people who thought a lot of very diverse things and i suppose youre right that generalization doesnt help anyone anywhere. but i unfortunately dont see how you can have a conversation like this without using at least SOME form of generalization. (am i spelling that right? it looks funky... but that could just be the 5am crack talking... o.O)
<<There probably always will be *some* people who are offended by depictions of magic (it's one of the tenets of faith for a certain major religion that any depiction of magic not a holy act of their god is unholy and abomination)>> yes, i also believe that it is virtually impossible to please *everyone* - people are so diverse.
<<Should the rest of us have all discussion and entertainments white washed so that there are no depictions of magic that isn't considered a holy act of god?>> i did not say, or even vaguely imply that, now did i? please at least attempt to be fair to my intellect, feeble though it may be...
<<Just because Lewis and Tolkien were Christians who wrote fantasy does not mean all Christians embrace or advocate fantasy>> of course. again, i was just making an apparently rash generalization.
<> what is the point of this? i am not three years old and i do understand and accept that all things come in many flavours.
<<Even today only PART of society tolerates and enjoys discussion and depictions of fantasy style magic, or wiccan religion, etc, there is (and probably always will be) a part of society that remains anti-fantasy/magic/wicca on strictly "moral" grounds>> yes. again, i apologize for making a generalization - though i think it would be fair to say that the part of society that does not enjoy discussion/depiction of fantasy etc is relatively small, would you not agree?
<<Should the rest of society then be censored solely on the basis of their personal comfort?>> i would argue that no, it should not. again though, i guess the point im trying to make is... should other segments of society be censored solely on the basis of *your* personal comfort? im not trying to be snippy but... should it? why or why not?
the example that springs first into my mind is one about whether or not a teacher in a public school in america is allowed to have a christian bible on their desk during class. (please note: this is on the desk, not being read or anything, simply sitting on the desk.) why is it not acceptable for the teacher to have a bible (by which i mean not acceptable to the point where they might loose their job for such an affront), but it is acceptable for them to have a koran, or torah, or any other religious text not only on their desk, but in their hands, either being read quietly to themselves, or aloud to the class? would this not also qualify equally as an example of censorship, only with the tables turned? should not all things be equally... well... equal? if not, how would one decide which things should be "more equal than others" (as it were)?
<<Disney was taking a risk with Gargoyles. They knew it right from the get go. They were afraid from the beginning that there would be backlash because of the demonic look of the main characters>> yes, i do know that.
<<Aren't we glad the threat of controversy didn't prevent Gargoyles from being produced and becoming the great series it was?>> of course we are, otherwise we wouldnt be here having this conversation, would we? ;) however i dont think this really related to the issue im trying to discuss with you.
<<sigh... need an edit function... that should have been "decades earlier (in some cases years earlier" and I think I doubled a "not" in there somewhere>> its ok, i still love you :) there were a few things in my last post that didnt make much sense either, upon second reading. <<series proposals were made, neither of which (in my opinion, for what its worth) lacked grit>> for example, ended up saying *exactly* the opposite of what i meant :P
ive re-read this post a bunch of times and theres probably some boob or other in there somewhere...

aria>> welcome :) <<So many of the people in here are almost like a family, and many don't want to intrude, including myself>> aww, thats so sad! its true that the majority of people in here do form a fairly tight-knit community, but that certainly doesn't mean we feel "intruded upon" when new people come along. we like newbies :) (at least, *I* like newbies.. i suppose i cant really speak for everyone else but, id assume they like newbies too :) fresh blood and all for the sacri... uh.. um.. i mean.. more voices for the discussions.. yes.. discussions... *shifty eyes* ;))
<<Not to mention a bad experience I had a few years ago with a fanfic forum>> youll find that everywhere, i think. certainly people (myself included) have had bad experiences here, too. you either have to get over it, or run away (and then suffer the consequences of that choice ;))
<<And I am really looking forward to the release of Bad Guys>> yaye!
<<Keep up the good work. :)>> we try. encouragement though? always helpful :D

weve gotten a bunch of newbies all of a sudden the past few days. i hope you all stay and we didnt scare you *too* badly with our debating!
lain
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 06:33:13 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

TGS? Quit? Oh gawd no!
I absolutly love TGS. And while I do check the comment room every now and then, I think I've only ever posted twice, and it was just small things.
Yeah it's true, the main reason why many of the TGS readers don't post is because they probably feel intimidated.
So many of the people in here are almost like a family, and many don't want to intrude, including myself.
Not to mention a bad experience I had a few years ago with a fanfic forum. x_x;
But I really enjoy TGS, and I eagerly wait for each season to be announced and each episode to be released.
And I am really looking forward to the release of Bad Guys.
Keep up the good work. :)
Aria (The Insane) Nightshadow
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 05:47:15 AM
IP: 216.113.222.40

Lain>><<Some people don't accept religious reasons because they don't believe in it>> well, no. and conversely, i think its pretty pointless for religion to enter into a debate like that, because the argument "because GOD said so" doesnt hold water with people who dont believe. also, if the universe was created in GODs image, and through HIS word, the universe should reflect that word - and therefore there should be enough examples FROM the world to support the point anyways, without the need for bringing GOD into it. <<when it touches someones moral values then they are best avoided, because nothing causes a more violent reaction than when someone's beliefs are challenged>> unfortunately for that view-point... "moral values" are so diverse that pretty much nothing can really be said that wont upset SOMEone, SOMEwhere. i have my own opinion about how christians should react to having their "moral values" threatened but.. ill sit on it for now.<<

True, the argument is often, "Because God said so.", but that doesn't mean there aren't any other reasons. For example, when my church was first being formed (Mormons), we received a commandement through our prophet Joseph Smith that we were not to drink alcohol, smoke tabaco, or even eat meat (unless it is cold and there is nothing else to eat, but with modern supermarkets there's not much chance of running out of other food.) That was several hundred years ago, before much was known about that stuff, and what do we know now? Alcohol causes liver damage (and gets people drunk and violent, and don't anyone say it's alright to drink a bit of alcohol, cause you never know if you won't become an alcoholic), smoking severely damages your lungs, and meat isn't exactly the most healthy thing in the world, especially now that almost all kinds of meat are getting these nasty diseases. YOu may claim that the meat thing is coincidence that there are all these diseases, but the fact that it isn't very healthy for you is no coincidence, and mormons were given these commandements before any of this was known. So you could say that saying something is bad because it is a commandement doesn't hold any water, but there are very few true commandements that do not have a reason. Everything has a reason, we may not see it but it does, and ignoring an argument that has a good reason, besides "God said so", just because you don't want to believe in it is possibly the dumbest thing that man can do. So as you can see there are examples from this world.

PS. if that comment about moral values is what I think it was you are lucky that god ran out of lightning bolts quite some time ago. :)
PPS. When christians react to their moral values being challenged there are two evils, their reaction (if violent), and your challenging them. I for one believe that violence and contention solves nothing, but people have the right to defend what they believe in.

Bud-Clare>> ...Or people have to nerve to ask why the whole world has to revolve around _your_ beliefs? It's just a thought.<<

The obvious reply to that would be that the world would be better off. :) The world does not have to revolve around a person's belief, but in this age where acceptance is preached for things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, I'd think that people would have the grace to accept different religious beliefs as well. I for one don't think anyone HAS to be in my religion, I think they should do what they think is right, mormonism even states that you don't have to be part of our church to go into heaven, as long as you led a good life you can get in, it's just kinda easier if you're mormon, cause you know what you're meant to do. :) (Don't mean to sound too arrogant there.)
Ray
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 04:47:29 AM
IP: 212.117.127.210

[The problem with any explanation you come up with is that according to Greg, a sleeping garg is completely made of this "stone-like substance".]

Of course, he has also admitted to not being the best to ask science questions, and has had made errors in the past (Tachi not having hatched yet by the time of Brook and Katana's return, 2158 needing to be 2198). He doesn't have all the angles covered, but hates it when people rub in the fact that he has made a mistake.

So, were he given the facts/ideas in an undertsandable way, he might change his mind...if he cared enough to do so. He might as easily stick with his original declaration and tell us to screw the science; not everything in the gargieverse can be explained that way. ; )
Lynati
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 03:53:00 AM
IP: 65.66.154.114

sigh... need an edit function... that should have been "decades earlier (in some cases years earlier" and I think I doubled a "not" in there somewhere.

mc
Mooncat
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 03:47:04 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Well, back on the subject of controversy, and wether controversial subjects should be eliminated from public discussion or literature/entertainments --

Lain -- [quote "not like "christian european" history hasnt been completely fascinated with and isnt bursting at the seams with fairy tales, myths, writings, plays and art showing "magic and depictions of non-Christian religion/beliefs." check out that CS lewis, or tolkien (both christian, i might add) oo, or lets go back further and look at the romantic period... or further still and the neo-classic period. come on, you cant tell me that societys fascination/acceptance of ALL of those things you mentioned is "recent" :P unquote]

Christian European History isn't a sentient being, it can't be fascinated with anything. If you refer to the people within that history, there were plenty of persons through all the ages who not only were not fascinated with magic and non-Christian religion/beliefs, except as something to actively stamp out any expression of it.

I was reading Tolkien and Lewis decades ago, and I've noted that off and on through the years both those authors have been on proposed book banning lists, along with classics like the Wizard of Oz and now new hot titles like Harry Potter. There probably always will be *some* people who are offended by depictions of magic (it's one of the tenets of faith for a certain major religion that any depiction of magic not a holy act of their god is unholy and abomination).

Should the rest of us have all discussion and entertainments white washed so that there are no depictions of magic that isn't considered a holy act of god? After all, it would be "less" of a bother to people who are not offended by magic to be exposed to material that is totally without reference to magic than it is for a person who is offended by magic to have to come across it in public discussion or entertainment.

Just because Lewis and Tolkien were Christians who wrote fantasy does not mean all Christians embrace or advocate fantasy. I know Christian homosexuals, that doesn't mean that all Christians are homosexual or pro-homosexual. I know Christians who are lawyers, doesn't mean all Christians are lawyers are even like lawyers. There are Christians who are anti this while others are pro that, but the example of a few people are not sign posts that the entire groups said people are members of share their views . Through the romantic and neo-classic periods there were always certain factions of society that denounced the other as being corruptive and immoral and that the expression of the arts and science of those periods were signs of humanity's decline into licentiousness, decadence and abandonment of god's will.

Even today only PART of society tolerates and enjoys discussion and depictions of fantasy style magic, or wiccan religion, etc, there is (and probably always will be) a part of society that remains anti-fantasy/magic/wicca on strictly "moral" grounds. Should the rest of society then be censored solely on the basis of their personal comfort?

Or, heck, maybe Gargoyles shouldn't have been produced by Disney at all because it was a "dark" show and many people were of the opinion animated children's shows should only be light happy fluffy bunny style animated shows. Disney was taking a risk with Gargoyles. They knew it right from the get go. They were afraid from the beginning that there would be backlash because of the demonic look of the main characters. Those were genuine concerns for the Disney production people, but even with the consideration of the controversial nature of the show, they went ahead with production of Gargoyles. Aren't we glad the threat of controversy didn't prevent Gargoyles from being produced and becoming the great series it was?

There are obviously some people who decided to pull the episode Deadly Force from the regular line up. Why? Because the depiction of realistic, possibly fatal violence involving the use of a gun in a children's cartoon is controversial. The result of the fear of controversy is that that episode was S&P'd right out of Toon Disney.

There is tons of stuff in Gargoyles that years earlier (and in some cases only years later) would have gotten them S&P'd into extremely gutted and altered shows.

Mooncat
Mooncat
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 03:43:53 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Geez, my classes are going by fast. I'm taking 9 week courses and it's almost time to register again. Wow, looks like I missed one hell of a conversation.

Fire Storm- Why not make their own religion? Because they shouldn't have to.

Question- Anyone ever been to New Zealand? I'm planning to take a vacation there and was wondering about some of the stuff not usually found on the travel guide websites. Anything will be helpful.

Later.

Jaden - [jaden1444@aol.com]
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 03:30:52 AM
IP: 4.33.186.127

*ahem*
LINED up, not "liked"
someone needs sleepytime :P
lain
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 02:49:11 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

lyn>> <> heh heh, yeah, i think weve got some kickass stuff liked up, if we can just get it OUT :P
... luckily, i think were starting to get a little bit of a backlog, so hopefully when we START releasing stuff, we can release more than one series before having a break again :)

lain
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 02:48:26 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

re: garg bio> The problem with any explanation you come up with is that according to Greg, a sleeping garg is completely made of this "stone-like substance". Not just an outer shell, or cell membranes, or what have you. If *everything* becomes solid, you have no medium for exchange of gases, metabolic products/waste, chemical signals... zilch. To survive in this state for 12 hours, you'd imagine they must be completely frozen in suspended animation of some kind. Yet according to Greg, processes such as dreaming, healing, and the day/night biological clock are still going on. Never mind the difficulty in explaining how cells can survive the dramatic back-and-forth transformation day after day; never mind trying to explain how the cells are able to carry out actual metabolic *processes* when all fluid inside and outside the cell is suddenly *gone*. Tell me, how can the signal that initiates the change itself even be *spread* across the solid body (and in such a speedy and synchronous manner, to boot?).

I can think of ways (sometimes farfetched) to explain practically everything else about gargoyle physiology, but not this. I tried asking Greg directly a while back, and learned the hard way that he's sticking to his claim that it *is* possible and that magic has nothing to do with it. After that, I gave up on trying to make sense of any of it. As fun as it is to try and find the 'why and how', the unique characteristics of the show's gargoyles were never meant to 'make sense'. They just look cool. And that's that.
Vash
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 02:16:29 AM
IP: 129.98.127.164

That's because no-one knew who Anna was, and someone said "I think it was Lexy".

ahh...Anna. Her bluntness and lack of body modesty has never failed to amaze and inspire me. and I *knew* I'd missed responding to something here...

Good to see people de-lurking. I'm glad yall like TD; it was my fave series, too, being Brook-centric. I just hope I do it justice...season five is planned to be one...(Sunnydale Mayor voice:) ...Heck of a ride.
;)
Lynati
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:54:11 AM
IP: 65.66.154.114

Actually, the revelation came after Lynati's friend Anna (very attractive fun girl who gave me a lap dance once ;)) just came out and asked "So what's the deal with Lex, is he gay or what?"

For some reason, I see Lexy getting credited a lot with the question.
Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:45:39 AM
IP: 216.179.3.109

Lynati> <<American cheese is the only cheese>>: That's just... wrong. What is he thinking?

Gunjack> <<Dreamed about arranging things in a warehouse all night. Which sucks, 'cause now I have to go and arrange things in a warehouse all day>>: So I guess you don't play Tetris (or any other block shifting puzzle game) anymore for fear of flashbacks.
<<Oh, it is, it is. The world is not as it should be>>: Then take a deep breat, have some cheese, and just relax.

Leo> <>: I believe it was IRC Goliath, and it was led up to by something to do with Lex's behavior in Turf.

Bud Clare> <<Woohoo! I'd been wondering what that meant. Thank you>>: From the depths of my perversions, you are quite welcome.
<>: You know there'd be one of Talon giving a Black Panther's salute.
<<If you won't fight properly... %#$@ you>>: Promise?

Dezi> <<Hey does anyone know what hydrocodone does or what it is made of?>>: "Hydrocodone bitartrate is an opioid analgesic and antitussive and occurs as fine white crystals or as a crystalline powder. It is affected by light. The chemical name is: 4,5a-epoxy-3-methoxy-17-methylmorphinan-6-one tartrate (1:1) hydrate (2:5)." Looking up the words there that I don't really know, it makes you feel good (but isn't made from opium), and reduces coughing. And you never want to know what any organic molecule is made of besides being made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and a couple other atoms.

Spacebabie> <<If you have to blame someone then blame the bunnies>>: But I like El Goonish Shive.
<<Which kind?>>: Extra extra extra sharp. Rattrap cheddar. There's this farm in Vermont that makes nice cheese and keeps some of it until it's quite nicely aged.

Caboose> <<it's amazing how well everybody (well, almost everybody) managed to return to normal, civilized discussion after the admins dropped the axe on the flame war>>: It's old hat by now. At least to some of us.
<>: This one wasn't so bad as it wasn't specifically about anyone here.

Bud Clare> <<.........okay. *backs away slowly*>>: I've heard it said that "A hug without a squeeze is like apple pie without cheese." I think I've had it once, not too bad.

Annie> <<why are they starting a new fic line (Bad guys) when they don't even have the people to keep working on what series they do have?>>: Because the people working on it are newish people who came in because that's the storyline they wanted to work on.

Kjay> <>: My grandfather swears by lactase enzyme pills.

Lynati> <<so is Hudson for that matter, he has a plan on the backburner for designing a dissectable gargoyle body in a 3D computer animation program>>: And I seem to remember that he wants to model The Bizz's front door Gargess.

Whitbourne> <<It's certainly a relatively easy way to make high-energy phosphates>>: Chant: ATP ATP ATP.

Dezi> <<Do they have a cheese lovers anonymous group or some such for you to join?>>: You mean the cheese of the month club?

Annie> <>: Some yes, some no. That's the fun of such different backgrounds we all have.

Damien> <<what season of whick show should i read next?>>: Whichever you want. Probably Pendragon or Timedancer.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:42:05 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

woo, newbies!

welcome annie, tharos, alex garg

annie>> <<Anywho, I thought I'd stick my head in for at least once>> heads? we like heads :) <<And a general question for anyone that might know, why are they starting a new fic line (Bad guys) when they don't even have the people to keep working on what series they do have?>> actually, "bad guys" was proposed what, over 4 years ago? anyways, it was back in the day when we had slightly more people to work with. since then, at least two other full (and *extremely* different!) series proposals were made, neither of which (in my opinion, for what its worth) lacked grit and werent terribly well thought-out or exciting, though this was at least partly to do with the fact that originally, BG was planned to only last 1 or 2 seasons at most. (i would assume that at least some parts of one of these incarnations can be found in sobotkas "avalon mists" version of "bad guys".. though how much evolution its gone through between what was proposed to TGS and what has been published there i couldnt say, since that version was proposed before i joined staff and i had absolutely nothing to do with it. anyways, i sorta staged a hostile takeover of the project, and its basically been worked on by three people (me, gunjack and DPH) ever since. gunjack isnt a member of the regular TGS staff, i was (until recently) only functioning as an artist and DPH was mostly doing breakdowns and site updates - so it really isnt as though weve "taken resources away" from the main project. we ARE trying to make it into a full-fledged "saga" of its own, but whether that will happen with the resources we have available is anyones guess. the fact that so few people have been working on BG is the main reason why it hasnt been released yet - its pretty slow going. if/when it is released though, it will be damn worth the wait, i can tell you that much. :)
(plus, then we might get some more help! *ever hopeful*)

lynati>> <<Because lain wanted to. ; )>> you mean, "because lain is an idiot" :P <<...actually, I think she and Gunjack started their plans for it about two years before our rather recent drop-off in active staff members>> three years (isnt that sad?). and we took it over and vaguely cannibalized from something (complete) that existed previously, though how long it existed before we yoinked it... im not quite sure. a seasons worth of outlines had been written, but no actual writing had taken place yet.

damien>> <<what season of whick show should i read next?>> uh, i dunno, whatever you want. when i first started reading, TD was my fave but... read whatever :)

kjay>> <<PHEW!!!! Can we all just get along?>> we try. mostly. :)

dezi>> <<TGS People: Don't quit. Really, don't quit. What you guys have done here is awesome>> awwww... *blush* <> yeah. i know *I* was reading tgs for a year before i even noticed the "comment room" link :P i saw a site statistics breakdown page once and there were... how many hits at the hign point? DPH? i dont even remember. it was a stupidly large amount, anyways like... in the hundreds of thousands per month :P (and that was hits to the actual TGS page, not including the CR) <<But hey, although prolly not, if you are in need of additional artists, or just pretty much anything else not dealing with hardcore internet stuff, just say the word and my soul is yours>> mwa ha ha, we need help with everything, fork the soul over!!

ray>> <<Some people don't accept religious reasons because they don't believe in it>> well, no. and conversely, i think its pretty pointless for religion to enter into a debate like that, because the argument "because GOD said so" doesnt hold water with people who dont believe. also, if the universe was created in GODs image, and through HIS word, the universe should reflect that word - and therefore there should be enough examples FROM the world to support the point anyways, without the need for bringing GOD into it. <<when it touches someones moral values then they are best avoided, because nothing causes a more violent reaction than when someone's beliefs are challenged>> unfortunately for that view-point... "moral values" are so diverse that pretty much nothing can really be said that wont upset SOMEone, SOMEwhere. i have my own opinion about how christians should react to having their "moral values" threatened but.. ill sit on it for now.

RE: cheese. oka kicks all their butts, yum! :D

mooncat>> <<Star Trek was ground breaking because it showed the first televised inter-racial kiss (Uhura/Kirk)>> that doesnt count. kirk kissed everybody :P <<then many of the things that make Gargoyles the richly textured show it is now would have been eliminated in pre-production and we'd be left with... well with practically nothing>> i disagree. though censorship for "sensative audiences" is getting pretty bad (i am referring to the removal of the word "terrorist" and such.) <<It would no doubt bother a person who likes Gargoyles to join a discussion or read books or watch shows that have nothing to do with gargoyles than for people who dislike gargoyles to deal with discussion, books, or shows that include gargoyles>> huh? o.O <<or it's inclusion of magic and depictions of non-Christian religion/beliefs, much less the lead characters the Gargoyles themselves>> not like "christian european" history hasnt been completely fascinated with and isnt bursting at the seams with fairy tales, myths, writings, plays and art showing "magic and depictions of non-Christian religion/beliefs." check out that CS lewis, or tolkien (both christian, i might add) oo, or lets go back further and look at the romantic period... or further still and the neo-classic period. come on, you cant tell me that societys fascination/acceptance of ALL of those things you mentioned is "recent" :P
(sorry, i really had to call you on that one..)

*rocks out to gavin rossdales "adrenaline", which is now officially the new "bad guys" theme song. (thanks revel, you rule!!)*
lain "you dont even feel the pain" iwakura
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 01:28:09 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Tharos & Dezi - Thank you for your kind words. From time to time, various members of tgs staff do need encouragement to keep on going. We try our best to keep the fans happy and in turn, hope the fans make our work worthwhile.

DPHG=
AR, USA
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:19:07 AM
IP: 204.94.193.30

whoops hit wrong button,
hey everybody!!
what season of whick show should i read next?
i just finished the first season of gargoykes
Damien
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:17:42 AM
IP: 207.6.149.113

caboose: I know but someone was complaining about the lack of future speculation...
Damien
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 12:12:40 AM
IP: 207.6.149.113

*answers Lynati's call for assistance in the S8 room. He opens his mouth, ready to respond... looks over the medical jargon and can only manage a whimper*

Okay, I'll leave all the cellular, anatomy stuff to the doctors; however, my two cents on the taxonomy/phylogenetic stuff:
There are a few missing pieces to the puzzle, sure, but Greg has given us a lot to go on. He answers repeatedly in AG that gargoyles are not mammals, lizards, birds, etc. (how many times have we heard the term "gargates" now?); so basically he's told us that the gargoyles' genetic split from the rest of us begins on the Class level. We've also been told that garg-beasts (Bronx) are to gargoyles what chimpanzees are to us (close, but not quite); so there we're dealing with another split on the Family level. I think it's safe to fill in Kingdom (gargoyles strike me as in the animal kingdom), Phylum (backbones, anyone?... to make it simple), Class and Family on the gargoyles' genetic tree - Species is a free-for-all, what with so many different variations on the basic gargoyle form. The only two things that get me for completing the tree is figuring out the Order for the gargoyles we see in the series as I don't think Greg has told us what separates the modern gargoyle from its ancestors; and Genus is a pain because, again, I don't think we know what the evolutionary splits are in a gargoyle's genetic history. So I don't know enough to make calls there (and who knows, I could be completely wrong to this point anyway *looks nervously at all the doctors around him*)

Moving on to further raise the potential of embarrassing myself, here are my two cents on the issue of the gargoyle heart. I'm in agreement with Whitbourne on this one - I think gargoyles have a four-chambered heart but with characteristics beyond ours. To maintain adequate blood flow to the wings (for starters) must require a much stronger heart than ours.
I've seen the fictions where additional chambers are mentioned, but a fiction (or string of them) that hang/s in my mind is/are one/s which describe/d (backslash happiness) the gargoyle's heart as having three beats. Perhaps this is the advancement of the four-chamber heart:
1) Blood enters the waiting, empty heart from the veins, etc.
2) *first beat* Blood goes to the lungs, comes back to the left ventricle; more blood comes into the right. So far it�s business as usual.
3) *second beat* Blood exits the right ventricle again *BUT* the aortic valve does not open on this beat to let the already-oxidized blood out. Instead, the second wave of blood comes back from the lungs and fills the left ventricle further � I�m guessing that, for this to work, the gargoyle heart has a much larger left ventricle (proportionally) than we do.
4) *third beat* With a massive contraction of the heart, the aortic valve opens to let a wave of blood out into the body.
So to listen to gargoyle's heart beat, perhaps there's emphasis on the third beat which is required to be so powerful because it takes more force for blood to make its way out of a gargoyle's heart; the extreme force of the pump also would allow blood to make it to the gargoyle's extremities. Maybe this, Whitbourne, would fall in line with your suggestion that gargoyles possess a higher heart-rate? Or is all this too far-fetched *again, nervously eyes the doctors*
Alex Garg
VA, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 11:27:11 PM
IP: 216.145.68.130

and now we have to deal with all this *junk* where people twist around your words to make a point. But you did it in a good way, Dezi, i just thought it was funny, and it's going to take me just a bit to get use to this form of talking.

To get into the discussion about how the feet work, I agree with the "It's kinda like a dinosaur foot" theory. Honestly, can you see them climbing rock with anything less powerfully built? But heck, I'm still in high school, and i doubt high school Bio is anywhere on your guy's level.
Annie
ID
Monday, February 9, 2004 11:20:28 PM
IP: 216.190.39.1

<TGS People: Don't quit. Really, don't quit. What you guys have done here is awesome, and I bet there are alot more people out there who read this stuff, but just don't comment. (either because they're shy, or don't have time, or whatever).>
Yeah, pretty much. I've been following for almost a year, never felt I had anything to contribute. I'm just a guy who reads a lot of gargoyles-related fanfiction and listens to a lot of gargoyles-related music. I guess the whole shyness thing, too, because it's hard to just jump in to what seems like a pretty tight-knit group. But my God, Gargoyles and TimeDancer rock my world, so I'll always be checking in every few days.
Tharos - [r_u_ready3@hotmail.com]
Monday, February 9, 2004 11:05:53 PM
IP: 69.40.142.90

Yggdrasil: Ugh, thanks. *my eyes! my eyes!* But thanks. :D
<All I can say is that this too shall pass> Har, har. ;)

Whitbourne and Kjay: Yeah, they prescribed it to me. I wasn't in much of a state to ask what it was at the time, though. They might have told my boyfriend's mom (who took me to the ER and they just kept assuming was my mom) what it was for, but she has a crappy memory anyways. They also gave me big honkin' ibprofen pills which I've been taking mostly. I only took the "good" stuff last nite when the pain came back. Water: is Kool-aid ok? It's just water that tastes good. Not much sugar, I don't like it too sweet.
Thanks for all the warnings though. :D

Caboose: *passes along one of my "good" pills.* Maybe this will put you in a better mood.

Annie: See? I speak for the unspoken masses. ;)

You guys know too much about cheese. It is unsettling to both me and my stomach.....Do they have a cheese lovers anonymous group or some such for you to join?
Dezi
Monday, February 9, 2004 10:29:21 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

Whitbourne--> The medical jargon is astonishing in detail, even though I understand almost none of it. :) And I really do understand that "Gargoyles" was very meticulous and painstaking when it comes to details. Tolkien was, too, but that doesn't make me feel any the less geeky for thinking stuff like that.

Lynati--> So I'm not the only one who's noticed gargoyle feet and ankles are put together really funky, huh? :) Personally, they remind me a heck of a lot of bird and/or theropod dinosaur (think T-Rex or Allosaurus) feet, only their toes are much shorter and their ankles more flexible. It's like they're a cross between ours and a dinosaurs, and here's why I think that: The instep of a theropod dinosaur was relatively small, serving only as a bridge between their toes and their ankle. All the art and computer models I've seen depicting a big theropod on the run show their toes doing all the work--supporting weight, providing a push-off point, flexing to provide the driving force to move them, etc--whereas our ankles are also a part of every step we take. Gargoyles seem to be a sort of half-way point, as their ankles do flex but most of the motion appears to be provided by the toes. But I'm a total layman when it comes to anatomy and stuff. I have no science facts to back up what I'm saying, just observations.

And even though I'm no medical expert, I feel like voicing my opinion on the design of a gargoyle's chest. I was just in the Chicago Field Museum for a class field trip a couple weeks back and they've got a few pterosaur skeleton reconstructions hanging from the ceiling in their dinosaur hall. The chests of those pterosaurs were one big mass of bone with a ridge or keel running down the center (I guess as a place for muscle attachment or something). Since all the gargoyles are running around shirtless (except Angela and Demona) I think we'd notice if they had that bony ridge running down the middle of their chests. (But I could be wrong and probably am.) And it also appears that they've got some kind of human-like rib cage, but neither one of those things rules out the possibility that their ribs aren't one solid mass of bone. Perhaps they're sort of a blend of a human-style rib cage and a fused pterosaur breastbone.

<Looks over post> Here I go talking about how geeky it is to discuss the nuances of a cartoon and then I go and do it. <Shakes head> What a bloomin' hypocrite I am. :) Ah well, at least I'm in good company. :) Anyway, if I'm completely off in any of the above anatomical sciency stuff, be gentle 'cause I'm no med student, nor have I studied anatomy in my spare time like Lynati has. :)
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 10:24:45 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Greetings;

I'll leave the Anatomy of Whitbourne, but when it comes to enzyme kinetics, we are getting near my area.

Hormones are (relatively) slow acting compounds because they are signal not effector molecules. Although they promote certain physiological responses, they do not actually cause them.

Enzymes have such a wide range of kinetic activities so you can't really lump them into one group. Some enzymes are very slow, only completing 2-3 reactions per second (These are REALLY cool because you can actually see them working). Others can perform >1000 reactions per second. Keep in mind that the cell can have many copies of each enzyme at any given time, so they can really move when they need to.

In many systems, intercellular signals are sent via chemical (hormones) routes. These molecules are detected by surface receptors on the cells. This triggers secondary message response, which after a complex route make their way to the nucleus where they alter gene expression and consequently protein (enzyme) levels.

In relation to gargoyle physiology...I blame magic. I get fewer headaches that way (I don't even want to speak of Sevarius and his work).

Whitbourne: The broad topic of my work is in Plant Molecular Biology, although I actually work with plant, animal and bacterial systems. My lab studies the molecular regulation of apoptosis in relation to disease resistance and increased shelf life for farmed goods (Yes I work on Frankenfoods...I actually find this term funny, kudos to Greenpeace). My MsC committee was going to kill me after I submitted a 240pg thesis. It was a bit more than they were expecting. My previous studies were on Adenine cycling in plant systems. What did you do your MsC on?

Yggdrasil - [eng050599@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Monday, February 9, 2004 10:19:58 PM
IP: 66.185.84.203

Some comments to Lynati, who's post appeared while I was in the middle of looking up some MSK resources for my class tomorrow;

<<*slow nod*>> Hormones and enzymes can take time to have their effects, hormones more so than enzymes. Still, though, if you want an immediate change, then straightforward nerve conduction is the fastest way we have. With sunrise and sunset seeming to be the keys, you'd want something that happens instantaneously. Nerves are the best "fast" pathway for transmission. There are some pathways that have a combination of both - nerve fires, acts on gland, stimulates release of hormone, effect, though when you need something fast and unsustained, it pays to cut the middleman, so to speak.
<<The reaction could be explained as working through an already-existing gland?>>
I just chose the pineal gland since it seems to have some sort of circadian function in people. It's certainly possible that a different gland does the job in gargs.
<<Does it make sense at all that a Gargoyle�s �stone� form is closer to coral than actual stone? Exposure to oxygen (or whatnot) causes the outer layer to immediately die/crystallize/what have you, hence why as soon as you smack a mace through their body it all looks bits of stone? >>
Perhaps, though I go by the idea that it's a very tough but mostly solid crystallization of cells and that any pores would be microscopic, probably just big enough for fluid and electrolytes and a few larger molecules to pass through. You'd probably want to make sure that the cells remained mostly intact during stone form; that would keep you from a) undergoing massive necrosis and cell death when the cell fluids decrystallized and you "came to life" and b) you'd want to maintain homeostasis even while in stone to make sure that the cells were in optimum condition to survive and to repair themselves. That means maintaining osmolarity, pH, electrochemical gradients, and the like. if anything, you want them more effcient than in the "live" form, since you've got accelerated healing in this phase oo.
<<Heh�is that the equivalent of some kind of Gargie photosynthesis? Personally, I always thought they absorbed some kind of more magical energy from the earth during stone-sleep, as well as (or instead of) sunlight. Otherwise, anyone sleeping inside a cave or inside walls would have no energy source (and neither would gargie eggs)�and in the same vein the Antarctic clan would have no energy source for �half� of the year, and be frozen in stone for the other half- which we�ve been told is not the case for them.>>
It might not be the only source, but it might be the most efficient way of obtaining energy during the day. It's certainly a relatively easy way to make high-energy phosphates, which all living beings need to, um, live. There would have to be other sources available in low light environments, though, as you say - maybe there's some sort of amplified conversion of nutrients to glycogen, for instance, or some similar process. Energy needs to come from the sun, ultimately, for life; it may be that they respond to UV radiation as well. I'm a bit wary of the "magical energy" route because that leaves everything open. Maybe that's good, though. :-)
Re: the six-chambers; The more I think about, the more I'm convinced that gargoyles would have four, with a relatively increased cardiac output. (Higher stroke volume, higher heart rate) "Advanced" doesnt necessarily mean more, and with six chambers, the electrical conduction of the cardiac myocytes might be somewhat inefficient, since the contractions have to be timed and coordinated. i'd say that the advancements would come in increasing the efficiency of the four chambered heart, not by increasing the number of chambers.
kjay> The hemoglobin is a good point; alternatively, they may have a different sort of protein that can carry more than four molecules of oxygen at a time. or they may have a more efficient system; better gas exchange, higher cardiac output, higher ability for hemoglobin to release oxygen in the tissues (lower pH in the muscles, for instance, or the presence of a molecule like 2,3-bisphosphoglycerate, which causes oxygen to "drop off" hemoglobin in humans leading to efficient transfer of oxygen to the tissues).
So much medical room for geekiness! :-)

Whitbourne
Monday, February 9, 2004 09:48:02 PM
IP: 156.34.81.1

I just got back from going to see "Bubba Ho-Tep". Go and see this. Stop giving money to those multiplex crap-fests and go see stuff like this. Now. :-)

Barracuda> What I don't know, I just make up. That's my secret. :-)To be honest, wondering about this stuff is a great way to study human anatomy and physiology, which I kind of need to know if I don't want to kill people. Trying to come up with a workable pathway for this and that in gargoyle terms means I have to know the human analogues. I can't speculate on gargoyle adrenergic and nicotinic receptors if I don't know what they do in humans. :-)

Caboose> It's a cartoon that took pains to be accurate, so I don't feel too geeky about it. Though I did make Greg Weisman look at me funny at the last Gathering when I stood up and asked a question on where gargoyles fit in the phylogenetic tree. :-) Re: flame war - not a whole lot i can say other than that once the issue is not being discussed, then I get calm and placid again. I'm fierce once I get going (which is not always a good thing) and then usually I can divorce it from other interactions afterward. That tends to be the thing about flame wars; the Internet is a low oxygen environment, so flames can die out fairly quickly.

Dezi> Hydrocodone is a codeine derivative, useds as a painkiller and cough medication. Were you prescribed it?
Whitbourne
Monday, February 9, 2004 09:15:45 PM
IP: 156.34.81.1

::reads all the medical/phisiology stuff and just smiles and nods::

Note to self- Pretend you know what it all means ;)
Greg Bishansky
Monday, February 9, 2004 09:00:28 PM
IP: 216.179.3.109

Caboose: [I'm not sure if I should be amazed at your knowledge or scared of your obsession with figuring out how everything works. ]
Why not both? ; )
An applied knowledge is a fuuun thing�makes learning it seem worthwhile. And if the cartoon was any less realistic, it wouldn�t be interesting enough- to me at least- to spend time trying to figure all this stuff out. The fact that Buena Vista presented us with creatures that look like they *could* be real is the trigger.

And I did spend, oh, an hour or so researching terms to describe the various wing types, species types, and other such things, as well as working out the oh-so-annoying foot and ankle bone construction. I think I have it down, at least as far as the toes and the hallux are concerned; the ankle itself is going to take a bit more research.

Spacebabie:
[You mean the �When is the next TGS story going to come out?�]
Actually, I meant speculation on anything OTHER than that. ; )

[In some ficverses they have five chambers and the do just fine.]
I�m not sure that is really feasible�see, fish have 2-chambered hearts and a single circuit of blood flow; Reptiles and Amphibians have 3-chambered hearts and double-circulation like humans, but the 3�rd chamber is �shared�. Mammals and birds have the more-advanced, 4-chambered hearts where the oxygenated blood is separate from the de-oxygenated blood�this segregation is the advancement, and it doesn�t make sense that Gargoyles would have a heart with a more-chambered, yet less-advanced circulatory system. It doesn�t make sense for only one side to have that extra chamber; you�d need it on the other as well to keep the flow regular. If you are going to have more than four, I think you *have* to have six.
Someone want to back me up on this, or straighten me out if I am wrong?

Bud-Clare: [And you know what we do to gods around here?]
Ha. It is obvious you don�t understand anything. You like Guyvere, and it tastes like poop, so obviously you must have poop for brains and Guyvere stuffed in your ears and it is poop, too, so I�m gonna continue to insist that Provolone is the best. Ha. (You can tell I�ve been Misting AshX fics recently, can�t you? )

Whitbourne: [It'd be somewhat difficult for the change to stone to be enzymatic simply because it needs to happen so fast. Most enzymes take up to several hours to have their effects, especially the lipid soluble ones or the ones that involve making a change to DNA.]
*slow nod*

[The model I use in my head has something to do with a complex system of nervous interactions; probably photoreceptors in or near the eye and/or some sort of reaction at the pineal gland]
The reaction could be explained as working through an already-existing gland?
And that sounds like more or less what I had thought of, only with fact-based knowledge of how it actually works instead of a vague sense of it all.

[a stimulated release of some kind of neurotransmitter that triggers a burst of parasympathetic nerves to fire at once.]
Soo�something that works strait through the nervous system *instead* of triggering something that releases into the blood stream, that then triggers the change? (heh, silly me, I didn�t know it could work that way�granted, I�m not fully positive how it works at all� ;)

*reads the rest and eyes glaze slightly* I�think I get the gist of it. I�m gonna save all of these for further consumption, when I can properly understand it.

I go by the idea that there are organelles in gargoyle cells that contain sone sort of ["petrifactase"]
Ouch. �I likes it.

[. The "stone" cells would still have to have some functions active]
huh�(throws out a wild suppostion:) Does it make sense at all that a Gargoyle�s �stone� form is closer to coral than actual stone? Exposure to oxygen (or whatnot) causes the outer layer to immediately die/crystallize/what have you, hence why as soon as you smack a mace through their body it all looks bits of stone? And obviously the �stone� is lighter than Granite, since one assumes there is very little change in weight from their natural forms to their day forms? (I don�t care what those stupid Disney cards say, I refuse to believe that any of them weigh over a ton during stone sleep. And Greg Weisman refuses to pin down anything scientific about them because he doesn�t know enough about it.)

[some ability to store energy from sunlight as high-energy phosphate compounds]
Heh�is that the equivalent of some kind of Gargie photosynthesis? Personally, I always thought they absorbed some kind of more magical energy from the earth during stone-sleep, as well as (or instead of) sunlight. Otherwise, anyone sleeping inside a cave or inside walls would have no energy source (and neither would gargie eggs)�and in the same vein the Antarctic clan would have no energy source for �half� of the year, and be frozen in stone for the other half- which we�ve been told is not the case for them.
But regardless of what they use as an energy source, that sounds�um, sound�to my untrained art-student brain.

We need more people who understand this topic for a proper discussion�Yggdrasil, you want to jump in here?
I think I might go poke people in s8 to take a look here�

[I don't know for sure if gargoyles would need six chambers. It might be that if they have strong enough ventricular contraction, preload, all that stuff, then four would do it, though I don�t know for sure and I can't see why six would be bad. ]
In light of that, I think I�m going to stick to six, until someone gives me an argument as to why it would be a bad idea. I just like the idea that they have a more advanced system than humans�plus, if you have more arteries than in a human system, having extra chambers as well seems to make sense�?

[And oh, those blood vessels; I figure that there are at least two extra thoracic branches from the descending aorta; the left and right common pterygoid (or alar) arteries]
Hm. *highlights that bit, after re-reading it enough times to understand it.*
Circulatory systems are later for me though�I�m wanting to do an internal anatomy study (so is Hudson for that matter, he has a plan on the backburner for designing a dissectable gargoyle body in a 3D computer animation program) but skeletal and a fair bit of the musculature needs to come first�and I have a far better grip on them.

Anyone have a response on the �fused clavicle� question?

[ I think of 'em as, stealing shamelessly from parts of the human body with Latin and Greek terms for wings.]

and lo, I am reminded of my earlier thoughts on proper names to distinguish the bones of the wing from the bones of the hand, and wind up coming up with some good possibilities. I ought to run them past you for your opinion�you willing to beta such terms in an email?

[This post is a shining example of why Gargoyles fans need to stay out of medical school. You start to think too much. :-)]
Or perhaps it is why more fans need to get into it. ; )

Lynati
Monday, February 9, 2004 08:54:04 PM
IP: 66.140.84.174

*Reads the posts from last week*PHEW!!!! Can we all just get along?
Dezi>Hydrocodone is a narcotic drug that is used mainly for pain relief,and cough suppression. It's side effects are dizziness,nausea, and constipation. How in the hell can your doctor give you a RX for a contolled substance and not tell you what it is??!!! To prevent a tolarence
to this drug you shouldn't use it unless your in UNBEARABLE
pain. I'd try over the counter drugs like aspirn or motrin
unless the doc said that you can't take them. Also drink alot of water. to help that kidney stone of yours. No soda,
no coffee, and tea just water.
Yggdrasi>OUCH!!! can ya tone that green down a bit 'cause it's hurting my poor nearsighted eyes thanx!
Cheese>I can't eat certain cheeses because I'm lactose intolarent. I try to stick with soy cheeses whenever I can.
Garg physicology>I don't think a Gargoyle would need a six
chambered heart. A heart with that many chambers would be
a disadvange I think. All of those extra valves would have
an increased risk of failing. I think a gargoyle have a
4 chambered heart. Gliding though the air is hard work. But
you don't see a Garg breathing like it's just completed a
marathon. why? I think it's because Gargoyle's blood have
a higher amount of haemoglobin which help carry oxygen. Which prevents them for being tired after gliding (unless
they really push themselves).
Gargoyles turning to stone>I think the process is related to the amount of seratoin in the blood.

kjay - [korimia.j.hall@us.army.mil]
fort bliss, tx
Monday, February 9, 2004 08:34:53 PM
IP: 172.152.184.182

Barracuda: [Did (or do) Graeme and Ariana have those armbands constantly observing their biological functions such as heart rate, etc? I don't think I ever came across that in 'official' TGS canon. Well, that's all I can think of now. ] Actually, it *is* canon, from their first appearance as young adults in Gargs season one, it mentions them having those bands. and said armbands are also included in the art of that time (of course, pretty much all of the art of the twins was done by Spike, which helped to keep it consistent.) They are also mentioned upon their original creation in Timednacer when the twins are hatched; the "medical function" that Ari mentions in the CSH fics that is "no longer used" was its original main purpose; it injected a isotope (I think) of something that neutralized the energies of the Phoenix Gate that were killing them.

They just haven't been mentioned at all recently...no real call to do so in the TGS stories I suspect. Or maybe they were forgotten. *shrugs* I remember them, though. I recall lookign through fics a long whiel back to see if it was ever mentioned that they were no longer needed.

Annie: Because lain wanted to. ; ) ...actually, I think she and Gunjack started their plans for it about two years before our rather recent drop-off in active staff members.

more on the anatomy fun in a bit, when I have a chance to absorb and compose...
Lynati
Monday, February 9, 2004 07:30:58 PM
IP: 66.140.84.174

<<Well, I have one I recently came across when reading CSH's new stories. Did (or do) Graeme and Ariana have those armbands constantly observing their biological functions such as heart rate, etc?>>

As I recall, the armbands were given to Graeme and Ariana at birth due to complications from time travel while they were in the egg. (The TGS staff can feel free to correct me here.) In "Tengu", Ariana gets her armband taken from her and in order to get it back, she tells the Tengu elders that she needs it for medical reasons because it was the most believable excuse. Basically, Ariana bent the truth to get what she wanted. Her armband is 22th century technology and that's not something she just wants out of her possession.

As to what exactly I think the armbands are for.... that's my Phoenix Gate entry for G'04.
Spike
Monday, February 9, 2004 07:26:58 PM
IP: 209.30.19.114

Dezi: I bet there are alot more people out there who read this stuff, but just don't comment. (either because they're shy, or don't have time, or whatever).

You're exactly right about more people read this but just don't comment. I've been following for at least a year now and never have put my two cents in anywhere, mainly because I felt like I needed to have something to contribute, and my crappy computer wont allow me to put up anything. I mean like my own fac series or art. The work here is amazing, as are a lot of your guy's personal pages. Heck, Spike indirectly taught me to draw, your work is beautiful. Anywho, I thought I'd stick my head in for at least once.

And a general question for anyone that might know, why are they starting a new fic line (Bad guys) when they don't even have the people to keep working on what series they do have? It seems to me like basic Gargoyles is what everyone is interested in. I personally would like to see more Dark Ages, I love that!! well, there goes my first post!
Annie - [sky_warrior17@hotmail.com]
ID, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 07:20:45 PM
IP: 208.187.169.95

Z> <<Thick-headed people tend to merely write it off and say that religion is worthless or that I've been brain-washed by religion.>>
...Or people have to nerve to ask why the whole world has to revolve around _your_ beliefs? It's just a thought.
________________________
Spacebabie> <<What is that?>>
Cheese, obviously. Sheesh. ;)

(It tastes kind of like a cross between swiss and parmesan. Yum.)

<<Blue cheese has it�s own dressing and its great for dipping buffalo wings...not to mention it�s stinky.>>
It's _moldy_! Moldy cheese is evil and needs to be thrown out. (Besides, have you ever had blue cheese warm? *shudders*)

<<and I love Cabot cheese. It�s a white cheddar and it tastes great with apples.>>
Cabot's a brand. They made several kinds of cheese. Some of them are even orange.

<>
.........okay. *backs away slowly*
___________________
Caboose> <<But all the bright colors are too darn happy!>>
Happy? More like blinding. Bleh.

<<And in closing, it's amazing how well everybody (well, almost everybody) managed to return to normal, civilized discussion after the admins dropped the axe on the flame war.>>
HA HA! YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE, COPPERS! LONG LIVE GRUYERE, YOU BASTARDS!
Bud-Clare
Monday, February 9, 2004 06:50:47 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Wow. Forgot the color and the image...let's just say my brain is a little preoccupied right now. I do everything I can to avoid stress, and, though I fare better than most, it's a constant struggle. Anyway...

Peace
Z
Monday, February 9, 2004 06:03:02 PM
IP: 67.67.120.140

Ray - <That's one of the problems in today's world, people just don't consider that a person's opinion might be based on faith, and if they do they think that person is an idiot.>
Right on the money. That realization is precisely why I participate in substantially fewer debates than I used to (including this past CR debate). The vast majority of my convictions, whether important or trivial, are based on my religious beliefs. Thick-headed people tend to merely write it off and say that religion is worthless or that I've been brain-washed by religion. It's just not worth the energy to deal with such closed-minded people, so I tend to avoid most debates where my faith has anything to do with my convictions (which is most debates).

Peace
Z
Monday, February 9, 2004 06:00:25 PM
IP: 67.67.120.140

Yeah, that's Whitbourne for you. He's better than any online medical dictionary and a fellow Canadian to boot (though he is an Easterner). He's always spoiled my imagination with cold hard facts (which are hella-useful), but my mistake was asking him. Of course, I'd probably hear about it afterwards.

As for TGS: wasn't there an invitation for questions about the series? Well, I have one I recently came across when reading CSH's new stories. Did (or do) Graeme and Ariana have those armbands constantly observing their biological functions such as heart rate, etc? I don't think I ever came across that in 'official' TGS canon. Well, that's all I can think of now.

Watching the debate as a lurker is always great fun.
The Barracuda
CanadaMonday, February 9, 2004 04:35:24 PM
IP: 204.209.150.208

Caboose:"And in closing, it's amazing how well everybody (well, almost everybody) managed to return to normal, civilized discussion after the admins dropped the axe on the flame war. Having never seen one of these things before, I wasn't sure how long it'd take everybody to simmer down after it was over."

*smiles pleasantly* That's because the majority of the posters in here are good reasonable-if passionate-people. That and they know they'd have to face us come Gathering time and we all got long memories. *wink*
Mara
Monday, February 9, 2004 03:50:35 PM
IP: 152.163.252.196

Whitbourne, Lynati, and Anatomy:

I'm not sure if I should be amazed at your knowledge or scared of your obsession with figuring out how everything works. :) It's a cartoon, people! :)

I'm guilty of thinking stuff like that, too, though. For example: when I saw Moria in "Fellowship of the Ring" I caught myself wondering how long it took the dwarves to carve all that out of solid rock. At the same time, I'm also berating myself for thinking like such an absolute and total geek. <Shrugs> Ah well. Glad I'm not alone in that department. :)

Damien and your guesses about TGS:

Why bother asking people to ruin the surprises and suspense for you? Just keep reading, just keep reading, just keep reading, reading, reading. (My apologies to
Disney and "Finding Nemo" fans for that.)

Dezi and my text color: But all the bright colors are too darn happy! :)

And in closing, it's amazing how well everybody (well, almost everybody) managed to return to normal, civilized discussion after the admins dropped the axe on the flame war. Having never seen one of these things before, I wasn't sure how long it'd take everybody to simmer down after it was over.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 03:01:23 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Yggdrasil> In the middle of my first year of medical schoolstill three years away from residency. They tell us that the clerkship in third and fourth years are pretty bad, too. I'm already bracing myself. What's your PhD in? I have a Masters degree; thought about doing a PhD for a while but then I figured an MD was more what I wanted.
Re: terminology: It's weird. Pysics and computer terminology just leaks out of me like a sieve, but biological and medical terms are just so frigging cool that I have to remember them. Sometimes the meaning gets lost, but the word itself remains. Punnett squares, though - we did 'em all the time way back in undergrad, and genetics is just such an awesome topic that the terms stick.
Whitbourne
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:46:31 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

Sorry about that. My post got a bit messed up.
Yggdrasil - [eng050599@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:35:43 PM
IP: 66.185.84.203

Greetings;

Dezi: But I like my dark green. Just for you I'm changing to a brighter colour (For now). My sympathies on the stone issue. All I can say is that this too shall pass.

Mooncat: Thanks for the praise. I don't get a lot of opportunity to talk science outside of my lab. Normally I lose people to boredom-induced comas after speaking for about ten seconds.

Whitbourne: Are you studying medicine? I gave it some thought before I went the PhD route. If you've started your residency, you also have my sympathies. Just remember that food and sleep are privileges not rights (Grad students and Med students do have some things in common). I'll admit that the fact that you remembered about the Greetings;

Dezi: But I like my dark green. Just for you I'm changing to a brighter colour (For now). My sympathies on the stone issue. All I can say is that this too shall pass.

Mooncat: Thanks for the praise. I don't get a lot of opportunity to talk science outside of my lab. Normally I lose people to boredom-induced comas after speaking for about ten seconds.

Whitbourne: Are you studying medicine? I gave it some thought before I went the PhD route. If you've started your residency, you also have my sympathies. Just remember that food and sleep are privileges not rights (Grad students and Med students do have some things in common). I'll admit that the fact that you remembered about the Punnett square impressed me. I found that most of the students that I teach, forget about the terminology about one week after the final (asking about a monohybrid of dihybrid cross is also a lost cause).

Yggdrasil - [eng050599@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:34:27 PM
IP: 66.185.84.203

:::Enters the CR with fun food! Pizzas and Tacos!:::

Firestorm<<<forget... who asked a few weeks ago what a flame war was?
Right.>>>I think Krista<<<Blame them!>>>Nah she�s a youngin�hopefully she wasn�t scared out. We need new blood in the fandom and the younger the better. If you have to blame someone then blame the bunnies.

Lynait<<<Maybe we really should shut TGS down>>>Uh no, I love TGS and I like the CR�been caught up in Fics, art and Sims.<<>> You mean the �When is the next TGS story going to come out?�<<<I�ve heard the conjecture that gargoyles would need to have six chambers>>In some ficverses they have five chambers and the do just fine.

Bud Claire<<<Let's have a flame war about cheese instead.>>> Helluvagood yeah <<<that Gruyere is the best kind of cheese.>>>What is that?<<<And if you like blue cheese, I don't even want to talk to you, stupid.>>>But I love blue cheese. Blue cheese has it�s own dressing and its great for dipping buffalo wings�not to mention it�s stinky. Stinky cheeses are the best like Swiss and Gorgonzola�and I love Cabot cheese. It�s a white cheddar and it tastes great with apples. I like to grate some over a warm slice of apple pie.

Mooncat<<<But really, how could you foolishly not recognise Gouda as the best? Though Provalone (sp?) is a fair substitute in matters of sandwiches where you stirfry the meat with peppers and onions. >>>I like Gouda too. I once had a burger with a slice of Gouda melted on top of it. It�s great. I know I�ve had provolone before, but I�m not sure I had it like that.

Dezi<<>>Yiikes!!!! I didn�t know you can get them at that young an age.I hope you don�t suffer too much discomfort.

Gside<<<but I'm fully backing cheddar.>>>Which kind?
Spacebabie - [spacebabie@hotmail.com]
Orlando, Florida, U.S.A
Monday, February 9, 2004 12:06:21 PM
IP: 4.72.104.237

Well, from what I could tell, it looks like we just made it through a flame war without anyone whining: But you don't know me so how could you know how I feel! (or some such $h!t). I always hate it when someone argues that back. It's so stupid. The immediate response that comes to my mind is: No $h!t, so what's your point. Anyways....

TGS People: Don't quit. Really, don't quit. What you guys have done here is awesome, and I bet there are alot more people out there who read this stuff, but just don't comment. (either because they're shy, or don't have time, or whatever). I know I personally talk up this site in the real world to whoever would listen. TGS has become a drug to me, and unlike the ones I'm currently on, I can operate heavy machinery or consume alcohol after taking TGS. When the canon ended, I was left without closure and the only subsitute for me was to watch reruns on USA or stuff like that. Now, I have strong access to the internet, so yea! But please, please don't quit. I only wish I had more time in my life to help you guys out in anyway I can. Of course, for me this is mixed with the fan feeling of not wanting to know ahead of time what happens. But hey, although prolly not, if you are in need of additional artists, or just pretty much anything else not dealing with hardcore internet stuff, just say the word and my soul is yours. IMHO, though, someone should be out there actively recruiting Bri-Chan for art, cause WOW. (Heck, Disney should be out there recruiting her,.. well,.. 2-d Disney of 1994 or so.).

Ok back to my drugs.. mmmm. drugs...
Hey does anyone know what hydrocodone does or what it is made of?

Dezi
Monday, February 9, 2004 11:57:24 AM
IP: 68.58.158.101

Mooncat> <<Hey! I like Muenster! That mild creamy flavor is the hallmark of a superior cheese! And blue cheese in small amounts make a tasty accent to salads. But really, how could you foolishly not recognise Gouda as the best? Though Provalone (sp?) is a fair substitute in matters of sandwiches where you stirfry the meat with peppers and onions.>>
INFIDEL!!!!!
_________________________
Dezi> <<And guess what? I have a kidney stone.>>
Ouch. I hope you get better soon.

<<Then I officially claim my title as a f*ckwit, as I'm not much of a cheese freak.>>
Yes, your are. But I forgive your ignorance.
_______________________
Lynati> <<Girly, you are SO talking out of your @$$. EVERYONE knows that provolone is the god of all cheeses.>>
And you know what we do to gods around here?
____________________
Greg> <<No, I think you wanted to have the last word>>
Let him have it. He needs all the help he can get. ;)
____________________
Gside> <<The Japanese have even shortened it to Loli-con>>
Woohoo! I'd been wondering what that meant. Thank you.

<<Tie dye as a text color option.>>
I shudder to think what the pictures would be like...

<<It is useful to top French Onion Soup, and it does get points for being in Johnny Saucepan, but I'm fully backing cheddar.>>
Tsk. If you won't fight properly... %#$@ you!

Okay, I'm bored with insulting people over cheese now.
Bud-Clare
Monday, February 9, 2004 09:36:56 AM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Ray:<>

I think Greg's exact words were, "Yes, Lexington is gay." I walked in at the moment of the revelation so I missed who asked the question and how it was phrased.
Leo
Monday, February 9, 2004 09:31:58 AM
IP: 68.96.8.12

I was just wondering, what were the exact words used in the revelation about lex. Did it specifically say that his mate would be a male, or did it only say that his mate would be unable to give him children, cause if that were the case it could simply be a barren female.

Mooncat> Sure some controversial subjects can be good, but when it touches someones moral values then they are best avoided, because nothing causes a more violent reaction than when someone's beliefs are challenged.
I can see your point, but there are some things that cannot be argued about because the arguments on both sides rely on something the other does not believe in. For example, people were against Harry Potter because they believed it promoted witchcraft, other people weren't because they don't believe in witchcraft.
Another problem with controversial arguments is that people rarely consider all the aspects of an argument. Some people don't accept religious reasons because they don't believe in it. That's one of the problems in today's world, people just don't consider that a person's opinion might be based on faith, and if they do they think that person is an idiot.
Ray
Monday, February 9, 2004 08:28:54 AM
IP: 212.117.127.210

Editorial note- should have read "bother a person less than" ... mc

Mooncat
Monday, February 9, 2004 05:56:32 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Ray - Quick note about controversial subjects (not solely homosexuality) and wether it's better or not to simply ignore or avoid them in public discussion or fiction.

Well, Gargoyles itself in canon contains controversial subjects, from intolerance of difference (Quarrymen being anti-Gargoyles) magic, supernatural, gods (Oberon's Children) Interspecies romance (Elisa/Goliath), and a host of other things that would not be considered suitable for public viewing if people didn't press for the acceptance of freedom of expression. Not long ago a children's show, Little Rascals, caused a tremedous uproar because it depicted the controversial subject of white children being friends with and playing with black children. Star Trek was ground breaking because it showed the first televised inter-racial kiss (Uhura/Kirk) and dealt with many controversial subjects that were written into the plotlines. Right now, there is controversy over Harry Potter books, because some very conservative and religious people consider them immoral and want them banned because, according to them, Harry Potter promotes acceptance of witchcraft.

Should then, because they were and are controversial subjects, inter-racial cooperation, or religion, or magic then be avoided in open public discussion and in public works of writing or television?

If controversial subjects are not addressed publically by discussion or in literature or entertainment, by the reason that they are controversial, then many of the things that make Gargoyles the richly textured show it is now would have been eliminated in pre-production and we'd be left with... well with practically nothing.

The concept of Gargoyles as a living sentient demonic looking species is in itself a subject of controversy. It would no doubt bother a person who likes Gargoyles to join a discussion or read books or watch shows that have nothing to do with gargoyles than for people who dislike gargoyles to deal with discussion, books, or shows that include gargoyles. But should that mean gargoyles should never be brought up for public discussion or use in literature or entertainment? If people hadn't shaken out controversial subjects throughout history, the very recent history in fact, we wouldn't have the show Gargoyles today. Not with it's interacial cast both on screen and behind the scenes, or it's inclusion of magic and depictions of non-Christian religion/beliefs, much less the lead characters the Gargoyles themselves.

Food for thought?

Mooncat
>^,,^<
Mooncat
Monday, February 9, 2004 05:53:50 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

It'd be somewhat difficult for the change to stone to be enzymatic simply because it needs to happen so fast. Most enzymes take up to several hours to have their effects, especially the lipid soluble ones or the ones that involve making a change to DNA. Its certainly not impossible, but more than likely it'd be something faster.
The way I figure it, it's a nervous thing; more than likely, turning to stone would involve the parasympathetic nervous system since it's the "rest and digest" branch of the autonomic functions. The model I use in my head has something to do with a complex system of nervous interactions; probably photoreceptors in or near the eye and/or some sort of reaction at the pineal gland; a stimulated release of some kind of neurotransmitter that triggers a burst of parasympathetic nerves to fire at once. These hit the membranes of the cells, maybe, which cause something to happen across the membrane, some influx/efflux of electrolytes or other chemical signal...
(reads over this) Damn, and I thought I hated biochemistry. :-)
I go by the idea that there are organelles in gargoyle cells that contain sone sort of "petrifactase" (cute, eh?) enzyme. Once the organelles let these out, these enzymes start acting on numerous targets; they do something to the membranes to make them rigid and hard, a "stone-like" substance, and do something similar to the cytoplasm. They'd have to do something to the mitochondria to affect cellular energy levels, and they'd have to affect some chloroplast like-organelle to allow the cells to recieve some kind of energy from sunlight. The "stone" cells would still have to have some functions active; some ability to store energy from sunlight as high-energy phosphate compounds, some way to keep metabolizing glycogen (or some other glucose-storage fuel source) to produce energy to run all of these things while they're "stoned", and some sort of nervous conduction to allow for the process to reverse (maybe via sympathetic nerves) that release another enzyme that inactivates the first, leading to a reversal of the process.

Re: the heart - I don't know for sure if gargoyles would need six chambers. It might be that if they have strong enough ventricular contraction, preload, all that stuff, then four would do it, though I don;t know for sure and I can't see why six would be bad. It'd be the left ventricle that'd be doing all of the work; the right would probably do the same thing as it does in all other mammals and just sent doxygenated blood to the lungs for gas exchange. A strog enough left ventricle might be able to do enough work to force blood through extra blood vessels for the wings; all the othes would probably be the same as humans. And oh, those blood vessels; I figure that there are at least two xtra thoracic branches from the descending aorta; the left and right common pterygoid (or alar) arteries, I think of 'em as, stealing shamelessly from parts of the human body with Latin and Greek terms for wings. :-) There'd be a branching system through the wing much like that in other winged animals, but that one main branch would behave much like the brachial and femoral arteries, dividing, subdividing, anastomosing and then returning as a matching vein to dump either in the superior vena cava, the brachiocephalic veins, or perhaps even directly into the right atrium of the heart itself.

This post is a shining example of why Gargoyles fans need to stay out of medical school. You start to think too much. :-)
Whitbourne
Monday, February 9, 2004 05:48:52 AM
IP: 142.177.154.201

Dreamed about arranging things in a warehouse all night. Which sucks, 'cause now I have to go and arrange things in a warehouse all day. 8 P

Gside><< And your blood pressure isn't astronomical?>>
Oh, it is, it is. The world is not as it should be.

Whit, Lyn, Moonie, Bud....
Peace.
Gunjack "Probably a Bad Idea" Valentine
Monday, February 9, 2004 03:54:42 AM
IP: 4.7.21.205

Gargoyles Physiology!!!
Drools
WHERE WHERE?

and hey on the future guessing stuff, i'd start guessing, but I'm reading the first season, so i'm probably guessing the second seasons plot (i have read all of time dancer so it kinda kills rampant guessing)
(my current theory is that Nicolas maddox is a fey, sounds like the brother of one of the big guys (oberon maybe) pendragon season one must have them finding merlin,
and from timedancer,
i'd say nick is merlins dad (since merlins son is nick the II) and that the reason garg season 2 and pendragon season 2 are the same is because it details the 2nd unseelie war as mensioned in timedancer

how am i doing?
Damien
Monday, February 9, 2004 03:47:14 AM
IP: 209.121.87.149

I hadn't really been following argument about homosexuality, since I was sick. But I want to apologize for nigh starting a flame war.

I don't want to start anything new, so I'd like people to e-mail me their responses for this question.
How many people think that it would be better if the topic of gayness were not brought up in TGS, in stories or discussions? Since the topic is such a controverese one it would probably be easier to just ignore it, the idea of TGS is for there to be stories everyone can enjoy, and that's kinda hard to do when it involves something that makes some people feel uncomfortable. You cannot deny that it is easier for pro-homosexual people to read something that does not involve homosexuality, than for anti-homosexual people to read something that involves homosexuality.

Remember I only want e-mail respones to this, I would have posted it earlier, but I've been sick and haven't been able to reply. So if anyone posts a reply to this post on the forum it's not my fault, I said only e-mail.
Ray - [darth_hawk32@hotmail.com]
Monday, February 9, 2004 03:44:43 AM
IP: 212.117.127.210

Greg was right�vinnie really does seem to want to have put in the last word.

Bud-Clare: Girly, you are SO talking out of your @$$. EVERYONE knows that provolone is the god of all cheeses. And Aaron, I don�t even want to hear you start with that �American cheese is the only cheese� BS, okay? *stomps off in an anti- Gruyere huff*
� ; )

Gside: [We've become more fatalistic. What will come will come.]
*does Aaron�s Jabba the Hutt laugh*
�and actually, there is a small chance that it won�t come. o.o But we�ll do our best.

Yggdrasil: �You here that, lain? Someone out here still actually reads- AND appreciates- TGS, and the hard work put into it. I guess we really have to get the remaining five seasons finished and out�

Lain: hm. Wait, he wants me to come there to learn to shoot him? That hardly makes sense. Or�DOES IT? @_@

Whitbourne:
[I'm lurking today because I'm also working on a few things for my elective]
Which elective?

[I saw your sketch of the gargoyle cranium, by the way; it was fabulous!]
Thank you! (thank you too, Mooncat.)

[To be honest, when I was studying Anatomy during my first unit this year, every so often I'd compare what I learned about human structure and function to what i figured gargoyles would have. Maybe it's the geek in me but I'd love to see a scientific discussion of gargoyle physiology and biochemistry. ]
And since I was planning to email you about this anyway (yes, the above is pretty much the very subject I wanted to seek feedback on) and I�m equally interested in discussing the topic, I�ll see if I can�t start it up here. I may as well toss this out in the CR first, where others who may have knowledgeable input will hopefully see it, and respond as well.

One should be warned that I only really got heavily into anatomy at the start of the previous semester, and have since learned that I lack the understanding of an average sixth-grader on most things anatomical, except for skeletal structure. I�m steeping myself in the musculature as well, general comparative anatomy, and internal organs�the last which I know less than the average *fifth* grader about. Ah, Barnes and Noble, how I doth love thee. The books I picked up, in addition to the more hard-nosed texts I borrowed from my dad on vertebrate anatomy, have really helped.
(You see? Having a wildlife biologist for a father helps in more ways than just supplying well-grounded rhetoric for flame wars. ;)

But d*$% is this a difficult subject to learn without a teacher or formal classes, when put in addition to the course load I am already taking. And the fact I�m having a friend tutor me in 3D studio max on my own time as well; I didn�t have room for any computer courses this semester. Nor the need for the credit, for that matter.
Anyway.

To begin, I�ve heard the conjecture that gargoyles would need to have six chambers to their hearts in order to get enough blood flow to their tails and wings�and there have been humans born with six-chambered hearts before. (Of course, all of the ones I have found were Siamese twins who had merged hearts, but its still physically possible.) Probably larger hearts, and lungs, too. I�m putting forth that they had a gland next to (underneath?) the heart that released whatever enzyme- if it is one- that triggered their change to stone. (Unfortunately, I am even less well-versed on the more chemistry-based aspects of anatomy than I am of the general purpose of all the lesser organs, etc. So I not only can I put up a decent argument over stone-sleep being an enzymatic, granular, or otherwise-triggered function, I don�t even know what the latter means and all that the former is inclusive of. Or what else it could possibly be. I think I need at least another year and some good science-based anatomy classes before I can even attempt conjecture on most biology, let alone biochemistry. But I have been thinking about taking anatomy courses at a college in San Antonio after I move there this summer upon graduation from KCAI.)

Anyway, to continue the above shale-grounded-based theory, I think that this gland and the change it leads to are �triggered� by sensors in the eye-ridges. Going by both appearance and the ease with which brow-ridges move to show emotion, I think it�s a safe bet to say that they are not simply a thing layer of flesh and muscle over extended portions of the�*pauses* Okay, I need to reference my anatomy books for this term. So shoot me. I�m a freaking majoring in ceramics and creative writing and my school doesn�t even have classes on basic anatomy, which I think is ludicrous for an art school�
(Coughs several times, and gets off the defensive kick.)
�of the supraorbital eminence of the skull. They are too�animate. What exactly it is that these sensors �sense� is�open for debate. I don�t think its sunlight, gargies turn to stone underground or inside solid walls where the sun�s rays cannot reach. I�m also still arguing the �magic in physiology� theory as well, so I�m not really sweating this. But if anyone has theories I�d like to see them as well.

The clavicle would be broader than in humans, needing to act as a base for the secondary deltoid muscle�the one that attaches to the humerus of the wing in �free-winged� gargoyles. It threads through and over their trapezius, which is the reason the region of their neck and shoulders is so much larger by comparison. The head of the humerus of the wing itself fits into a cradle of bone that is part of the �normal� scapula, but they have a secondary scapula as well for the second set of upper limbs they poses; this secondary scapula is thinner and longer, shapes more like a bird�s since the wing muscles move similarly; they�d need something in that form to help control the movement of the wing, how and where the muscles attach to it.
But back to the clavicle�is it fused, like a bird�s (and Pteradon�s) wishbone/furcula to support the structures that allow a gargoyle to glide? *Can* the clavicle be fused, given the range of motion it allows the arms and shoulders? (I�m seriously asking the latter, because I really don�t know.)

Full tail instead of a coccyx�the sacrum still exists, of course, although I think there is a lesser degree of fused bone than in humans, given the range of motion the coccygeal vertebrae�and they�d need the chevrons extending from the underside of said vertebrae like a dinosaur had (and crocodilians still have to a lesser degree) to help anchor the muscles to keep their tails off the ground, not just vertebrae like mammals and most smaller lizards. And the ischium portion of their pelvis would probably need to be extended longer than a humans as well, to act as an anchor point for those muscles.

The angle of the spine to the hips seems variant between �sub-species�- it�s not a right angle for any of them (except the beasts), but Brooklyn at least seems to have less than fully-upright alignment. He seems closer to the in-between angle that chimps have. Makes me wonder if the bones of his pelvis are less rounded as well.

�And this is by far enough to start with. Maybe too much. *goes back and chops things out* Still too much, but eh, the worst y�alls can do is ignore it. Besides, I�ve posted longer before, on much less�mature�subjects.

Comments? Rebuttal? Anyone? ...Bueller?
Lynati
Monday, February 9, 2004 03:20:04 AM
IP: 65.66.149.90

Greg Bishansky: Of course, I said that I would not post any more on that subject and I meant it. It was just a case of frustration really. Sorry if I bent the rules a little.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 02:37:09 AM
IP: 216.234.99.226

VINNIE> When an admin says "not another word", that is exactly what we mean. Not another word.

I honestly don't give a damn that since you were at work. If you really wanted to spew that, you could have e-mailed your responses to them, instead of posting that. No, I think you wanted to have the last word.

I have spoken to my fellow admins, and here is the last word. If you ignore an order from an admin again, you will be permanently banned. I don't care what the topic is. Whether I personally agree or disagree, do it again and your gone. Got that? Comprende? Dost thou fathom?

Thank you, drive through.
Greg Bishansky
Monday, February 9, 2004 02:14:18 AM
IP: 216.179.3.46

10th
silvadel
Monday, February 9, 2004 02:07:21 AM
IP: 24.225.133.251

9th.
Leo
Monday, February 9, 2004 02:02:37 AM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Whitbourne:<This is just embarassing. Relatively intelligent people bashing gays and lesbians for just being who they are?>It's not embarassing, the situation is just very complex like MidEast situation or the India and Pakistan conflict. And I think Gunjack answered your questions quite nicely thank you and if you'd read the link I gave then those question are alreday answered.<Bottom line? Suck it up and learn to live with it. Gays and lesbians are not evil, sinful unnatural; they are our brothers, our sisters, our family, our friends, our fellow human beings. If you don't like it, then I have a burning cross and a swastika to sell you.>Just because a person does not carry your opinion is no excuse to declare them to be hatemongers.

Bud-Clare:<*snickers* Make war, not love, dude!>Actually I think Greg W should kept people guessingabout Lex. It could have been used to peak more interest in the show through guesses, but now it can't.Obviously you have not heard all the ridiculous political correctness garbage going around adding fuel to this fire.<Assuming that the given statistics were even right, why not try treating people for sex addiction or intimacy issues or childhood trauma or whatever first?>I never said that gays had to seek help, only those that wanted help to get out of their lifestyle.<Yeah, I'm sure that no one would have picked it up on their own.>We'll that really depends on the environment that a person is around. Who they're with, that sort of thing.

Mooncat:<Read your article, and it's full of blatant misrepresentation and falsehood, plus it's on a site that advocates intolerance of other religions as well as homosexuality, which only adds to it's lack of credibility.>What can you expect since most media has a biase for Gay Rights.<However by "oppose" if you try to force your opinion on others by persecuting gays, yeah that is active bigotry.>I never force anything on anyone just stating my opinion.<Active bigotry includes the lovely examples of torture I mentioned before, which was subtly advocated in your article. I found that morbidly amusing.>I never advocate torture. It doesn't work and in most cases has the opposite effect. That was just an example.
What I resent is being called a hatemonger by people because I have a differing opinion. Besides the only reason people say being Gay is genetic is to make it easy to get classified as an ethnic group. So they can sue for civil rights.

Gunjack:<Or maybe it's time to start banning religious speech, yes?>Doesn't canada already have some bans on religious speech.

To all:What the hey! I'm posting this any way because I had to work through those last hours of flame, but if you want to reply back send it through email. I wont answer any other way.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:45:33 AM
IP: 216.234.99.226

8th.
Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:39:35 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

7th in the name of the Fay!

mc
Mooncat
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:36:30 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Make that six!
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, MI, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:33:26 AM
IP: 216.234.99.226

Four-I'm upset because I was at work when the flame war was ruined!;(
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:32:22 AM
IP: 216.234.99.226

5.

Real post later when I finish a-typing it.

Mecord, has anyone emailed you back yet?
Lynati
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:30:35 AM
IP: 65.66.149.90

#4

eh, I was going to say something witty, but it's past my bedtime and my mind is already asleep.
Mecord
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:29:54 AM
IP: 129.123.104.6

#3

Arguing over? Well, then how 'bout a toast to a week of peace...but as they say "To secure peace is to prepare for war." Ah, all too true. Oh well.

Peace regardless
Z
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:27:20 AM
IP: 67.67.120.140

#2, to spite Lain
DPH
AR, USA
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:25:11 AM
IP: 204.94.193.43

#1 ha!
lain
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:24:43 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8